Post originally by Kintara at 2004-09-03 01:13:25
Converted from Phorums BB System
I don't own the book, so maybe I'm not following this but doesn't armor lower the damage dealt by negating successes earned by the attacker? Don't more successes by the attacker equal more damage? Or am I mistaken?
Isn't the whole point of the "one roll" system that "to hit" and "damage" become one? Doesn't it follow that "dodging" and "soak" become one, as well?
Post originally by Dan Hemmens at 2004-09-03 01:36:45
Converted from Phorums BB System
A fair review, and I agree with a lot of it (see my review below), I *did* like virtues and vices, however.
Yes, it's a short list, but short lists are easier to remember than long lists, and the really important thing is that the Seven Deadly Virtues and Seven Deadly Sins are *archetypal* in a way that the old Archetypes never were. As a result, it's okay to work in broad strokes when choosing them. You don't need to play up to your Vice/Virtue all the time. Just because you take the Vice "Lust", it doesn't mean that you have to go around talking like the Seventeenth Duke of Winburne ("Me... the Mehket Priscus... *here*... in a sixth form girl's dormitory... what *were* they thinking....")
As for a universal, Judeo-Christian morality. Yup. Darn tootin' (unless you buy their content-free PC waffle about how "although the Virtues and Vices are ostensibly Judeo-Christian... all cultures value these ethics and revile these sins"). The World of Darkness is purportedly a gothic horror setting (particularly the Vampire bits of it) and gothic horror *does* assume a Judeo-Christian morality, or at the very least adopt Judeo-Christian (particularly Catholic) imagery.
Post originally by Kane at 2004-09-03 01:51:29
Converted from Phorums BB System
No I think armour takes away from the attackers chance to hit, before he has rolled. Once you are hit, it does not do anything ( Other than convert to bashing in kevlars case)
SO as the example in D&D armour makes you harder to hit, but when you hit damage is the same ( sorta)
Post originally by GAZZA at 2004-09-03 02:46:27
Converted from Phorums BB System
But there's no functional difference, surely? Functionally, if I'm wearing armour I'm going to take less damage; whether this is achieved by the armour acting directly to reduce the damage (such as Tunnels and Trolls or RuneQuest) or by having the armour make hits less common (such as d20 - and apparently this system) or both (GURPS) is merely a mechanical choice.
In fact, though, the way it's being described here there is no real difference between reducing the chance to hit and reducing the damage. Since there's only one roll, and since the degree of success in that roll translates to damage, if the armour reduces the attacker's chance to hit it must also, perforce, reduce the amount of damage done on a successful hit.
For example: let's say you have two points of armour. That's two less dice the attacker gets to roll. Your potential damage is therefore 2 levels lower than if you weren't wearing the armour.
(I'm not defending the system - I haven't bought it, and it's very doubtful that I will - but from the description in this and the other review, I don't see that this armour objection is correct).
Post originally by Geoff Hall at 2004-09-03 03:14:19
Converted from Phorums BB System
No, Funkshaw is just looking at it from an anti-d20 perspective, as far as I can tell.
In d20 armour reduces your chance of being hit, however it has no affect whatsoever on the damage once you've been hit. In nWoD the amount of successes on a roll converts directly to damage. By reducing the amount of dice rolled (which armour does) you are directly reducing the potential amount of damage done. It also reduces the chance to hit, but in nWoD those things are all tied together in a single, functional role so as to greatly speed up combat. Considering the feel they are trying to evoke with the game that's an admirable idea (and has been done successfully) IMO, YMMV, etc.
Post originally by Yo! Master at 2004-09-03 03:15:40
Converted from Phorums BB System
To clarify something:
In the Storytelling system, i.e the one we're talking about, Armour does *not* make hits less common.
The thing is that the "To Hit" roll and the "Damage" roll are incorporated in one roll. So mechanically the ability to evade a hit completely or make it less severe is the same as taking the hit and having your armour protect you.
So, a hit that lands and does no damage (beyond the cosmetic that has no game effect) is the same as a hit that does not hit at all from a mechanical standpoint.
This is what Funksaw does not get.
What makes the different is how they are descibed and how they are incoporated in the on-going narrative of teh story, and to some this may be trivial, but it ain't to me.
I like the new system. What it looks at is only the result. How you get there does not make a mechanic differance if the result would be the same. But it does a narrative one.
It is abstruct, that is all.
----
I'm from Greece so i can say Tzimisce with ease.
Post originally by Jeroen at 2004-09-03 05:21:54
Converted from Phorums BB System
"The main difference between Bashing and Lethal damage in ST 4.0 is the healing times. That’s it. It’s a step backwards towards 2nd edition Storyteller when punches and guns did the same type of damage. "
I think you 're forgetting that the characters you create with this system are MORTALS, not vampires.
Linear Mode
