Under The Rock

Eric · Joined: 30 Mar 2010 Posts: 255

Alright, I'm putting this out here once and for all: the curious case of the merit ambidexterity. Personally, and I know I'm NOT alone on this one, the merit SHOULD be played accordingly by the book. It is a merit in core rules that specifically states it can only be bought at character creation (unless you're in the Sabot) and the odds of someone from our game walking up to a Tzimisce and saying 'vis me' to get ambidexterity upon an already generated character without the merit, are very slim to none.

That being said there are alternatives to playing the merit on a more player base balance consensus, but not solely for the purpose of a single trait. An ability spec or blood buff would reign that qualification but not for a merit; and esp. not ambidexterity. I would propose it can be two if not 3 physical traits in all str. related challenges or even the option to choose in which category of the physical tiers to endorse it upon declaration.

Example A: I'm dexterous to cut you with my blades; I've declared or am declaring ambidexterity for the instance of ties and to the overall resolution of the challenge. Upon ties, I am up 3 traits.

Example B: Refer to above but replace dextrous with potent and blades with fists..and cut with beat.

Example C: I'm enduring to soak this damage and am using ambidexterity to acquire traits to spend for soak purposes. (It's a bit of a stretch but work with me here.)

While these are all hypothetical situations point being ambidexterity gives those in robust, melee warfare an edge over those who can only use a primary hand. By the book, it is an extra chop all together as the final offhand challenge, but what I'm proposing allows for the player to chose a category in the physical department and have some more traits. Or it can simply be conformed to the one primary category for confusion sake. However one trait is not sufficient and 3 traits may be a bit much but to be honest, it really just needs to be played by the book. The end.
_________________
"Grrr...we're warriors, Kakarot. Not ballerinas!" - Vegeta to Goku in hell; before fusion dance.

OOC - Albert R. (Al)
Enforcer to the Custodians
Elder Brujah of the East Coast
Baron of Rockland and Orange County

Mr. D · Joined: 20 Nov 2012 Posts: 89

By The Book Laws of the Night Revised (paraphrased for shortness)

In a Normal Challenge, you Risk one Trait, if you lose, you lose that trait.

If you are declaring the use of 2 Handed Fighting (Guns, Swords, Fists, etc) you must Then Risk 2 Traits per challenge with your Primary Hand and 3 Traits for your secondary or Offhand.

When Celerity comes into the Mix, You must alternate between hands.

Example: (Normal)

Alacrity- Stabby Stab W/ my Right(Primary) hand, risking Two Traits
Swfitness- Stabby Stab w/ my Left(off) hand, risking Three traits.
Legerity- Stabby Stab W/ my Right(Primary) hand, risking Two Traits
*Offhand Action - Stabby Stab w/ my Left(off) hand, risking Three traits.

The Two Handed Fighting Style can be taken in lieu of a Standard Spec in either Brawl, Firearms, or Melee.

What it gives is a reduction in how many traits you need to bid all together. See Example:

Alacrity- Stabby Stab W/ my Right(Primary) hand, risking One Trait.
Swfitness- Stabby Stab w/ my Left(off) hand, risking Two traits.
Legerity- Stabby Stab W/ my Right(Primary) hand, risking One Traits
*Offhand Action - Stabby Stab w/ my Left(off) hand, risking Two traits.

Ambidexterity Merit Makes you bid Equally Among both Hands.

If you Have only Ambidexterity, and no "2 hand fighting style" the example would be as follows:

Alacrity- Stabby Stab W/ my Right(Primary) hand, risking Two Trait.
Swfitness- Stabby Stab w/ my Left(off) hand, risking Two traits.
Legerity- Stabby Stab W/ my Right(Primary) hand, risking Two Traits
*Offhand Action - Stabby Stab w/ my Left(off) hand, risking Two traits.

Having BOTH Ambidexterity and 2 Handed Fighting makes the following happen:

Alacrity- Stabby Stab W/ my Right(Primary) hand, risking One Trait.
Swfitness- Stabby Stab w/ my Left(off) hand, risking One trait.
Legerity- Stabby Stab W/ my Right(Primary) hand, risking One Trait.
*Offhand Action - Stabby Stab w/ my Left(off) hand, risking One trait.

So, Dark Epics took that Same System, and rather than give you the off hand action, it now gives you a Bonus Trait In all the challenges. (utilizing the same rules for how many you need to bid)

It was done so to make combat run faster and still provide an Edge to someone fighting with 2 hands.

It is my opinion, that that extra trait you get is worth way more than the extra action, and therefore legitimizing it being only a 1pt merit.

Eric · Joined: 30 Mar 2010 Posts: 255

I have to respectfully disagree with your opinion. Having an extra trait over a chop doesn't exactly constitute any real formal defensive or offensive escape when the odds are stacked against the character. I realize that not everyone's idea of a super happy 'phun tyme' is throwing rock-paper-scissors for three hours straight, but it happens unfortunately. I would even argue that throwing chops for a long period of time in one sitting can become counterproductive to the role-play experience.

However when two or more characters are locked in a heated pvp and shit just got real, I'd like to think that if I were one of those characters where the situation tuned into a life or death scenario, I'd want to utilize everything in my arsenal to be able to keep the pc alive (that or make for a very thrilling scene) and more times than most, it's that last chop that becomes just too crucial to make all the difference.

Traits don't deal damage, chops do. In fact, all manner of traits in the contested category of the challenge only come to fruition during ties. I realize more traits is more wins (and ties) but that's only when a pc can conjure such mass traits. And let's not forget that having all those traits and chops don't mean jack when you've outright lost the challenge(s). Dark epics may have simplified combat a little bit, but the overall mechanics of combat generally remain the same.

Having a chop is actually better than having an extra trait. But that's just my opinion.
_________________
"Grrr...we're warriors, Kakarot. Not ballerinas!" - Vegeta to Goku in hell; before fusion dance.

OOC - Albert R. (Al)
Enforcer to the Custodians
Elder Brujah of the East Coast
Baron of Rockland and Orange County

Nox · Joined: 06 Jan 2012 Posts: 33

I agree that one trait is sad but I do detest multiple actions (damn you celerity!).

Perhaps you gain a number of additional bonus traits equal to the bonus traits of the item in your off hand. Both items would have to be one handed items - no dual wield greatswords or assault rifles even if you gots da potence yo Smile

When unarmed perhaps it can "double" your brawl spec for 2 bonus traits instead of 1 bonus trait (mechanically the same as it is now). This beefs it up but keeps it from being another celerity level.

Just looking for common ground from the above posts. I think this is a happy medium.

And this whole thread was brought up since the ST's wanted the rules ready to go by the summer event. Thats comming up pretty soon so where do the ST's stand so far with what has been discussed.?
_________________
Nox
(Huge Size)
(Bruiser)

Nox · Joined: 06 Jan 2012 Posts: 33

Soooooooo, whats the result of all this banter? New House Rules or what?
_________________
Nox
(Huge Size)
(Bruiser)

Charles Rockledge · Posted: Mon Jul 29, 2013 2:16 am Post subject:

[quote="Mr. D"]Clans always available to play ----- Leave It.
[quote="Nox"]Genre specific really.

I don't know if it is genre specific or not, but I have heard more than one account of a player not being able to play the clan they wanted to. With the exception of council restricted clans, I don't mind players having having the opportunity to play as whatever they most want to play as.

[quote="Mr. D"]Background Growth ------ Leave it
[quote="Nox"]Never liked it. I always felt it was better to put a 10% rule (only one in 10 can have it) cap at level 5 on target areas with 2 level 4's permited per level 5. Example: Resources needs to be kept under control or else money will lose its value so it has been targeted as a 10% background. This means that only one in ten players will have resources 5 and there will be two resources 4 for each resources 5 (round down). Let everyone else buy up and stagnate at level 3. You want to increase your resources, get one of the others who has it at a higher level agree to give it up so you can take it...sounds like some fun IC kinda stuff, again much better then I use x to attack players y's area z.

I am not sure f our game was ever really large enough to justify a 10% rule. Even wehn we had attendence levels in the 30's, that would mean only 3 level 5's and 6 level 4's. Unless these numbers are irresective of npc's, we have way too many Bardonia's and Rockledges and such that Pc's would all be stuck in the poorhouse.

Similarly, this kind of limit on resources and other backgrounds usually makes genre specific sense in that most anarchs (at least at the time the old rules books were made) presumably live in areas where the Cam already own most of the resources and influence. The wider availability thereof in UTR reflects the fact that we have access reletively exclusive access to an entire domain/Counties worth of resources and influences to divide.

Perhaps some kind of quantity limit would be a good idea at that, but I would prefer more of a 20-25% rule instead; possibly even up to 40%.

[quote="Mr. D"]Influence use -----Leave It
[quote="Nox"]Already addressed this...sigh.

I've always dislikes actually the extremely slow pace at which influence is attainable. I'd dislike seeing it restricted or limited further. It's a real bitch trying obtain a decent pot of influence and unless a player knows to GNC with some influences already in place, it can take a long time to be able to do anything neat with them. When I made Charles, I started him with 0 influences as he was a fledgling just made. It took years for me to gather enough influence to be able to act independently with them.

Similarly, I have always been given to understand that each dot in an influence counts as an individual mortal, and not afterall 1 mortal in a higher position, whose cumulative efforts achieve the action. This being the case it seems fine to me that I can allocate 1 dot to a level one action and 3 dots to a level 3 action if I have 4 dots of influence. In some cases it is why to bother getting extra dots.

What I would like back from influences is the rumor mill. That added flavor to having them. One dot in an influence was enough to gain a bit of extra knowledge about what was going on in the background plot of the county, and I liked the aspect of trying to control those events more than simply trying to engage other kindred or just spend to cover breeches.

[quote="Mr. D"]Herd ------ Maybe allow for extra blood (up to 3 per) but then they are considered In recovery for 1 month per trait taken beyond first
[quote="Nox"]Kinda lame as is but not broken. Would be nice if it at least provides 2 blood per dot instead of just one as you can safely nip 2 off of a mortal.

I agree. Even moreso, herd was not individual mortals per dot, but cluster of mortals that represent your available meals per month in blood supply. Rather than it being any number of specific traits, I would rather see herd be used with a mechanic similar to hunting in which you allocate a certain amount of time for 'visiting the ranch', which then grants you (a) retest(s) on the starting blood chop, or the ability to call for new blood chops over the course of game to see how many of a herd dot you were able to tap at 1 trip to 'the ranch'. Loose means 1 trait, ties mean 2 and win means 3; with the presumption that it is up to 3 seperate mortals, not just 1, and it takes a certain number of minutes per trait.

[quote="Mr. D"]Retainers - Leave it, either Player makes sheet or ST uses Template
[quote="Nox"]Again, see above posts.
I'd like to see a clearer distinction between retainers and ghouls.
Retainers as outlined in the core book are not ghouls and are only good for those specific tasks outlined in the core book rules. Ghouls OTOH are not IMHO retainers. Not merely retainers at any rate.

Ghouls have much more potential than fulfilling the outlined role of Retainer. Ghouls can be plot devices allowing further expansion of individual character arcs. They are like minor npc's, and fleshed out as such. Retainers OTOH don't really need anymore 'depth' than what influences or contacts are assigned. They are employees and nothing more.

What actions a ghoul can take need to be separately defined from the actions of a retainer. I view a retainer as someone like Miles on the nanny; I view ghouls as someone like The Transporter. Miles is perfectly capable of 'transporting' my suit to the dry cleaners and back again, but if I want to transport a werewolf carcass through the park between two counties, that is when I have the ghoul do it. That is why they can have multiple dots, and can be expe'd up from shares of my own earnings. Even if they don't get used in that fashion, I find a psycological thrill in imbuing 'my power' to the ones I have chosen to be worthy of tasting my own vitae.

[quote="Mr. D"]Clan Specific Disciplines ---- Leave it, its in genre to need a trait of blood
[quote="Nox"]Only one trait needs to be consumed to attune you to the clan. This one per level is just excessive.

Its a good deterrent. I don't think many people would mind a one point bond in exchange for power. Any more than that however is a good reason not to learn anymore unless you can find different teachers.
_________________
"My Girls is clean and kind spirited".
"If you hurt them, I am going to kill you slowly."
-Insert humanity check.