Typo thread

[Deadmanwalking]

This may be too late, but the Blessed Words stunt in the Stunts chapter, and that in the NPC descriptions in the Baltimore chapter are not the same Stunt (one lets you Block with Conviction, the other Maneuver). Both are valid Stunts, but one needs a name change.

[iago]

This may be too late, but the Blessed Words stunt in the Stunts chapter, and that in the NPC descriptions in the Baltimore chapter are not the same Stunt (one lets you Block with Conviction, the other Maneuver). Both are valid Stunts, but one needs a name change.

Changing the stunts one to "Devout Words".

[John Anderson]

Hi all,
First post and it's for errata. My bad. I don't think this has been mentioned before and I've read and re-read it a couple of times, but it still doesn't seem right. My apologies if I'm just reading it wrong.

Harry yells “Fuego!” as he points his blasting rod, sending a column of flame at the vampire, an attack at Legendary rated at Weapon:8. The vampire rolls to defend against Harry’s roll of Legendary and gets a Great (+4), which means the blast strikes home and inflicts a 12-stress hit on him.

Page 251

Is that right? Defending against a Weapon:8 spell with a roll of Great (+4) results in the defence being added to the attack? Or should it read "...and gets a Great (+4), which means...a 4-stress hit..."

John

[Deadmanwalking]

No, it works like an ordinary attack (which deal extra damage based on how much the attack succeeded by), so since Harry got an 8 to hit, and they only got a 4 to dodge, he would've done a 4-stress hit even if he'd had Weapon 0*. Since it was Weapon 8, the total is 12.



*This is impossible with magic, but just go with it, it's an example

[Korwin]

Harry in the example has an +8 Weapon (base damage) and an +8 Attack (Discipline roll).
If the defender didnt get an +4 (Great) Defense roll, but an +0. He would get an +16 Damage.

Since he did get an +4 (Great) Defense... +16 - 4 = +12

[iago]

The above explanations of the example are correct.

[John Anderson]

That does make a whole lot more sense. Many thanks for clarifying that.
John

[Tush Hog]

OW98 Ancient Mai 3rd paragraph says .....it should more about....
Maybe needs the word "be" after should?

[iago]

OW98 Ancient Mai 3rd paragraph says .....it should more about....
Maybe needs the word "be" after should?

Good catch!

[KOFFEYKID]

I dont know if this has been mentioned or not, but it looks like Martin (OW PG 189) and Susan Rodriguez (OW PG 219) don't have a catch attached to their Inhuman Recovery.

[iago]

I dont know if this has been mentioned or not, but it looks like Martin (OW PG 189) and Susan Rodriguez (OW PG 219) don't have a catch attached to their Inhuman Recovery.

Yeah. When someone has a zero-point Catch, we've tended to leave it off. It's not clear that infectees have the same vulnerabilities that full vampires of the Court do.

[Deadmanwalking]

Yeah. When someone has a zero-point Catch, we've tended to leave it off. It's not clear that infectees have the same vulnerabilities that full vampires of the Court do.

Interesting. That's not what it says on YS p. 80 under the Red Court Infected Template. That specifies that you need the Red Court Catch on any Toughness abilities. That should probably be clarified if it's not quite the case.

[iago]

Interesting. That's not what it says on YS p. 80 under the Red Court Infected Template. That specifies that you need the Red Court Catch on any Toughness abilities. That should probably be clarified if it's not quite the case.

Yeah, crap. I really wish this stuff was sorted out already by now. Fuck.

[KOFFEYKID]

We know they are affected by the things that hurt the full vamps. Susan enjoys sunbathing because it helps her control her bloodlust.

[Deadmanwalking]

We know they are affected by the things that hurt the full vamps. Susan enjoys sunbathing because it helps her control her bloodlust.

Right, and Amorrachius burned her when she touched it.

(click to show/hide)

Up until events in Changes, anyway. And that was a special case.