How Good Is World of Darkness d20?

[ColorBlindNinja]

I'm aware it's nothing like the rest of World of Darkness, but how viable is it as a system?

How compatible is with other d20 games, specifically D&D 3.5?


I would deeply appreciate any answers you have to give on these topics.

Thanks!

[Florian]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Ok, more seriously: HAHAHAHAHAHA

Nuff said?

[ColorBlindNinja]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Ok, more seriously: HAHAHAHAHAHA

Nuff said?

Don't think highly of the system, eh? :smallsmile:

[Malphegor]

from what I've read it sounds like it's more action-y. People have said it's more Buffy than Interview as a game.

I need to track a copy of it down though, curious.

[ColorBlindNinja]

from what I've read it sounds like it's more action-y. People have said it's more Buffy than Interview as a game.

I need to track a copy of it down though, curious.

I wasn't getting a lot of responses on this thread, so I decided to do some more in depth research.

The system apparently isn't very good.

The mage class in particular is stupidly broken.

[Feantar]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Ok, more seriously: HAHAHAHAHAHA

Nuff said?

What they said.

Seriously, it is not worth anyone's time. WOD's system is very thematically appropriate, and d20 clashes so hard with the themes, it is borderline unplayable. The mechanics are also horribly designed. I never actually tried playing it - I read it, felt immense existential dread that something so bad could have been published, shoved some holy wafers between its pages, stuck my pencil through its spine and threw it out into the sunlight.

[ColorBlindNinja]

What they said.

Seriously, it is not worth anyone's time. WOD's system is very thematically appropriate, and d20 clashes so hard with the themes, it is borderline unplayable. The mechanics are also horribly designed. I never actually tried playing it - I read it, felt immense existential dread that something so bad could have been published, shoved some holy wafers between its pages, stuck my pencil through its spine and threw it out into the sunlight.

That seems to be the general consensus.

Does the system have anything worth stealing?

[gkathellar]

Despite calling itself WoD, it's nothing of the sort. So evaluating it on those terms is not going to do it any favors.

On its own terms? Well, the setting is fine. The writing's a little pointlessly edgy. The rules ... it's a d20 game written by Monte Cook, and it has all the attributes you'd expect of such a game. Caster supremacy etc.

It's not compatible with other d20 games without some serious adjustments.

[Kayblis]

From what I've played, it's a very unbalanced system with most restrictions on monster classes' powers being "do something nasty to recharge", which is not a restriction at all. If you have a team with a vampire and a werewolf, they're mostly unkillable for the simple reason that they recharge by killing anyone and have swift- and standard-action healing even when unconscious. The game tries its best to encourage you to play like a 15-year-old with a fedora on every limb, so do note that a game in World of Darkness will be different from your average D&D or PF game by a considerable margin.

It's not compatible with most of d20. The power scale is all over the place, and if the classes weren't published on the same book I'd say they are not even compatible with each other.

[Sutehp]

I wish I never lived to see the day when the words "d20" and "World of Darkness" were combined in the same sentence.

Some things simply should not be.

I had no idea such a thing even existed until I saw this post 3 minutes ago.

I've lived too long and seen too much.:smallyuk::smallconfused::smallsigh::smallfro wn::smallfurious:

[Feantar]

I wish I never lived to see the day when the words "d20" and "World of Darkness" were combined in the same sentence.

Some things simply should not be.

I had no idea such a thing even existed until I saw this post 3 minutes ago.

I've lived too long and seen too much.:smallyuk::smallconfused::smallsigh::smallfro wn::smallfurious:

And if you look at the bottom left of the book, it says "produced by Malhavoc Press, a subsidiary of Pentex". :P

[Morty]

I think there was a time somewhere in the 2000s when people tried to make d20 versions of just about everything.

[Florian]

That seems to be the general consensus.

Does the system have anything worth stealing?

Depends. Annoyed of T1 casters and their shenanigans? Grab a Mage and show them how insignificant even Wish is.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Depends. Annoyed of T1 casters and their shenanigans? Grab a Mage and show them how insignificant even Wish is.

Are WoD d20 Mages truly that broken?

[Florian]

Are WoD d20 Mages truly that broken?

Wrong question.

Mage and Ars Magicia play in on an entirely different level than your typical D&D full casters. While their "rapid casting" effects are less powerful than what your typical vancian spell system offers, ultimately, they have no ceiling beginning at roughly mid level.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Wrong question.

Mage and Ars Magicia play in on an entirely different level than your typical D&D full casters. While their "rapid casting" effects are less powerful than what your typical vancian spell system offers, ultimately, they have no ceiling beginning at roughly mid level.

:smallconfused:

WoD d20 uses an odd skill based DIY system for spellcasting. It's sort of like Epic Magic, complete with making Spellcraft checks.

EDIT: And nothing like the system that WoD uses for Mages, as far as I know.

[Florian]

:smallconfused:

WoD d20 uses an odd skill based DIY system for spellcasting. It's sort of like Epic Magic, complete with making Spellcraft checks.

EDIT: And nothing like the system that WoD uses for Mages, as far as I know.

No. It´s even worse because it boils down to one skill check.

Edit: Cross-overs in WoD were already a bit pointless when you included Mages. Turning everyone else into a simple lawn chair and be done with it at least cost a certain investment in spheres. Not so with the skill-based system and the DIY-approach to determine the outcome.

[ColorBlindNinja]

No. It´s even worse because it boils down to one skill check.

I mean, in theory making it skill based puts a hard cap on what a lower level character can do.

In theory, at least.

[Sutehp]

And if you look at the bottom left of the book, it says "produced by Malhavoc Press, a subsidiary of Pentex". :P

Oh gawds, that just makes it worse. :smallyuk:

[ColorBlindNinja]

So, I'm guessing even if you stripped out all the preexisting fluff, the crunch isn't redeemable?

Is there anything worth stealing from this system? :smallfrown:

[Quarian Rex]

Dissenting opinion here. The WoD d20 classes are actually pretty good, so long as you don't think that it will let you play a game that even remotely resembles a storyteller session in the d20 system. Just because the systems are wildly different and have virtually no thematic or mechanical similarities doesn't mean that ideas can't be mined. There's gold in them thar hills after all. Just remember to adjust the classes if you want to use them in a 3.P game (mainly adjusting the BAB, saves, and HD down by three levels since the base chassis of the WoD classes is equivalent to 4th level in 3.P).

When looking at the classes themselves, I don't see as many balance issues as some others do. Looking at Vampires, Werewolves, and Demons, they all tend to be on a similar level. They all have in-built recovery mechanics (10 hp per Vitae/Essence/Anima) which is an amazing starting ability but, like most healing, fails to keep up as a defensive measure as you gain levels. A paladin's Lay On Hands catches up at 6th level and greatly out paces it from there on out. No one thinks that Lay On Hands is a game breaker. As for their other capabilities, they are pulled from an eclectic pool of abilities taken from a very short list. While there are some interesting options, nothing really scales and most things draw from a very limited pool of power with similarly limited recovery mechanics.

A Demon only gets a single Anima per day if it indulges its craving. If it has a bane instead of a craving then it needs to roll a Nat20 over a freshly dead humanoid or he gets nothing. No other way unless he spends a Cant on Infernal Pact (a defining ability of the class but still needing to be purchased and only capable of recovering Cha bonus in Anima per day at max., subject to thrall death, etc.) or Murderous Recharge [having spent one or more Anima points on Corrupting Lash (and so working from a deficit), or Corrupting Matrix (good luck getting the kill-shot with 1d6 aura damage)]. While they do have some interesting Cants, there isn't anything that can't be outdone by your average utility caster or competent martial.

A Werewolf only recovers a single point of Essence per night upon seeing the moon (or 2 points on three days a month) or from eating the heart of a freshly killed humanoid. How many of those are you counting on getting during your adventuring day? Good luck with that. They do have a much better selection of combat buffs (and some interesting utility as well, depending on Auspice), but are hampered by limited selection (again by Auspice) and relatively high cost (low duration vs. slow recovery).

The Vampires seem to have the best, and worst, deal as far as power sustainability. While more Vitae being no further than a grapple check and some Con damage away can be a massive boon, that is countered by being the only class that has a constant drain on that same resource, at least one point a day. That's something that can complicate downtime. They also get some of the penalties of being an undead abomination, like taking Con damage in sunlight and being unable to heal naturally (and so requires the expenditure of more Vitae), without getting most of the benefits of being undead, like still being susceptible to mind affecting abilities and spells with a Fort save, etc. Discipline powers are varied but limited. Augmenting physical abilities can initially look worrying but it is limited by investment in Blood Potency, investment that limits the possible sources of Vitae (even a single purchase of Blood Potency means you can no longer feed from animals, cutting off a lot of easy Vitae). This is something that seems to be largely self-regulating.

All three classes start strong and steadily progress with interesting tricks but run out of gas quickly unless you give them ample time to recover. While they all have a nice toolbox of abilities there is little that will upset the balance of the game and a small enough selection that the DM won't be surprised by anything.

Mages are the odd man out here. They are a problem without actually being a real problem. Functionally they are like Psions without a Manifester limit who get to build their powers out of mix and match Lego. Sounds crazy, right? Don't worry, you have to spend 3 to 5 times the power to get things done and half of the Lego pieces are actually Duplo. Their Spell Affinity ability means that any time they need a spell to go off it will, so long as they hemorrhage enough components. This makes them nigh perfect alpha strike casters but the bigger the alpha the more they cripple themselves for the next spell (due to Spell Exhaustion). Also, remember that almost nothing scales with level. You pay for every die of damage, for every point of DC above 10+Int mod, for every effect and every element of range and duration. So, Mage spells are expensive. So what? They are spells! Yes and no. Remember how I said Mage spells are like Lego where half the blocks are Duplo? You have access to the effects in the WoD d20 book and that is it. No Wish, no Gate, no Planar Binding, no 3.5 Polymorph. It's like playing a 3.5 Wizard limited to spells in the Core book only, who plays with a DM that nerfed all of the 'problem' spells. Add to that the fact that a Mage can only maintain a number of spells equal to his Int bonus (including Permanent ones) and even if he blew his entire wad on a single buff spell (abusing Blood Magic to the max for good measure) for a permanent buff spell that makes his DM cringe, it only takes a single Dispel check (with nothing available to buff caster level for the mage) and all that work is gone. Oh yeah, it takes 20 hrs of rest to fully recover a Mage's components. Even if he novas completely in an encounter it will take him two and a half full rest periods to recover from it.

The Mage looks a lot scarier than it is. So long as you are a DM who knows how to deal with a player trying to abuse the 15 min adventuring day Mages will very quickly learn to self-limit themselves.

While the classes from WoD d20 are quite different from most 3.P classes, concerns over balance are probably way overblown. I would feel comfortable injecting Demons, Werewolves, and/or Vampires into any 3.P game I run (I'm especially fond of adding variant vampires into a campaign as opposing bloodlines alongside the vanilla types), and even Mages, while capable of achieving certain effects earlier than others, see their power pale next to the breadth of options available to standard casters, whose spells are only balanced against themselves (not against an entire system as a flexible Lego piece) and so can punch far above their weight.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Dissenting opinion here. The WoD d20 classes are actually pretty good, so long as you don't think that it will let you play a game that even remotely resembles a storyteller session in the d20 system. Just because the systems are wildly different and have virtually no thematic or mechanical similarities doesn't mean that ideas can't be mined. There's gold in them thar hills after all. Just remember to adjust the classes if you want to use them in a 3.P game (mainly adjusting the BAB, saves, and HD down by three levels since the base chassis of the WoD classes is equivalent to 4th level in 3.P).

Interesting to see a different opinion.


When looking at the classes themselves, I don't see as many balance issues as some others do. Looking at Vampires, Werewolves, and Demons, they all tend to be on a similar level. They all have in-built recovery mechanics (10 hp per Vitae/Essence/Anima) which is an amazing starting ability but, like most healing, fails to keep up as a defensive measure as you gain levels. A paladin's Lay On Hands catches up at 6th level and greatly out paces it from there on out. No one thinks that Lay On Hands is a game breaker. As for their other capabilities, they are pulled from an eclectic pool of abilities taken from a very short list. While there are some interesting options, nothing really scales and most things draw from a very limited pool of power with similarly limited recovery mechanics.

A Demon only gets a single Anima per day if it indulges its craving. If it has a bane instead of a craving then it needs to roll a Nat20 over a freshly dead humanoid or he gets nothing. No other way unless he spends a Cant on Infernal Pact (a defining ability of the class but still needing to be purchased and only capable of recovering Cha bonus in Anima per day at max., subject to thrall death, etc.) or Murderous Recharge [having spent one or more Anima points on Corrupting Lash (and so working from a deficit), or Corrupting Matrix (good luck getting the kill-shot with 1d6 aura damage)]. While they do have some interesting Cants, there isn't anything that can't be outdone by your average utility caster or competent martial.

I did note that the demon's pact could provide a nice boost to their fellow PCs.


A Werewolf only recovers a single point of Essence per night upon seeing the moon (or 2 points on three days a month) or from eating the heart of a freshly killed humanoid. How many of those are you counting on getting during your adventuring day? Good luck with that. They do have a much better selection of combat buffs (and some interesting utility as well, depending on Auspice), but are hampered by limited selection (again by Auspice) and relatively high cost (low duration vs. slow recovery).

I think the general consensus was that the Werewolves sucked, though.


The Vampires seem to have the best, and worst, deal as far as power sustainability. While more Vitae being no further than a grapple check and some Con damage away can be a massive boon, that is countered by being the only class that has a constant drain on that same resource, at least one point a day. That's something that can complicate downtime. They also get some of the penalties of being an undead abomination, like taking Con damage in sunlight and being unable to heal naturally (and so requires the expenditure of more Vitae), without getting most of the benefits of being undead, like still being susceptible to mind affecting abilities and spells with a Fort save, etc. Discipline powers are varied but limited. Augmenting physical abilities can initially look worrying but it is limited by investment in Blood Potency, investment that limits the possible sources of Vitae (even a single purchase of Blood Potency means you can no longer feed from animals, cutting off a lot of easy Vitae). This is something that seems to be largely self-regulating.

The vampires struck me as the most playable of the classes.


All three classes start strong and steadily progress with interesting tricks but run out of gas quickly unless you give them ample time to recover. While they all have a nice toolbox of abilities there is little that will upset the balance of the game and a small enough selection that the DM won't be surprised by anything.

So, mostly the equivalent of tier 4 classes.

But the Awakened class looked... bad. Like, 3.5 Fighter bad. :smallfrown:


Mages are the odd man out here. They are a problem without actually being a real problem. Functionally they are like Psions without a Manifester limit who get to build their powers out of mix and match Lego. Sounds crazy, right? Don't worry, you have to spend 3 to 5 times the power to get things done and half of the Lego pieces are actually Duplo. Their Spell Affinity ability means that any time they need a spell to go off it will, so long as they hemorrhage enough components. This makes them nigh perfect alpha strike casters but the bigger the alpha the more they cripple themselves for the next spell (due to Spell Exhaustion). Also, remember that almost nothing scales with level.

I did note that Mages can cast spells that reduce exhaustion and give them back components.


You pay for every die of damage, for every point of DC above 10+Int mod, for every effect and every element of range and duration. So, Mage spells are expensive. So what? They are spells! Yes and no. Remember how I said Mage spells are like Lego where half the blocks are Duplo? You have access to the effects in the WoD d20 book and that is it. No Wish, no Gate, no Planar Binding, no 3.5 Polymorph. It's like playing a 3.5 Wizard limited to spells in the Core book only, who plays with a DM that nerfed all of the 'problem' spells. Add to that the fact that a Mage can only maintain a number of spells equal to his Int bonus (including Permanent ones) and even if he blew his entire wad on a single buff spell (abusing Blood Magic to the max for good measure) for a permanent buff spell that makes his DM cringe, it only takes a single Dispel check (with nothing available to buff caster level for the mage) and all that work is gone. Oh yeah, it takes 20 hrs of rest to fully recover a Mage's components. Even if he novas completely in an encounter it will take him two and a half full rest periods to recover from it.

The Mage looks a lot scarier than it is. So long as you are a DM who knows how to deal with a player trying to abuse the 15 min adventuring day Mages will very quickly learn to self-limit themselves.

One major problem I noted was that the people who wrote the system don't seem to understand how the Instantaneous spell duration works.

Especially with regard to buffs.


While the classes from WoD d20 are quite different from most 3.P classes, concerns over balance are probably way overblown. I would feel comfortable injecting Demons, Werewolves, and/or Vampires into any 3.P game I run (I'm especially fond of adding variant vampires into a campaign as opposing bloodlines alongside the vanilla types), and even Mages, while capable of achieving certain effects earlier than others, see their power pale next to the breadth of options available to standard casters, whose spells are only balanced against themselves (not against an entire system as a flexible Lego piece) and so can punch far above their weight.

Well thank you for your input. :smallsmile:

[Quarian Rex]

I did note that the demon's pact could provide a nice boost to their fellow PCs.

Indeed. Party buffer is definitely an easy role for the Demon to fill but the effects are extremely narrow despite being semi-permanent, so it tends to have less effect on the party than the usual greater/more varied effect buffs of shorter duration.



I think the general consensus was that the Werewolves sucked, though.

No more than most martial classes? It's actually a pretty solid chassis with inbuilt recovery mechanics, potent buffs (if used wisely/sparingly), with a side of utility and tons of flavor. If you feel like building a martial you can do far worse than this.



The vampires struck me as the most playable of the classes.

Potentially. As with any class that has such inherent and obviously exploitable weaknesses (specifically Con damage from sunlight and the constant need for Vitae) it depends completely on how much your DM wants to mess with you. It certainly has a lot of unique options (Vinculum, Disciplines, Ghouls, etc.) that can be used for interesting solutions in a 3.P game, but those perks don't come without cost.



So, mostly the equivalent of tier 4 classes.

I'd actually put the non-human classes in the tier 3 range (Vampires near the top, Werewolves closer to the bottom). They all have interesting utility options, even the Werewolf.



But the Awakened class looked... bad. Like, 3.5 Fighter bad. :smallfrown:

Yeah... playing a mortal in a WoD game is like playing a Commoner in 3.P. Sure, you could do it, but why?



I did note that Mages can cast spells that reduce exhaustion and give them back components.

Reduce exhaustion, yes. By hemorrhaging more components. Recover components? Not really. You can steal them from another Mage (good luck with that) or you can create Tass. Tass creation allows you to store up to 50 components but requires you to re-cast the spell to get it out, lowering the net components gained, and only a single source of Tass can be accessed per day. It is a boost, to be sure, but considering the recovery time for the expenditure (only 5% per hour of rest) it is really only useful for ritual purposes and less of a worry at lower levels when it would be most disruptive.



One major problem I noted was that the people who wrote the system don't seem to understand how the Instantaneous spell duration works.

Especially with regard to buffs.

They did a pretty good job spelling that out under 'Lasting Effects' on p.179. The idea that 'Instant' can mean 'Permanent but immune to dispelling' is something pretty specific to 3.5 (and inherited by Pathfinder) and doesn't really apply to a separate, even if similar, system.



Well thank you for your input. :smallsmile:

No problem. I have a bit of a soft spot for WoD stuff and the d20 adaptation definitely has its good points.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Indeed. Party buffer is definitely an easy role for the Demon to fill but the effects are extremely narrow despite being semi-permanent, so it tends to have less effect on the party than the usual greater/more varied effect buffs of shorter duration.

I don't know, if I was a Mage, I'd drool over the prospect of a +10 to my Spellcraft checks.



No more than most martial classes? It's actually a pretty solid chassis with inbuilt recovery mechanics, potent buffs (if used wisely/sparingly), with a side of utility and tons of flavor. If you feel like building a martial you can do far worse than this.

I guess it depends on what martial classes you're comparing them too.

I tend to use the Tome of Battle martial adepts as the gold standard for judging all other martial classes.



Potentially. As with any class that has such inherent and obviously exploitable weaknesses (specifically Con damage from sunlight and the constant need for Vitae) it depends completely on how much your DM wants to mess with you. It certainly has a lot of unique options (Vinculum, Disciplines, Ghouls, etc.) that can be used for interesting solutions in a 3.P game, but those perks don't come without cost.

The biggest problem with the Vampire that I can see is needing to drink blood to survive. That won't fly with some parties.



I'd actually put the non-human classes in the tier 3 range (Vampires near the top, Werewolves closer to the bottom). They all have interesting utility options, even the Werewolf.

I could see an argument for the Vampire and perhaps the Demon being Tier 3. The Werewolf falls pretty squarely into tier 4, IMO.



Yeah... playing a mortal in a WoD game is like playing a Commoner in 3.P. Sure, you could do it, but why?

Better question, why does the system act like it's a viable option? :smallfrown:



Reduce exhaustion, yes. By hemorrhaging more components.

Even a level 1 Mage gets a fair amount of components.


Recover components? Not really. You can steal them from another Mage (good luck with that) or you can create Tass. Tass creation allows you to store up to 50 components but requires you to re-cast the spell to get it out, lowering the net components gained, and only a single source of Tass can be accessed per day. It is a boost, to be sure, but considering the recovery time for the expenditure (only 5% per hour of rest) it is really only useful for ritual purposes and less of a worry at lower levels when it would be most disruptive.

One of the uses of the Heal component is to recover spent components.



They did a pretty good job spelling that out under 'Lasting Effects' on p.179.

That section seemed like it was talking more about "just because your fireball was instantaneous, doesn't mean the hobo you roasted still isn't on fire" than actually defining what the duration means.


The idea that 'Instant' can mean 'Permanent but immune to dispelling' is something pretty specific to 3.5 (and inherited by Pathfinder) and doesn't really apply to a separate, even if similar, system.

But WoD d20 doesn't give a new definition for Instantaneous. Which leaves us with the one from 3.5.



No problem. I have a bit of a soft spot for WoD stuff and the d20 adaptation definitely has its good points.

Thank you very much for the feedback.

[Quarian Rex]

I don't know, if I was a Mage, I'd drool over the prospect of a +10 to my Spellcraft checks.

And so would a Truenamer. That's not really a judgement on the buff, but noting that there are a few classes whose power is solely reliant on a single bonus.



I guess it depends on what martial classes you're comparing them too.

I tend to use the Tome of Battle martial adepts as the gold standard for judging all other martial classes.

Tome of Battle/Path of War are some of the best but aren't allowed at some tables and don't really qualify as a 'standard', but I see where you're coming from.



The biggest problem with the Vampire that I can see is needing to drink blood to survive. That won't fly with some parties.

So long as you don't take Blood Potency you can get around that by feeding on the party's horses. I really see the sunlight vulnerability to be the larger issue. It's something that's hard to get around in any social setting and doubles your normal Vitae consumption per day. In either case, it really is only as much of a problem as the DM wants to make it.



I could see an argument for the Vampire and perhaps the Demon being Tier 3. The Werewolf falls pretty squarely into tier 4, IMO.

I think that really depends on the Auspice. Full Moons are pretty narrowly combat focused but New Moons have creative stealth powers, Gibbous Moons have party buffing, Crescent Moons have dimensional manipulation, etc. The class has some good options that aren't available to others. Can you build a Werewolf as Tier 4? Definitely. You can also build a Tier 4 Wizard. The class itself has enough options that I think it is solidly in Tier 3, lower Tier 3 but still Tier 3.



Better question, why does the system act like it's a viable option? :smallfrown:

Tradition? WoD (and most urban fantasy) usually tried to accommodate the mortal position in their setting whether that's a good idea or not. WoD at least made it fairly explicit that mortals were a stepping stone to a more interesting supernatural template. WoD d20 solidified it into a full class (because of system differences) and the result is a bland commoner on steroids.



Even a level 1 Mage gets a fair amount of components.

Remember, that is the equivalent of a 4th level 3.P character. Convert that over and you have a 1st level Mage getting a base 15 components (and another 15 components per level). Once you convert things appropriately it doesn't look so bad.



One of the uses of the Heal component is to recover spent components.

Hmm... I completely missed that. Not sure how I feel about it. I would probably increase the cost to 4 per 1d6 so it can't just be used for powering up like a Super Saiyan. Or perhaps just remove the option completely, only allowing the similar effects already found in the Rotes. Not sure.




That section seemed like it was talking more about "just because your fireball was instantaneous, doesn't mean the hobo you roasted still isn't on fire" than actually defining what the duration means.

The last two examples address the issue pretty clearly. The idea that Instant=Permanent but un-dispellable is the non-intuitive concept that needs to be spelled out, not the opposite.



But WoD d20 doesn't give a new definition for Instantaneous. Which leaves us with the one from 3.5.

This isn't a supplement to be used in a 3.5 game, it is a completely separate game that uses a similar structure, much like Modern (or Starfinder compared to Pathfinder). 1st level characters even start with four HD. There is nothing in here that says you should refer to the Core 3.5 books. Assuming that 3.5 specifics apply to WoD 3.5 is a mistake on the player, not the system.

This is the kind of thing that can only be a problem if someone wants to make it one...



DM: So, you're telling me that you think that the 0 cost Instantaneous duration effect does everything that the 50 cost Permanent duration effect does but is also immune to dispell? Despite examples of magical effects needing a duration of longer than Instantaneous or they wink out of existence?

Player: Yup. Gimme free perma-buffs. Cuz some 3.5 spells used same word.

DM: Rocks fall...


The cost, intent, and capabilities are pretty clearly laid out. I really think that the only time you could have a problem here is if one of the players wanted to make it a problem, in which case you have a problem with the player, not the game.

[ColorBlindNinja]

And so would a Truenamer. That's not really a judgement on the buff, but noting that there are a few classes whose power is solely reliant on a single bonus.

If the buff makes an already good character even better, that might be a cause for concern.



Tome of Battle/Path of War are some of the best but aren't allowed at some tables and don't really qualify as a 'standard', but I see where you're coming from.

Very well.


So long as you don't take Blood Potency you can get around that by feeding on the party's horses. I really see the sunlight vulnerability to be the larger issue. It's something that's hard to get around in any social setting and doubles your normal Vitae consumption per day. In either case, it really is only as much of a problem as the DM wants to make it.

I guess it depends on the setting you're playing in.



I think that really depends on the Auspice. Full Moons are pretty narrowly combat focused but New Moons have creative stealth powers, Gibbous Moons have party buffing, Crescent Moons have dimensional manipulation, etc. The class has some good options that aren't available to others. Can you build a Werewolf as Tier 4? Definitely. You can also build a Tier 4 Wizard. The class itself has enough options that I think it is solidly in Tier 3, lower Tier 3 but still Tier 3.

I see.


Tradition? WoD (and most urban fantasy) usually tried to accommodate the mortal position in their setting whether that's a good idea or not. WoD at least made it fairly explicit that mortals were a stepping stone to a more interesting supernatural template. WoD d20 solidified it into a full class (because of system differences) and the result is a bland commoner on steroids.

They probably shouldn't have included the class to begin with.


Remember, that is the equivalent of a 4th level 3.P character. Convert that over and you have a 1st level Mage getting a base 15 components (and another 15 components per level). Once you convert things appropriately it doesn't look so bad.

But in WoD d20 game, the system still starts at 1 and goes up to level 20



Hmm... I completely missed that. Not sure how I feel about it. I would probably increase the cost to 4 per 1d6 so it can't just be used for powering up like a Super Saiyan. Or perhaps just remove the option completely, only allowing the similar effects already found in the Rotes. Not sure.

Better houserule: the Mage has to scream at the top of their lungs and their hair turns golden. :smalltongue:


The last two examples address the issue pretty clearly. The idea that Instant=Permanent but un-dispellable is the non-intuitive concept that needs to be spelled out, not the opposite.

That is the default in 3.5.



This isn't a supplement to be used in a 3.5 game, it is a completely separate game that uses a similar structure, much like Modern (or Starfinder compared to Pathfinder). 1st level characters even start with four HD. There is nothing in here that says you should refer to the Core 3.5 books. Assuming that 3.5 specifics apply to WoD 3.5 is a mistake on the player, not the system. This is the kind of thing that can only be a problem if someone wants to make it one...

The system itself never defines the instantaneous duration.

That is a problem.


The cost, intent, and capabilities are pretty clearly laid out. I really think that the only time you could have a problem here is if one of the players wanted to make it a problem, in which case you have a problem with the player, not the game.

That's just the Oberoni Fallacy, stacking permanent undispellable buffs works RAW.

[Quarian Rex]

If the buff makes an already good character even better, that might be a cause for concern.

I'd say more a concern for the class getting the buff than the buff itself. +10 on skill checks is on the lower end of possible buffs. Remember, equivalent magic item can go up to +30. Whether something like that can grossly effect the balance of a single class is something that needs to be addressed with the class itself (decide whether spellcasting can benefit from outside buffs or not) rather than trying to rebalance the existing skill system to accommodate that one class.



They probably shouldn't have included the class to begin with.

Or at leas included some kind of Paladin->Antipaladin level conversion option if you get turned or somesuch. Even that's not really a good option but it would be better.



But in WoD d20 game, the system still starts at 1 and goes up to level 20

Indeed, but their 1st level is equivalent to 3.P's 4th (see HD, skills, BAB, saves, etc.). Mages just so happen to be the only class that has class features that are similarly fast-tracked and so could benefit from adjustment. As with any form of system conversion just adjust to taste. 60 components at 1st level seems too much. Does 15 components seem too little? How about 30? So long as you stick with the convention of gaining an additional 15 components per level just put the starting spot where you think it is right for your campaign.



Better houserule: the Mage has to scream at the top of their lungs and their hair turns golden. :smalltongue:

If the player could do that I'd let them get away with it without reservation.



That is the default in 3.5.

And this is WoD d20, not D&D 3.5.




The system itself never defines the instantaneous duration.

That is a problem.

Instantaneous is a self-defining term. That is why there is a section on lasting effects, to specify that even when the magic ceases (because instantaneous) the side effects still persist.




That's just the Oberoni Fallacy, stacking permanent undispellable buffs works RAW.

Oberoni Fallacy doesn't apply when the rules being ignored are from another game. This really is comparing apples and oranges. Granted, this is something that the DM will have to take into account if he wants to use Mages in a 3.P game (just as he would for any conversion between different games), but there is nothing in the WoD d20 book that implies that Instantaneous = Permanent but undispellable. Nothing. And there is much clearly stating the opposite. This is like arguing for Iterative Attacks based on your BAB when playing Starfinder (the Pathfinder in space game that doesn't have Iterative Attacks, though it still has BAB, etc.) works by RAW. RAW only applies to the game it was written for, not any others.

The Duration section says...

This component determines how long the spell lasts. The Duration refers only to ongoing magical effects, as the consequences of these effects may last much longer than the spell (see “Spell Duration,” Lasting Effects, above).
When you look at this (copied directly from the Duration Components table)...


Cost
Effect


0
Instantaneous


50
Permanent. The magic is ongoing; magic-negating effects can interrupt of break the spell.


It is clearly stated that this is how long the "ongoing magical effects" will last. Can you, personally, honestly say that you think that the Instantaneous option creates a permanent "ongoing magical effect" that cannot be removed? I don't think that you can.

When looking at variant games for ideas it is very important that you view them in a bubble , isolated from other systems, when you evaluate them. When you carry in the baggage from every other system you are familiar with you start seeing problems where they don't exist (and probably miss any problems that do exist).

In this case, Mages can do what is stated in the WoD d20 book, nothing more, nothing less. There may be problems with the system, but not the ones you are implying.