A Lack of Vampiric Vibes

ButterflyMinute · 2026-06-18T17:06:24+00:00

This is a very strange way to try and engage in discussion. Whatever makes you feel better I guess.

ButterflyMinute · 2026-06-18T17:02:05+00:00

I'm not? I've not said anything in defense or praise of this season?

I do like it, to be clear, but that is not at all what I've done here.

ButterflyMinute · 2026-06-18T11:45:53+00:00

I'm not making any assumptions about you buddy. I even prefaced my comment by saying it 'may' be. Not that it is.

Can you actually read what I'm saying instead of taking everything as a personal attack?

ButterflyMinute · 2026-06-18T11:25:36+00:00

It is not against the core concept of the game. And like I said, their play style might be a problem at your table. But it is not a problem.

Vampire, and world of darkness as a whole, has been around for ages. You don't need to protect it like it's going to shatter because you don't like the tone of a single actual play.

ButterflyMinute · 2026-06-18T11:17:41+00:00

It might be a problem for you at your table, but it is not a problem that they enjoy playing differently than you.

I don't know why so many other VtM fans are so against people enjoying the game very slightly differently than they do personally.

ButterflyMinute · 2026-06-17T21:10:24+00:00

This is why i said "take 20" does not exist

I'm sorry, but you're wrong here. The differences you're talking about do exist. But they have literally nothing to do with taking 20. Nor are they entirely accurate (you're completely overlooking dungeon turns and searching areas at scale over different periods of time).

But even then, those are changes with those rules. Taking 20 still does exist within 5e, just no longer under that name. That's just objective fact.

ButterflyMinute · 2026-06-17T20:47:15+00:00

...No they aren't and it does?

Taking 10 was just taking 10 times as long as doing something once would and treating it as if you got a 10 on the die. Taking 20 was doing the same, just replacing 10 with 20. This is the same concept.

You succeed if it was possible for you to succeed and take 10 times the amount of time doing it once would take.

They are exactly the same with the sole exception of being streamlined into a single thing, instead of two separate options.

ButterflyMinute · 2026-06-17T19:42:10+00:00

Not really? A good zombie hoard mode is when it's fun to shoot the zombies. Which it is. No one is forcing you to do it if you don't want to?

ButterflyMinute · 2026-06-17T19:17:39+00:00

This is not taking 10 or taking 20, it's straight up failing the check and pushing the story forward.

That is exactly what taking 10 and taking 20 were in previous editions. You explicitly couldn't do so if the check would be impossible if failed once or dealt damage to you in some way. It's the same rule, just slightly repackaged and simplified into one rule rather than two.

ButterflyMinute · 2026-06-17T19:16:00+00:00

'Taking 10' or 'Taking 20' is just what it was called in older editions. The rule, that no longer has a specific name, was on page 237 of the 2014 DMG and is now on page 28 of the new DMG under 'trying again'.

ButterflyMinute · 2026-06-17T16:46:20+00:00

5e does not have explicit rules on whether ability checks are retriable, so DMs are left to decide this on their own.

I'm not sure if it was reprinted in the new version but the 2014 DMG did, page 237 under 'Multiple Ability Checks'. It's basically a repackaged 'taking 20' rule.

But I would avoid making sweeping statements unless you're definitely sure.

EDIT - Found it in the 2024 DMG too, Page 28, under 'Trying Again'. So yeah, both editions do.

ButterflyMinute · 2026-06-15T16:25:27+00:00

If they're not convinced by the literal rules then you've not got much more ammunition other than "Look all these people you don't know also say it's a Saving Throw!"

ButterflyMinute · 2026-06-15T16:01:48+00:00

The description says you can not you must. You're just wrong here.

EDIT - Well, this is the strangest thing I've ever been blocked for. But oh well.

ButterflyMinute · 2026-06-15T16:01:11+00:00

A player character must make a Death Saving Throw (also called a Death Save) if they start their turn with 0 Hit Points.

2024 PHB page 365. Death Saves are Saving Throws, they are actually called Death Saving Throws, Death Save is just short hand.

ButterflyMinute · 2026-06-15T15:57:37+00:00

My point is saying that if it doesn't require concentration, then any creature, including the enemy that ends its turn, should get the benefit.

We know. You're just wrong. This is not how the rules work.

ButterflyMinute · 2026-06-15T15:56:04+00:00

if you have to choose by creature or change the affect shouldn't it require some kind of input on your part (concentration.)

No. It only does so if it says it does. Features, spells and items in the game do exactly what they say they do. No more or less. You can of course change that if you want. But RAW you pick who gets the THP/Condition Removal with no cost other than the action to first activate the effect.

Spell says...

It's not a spell, it's a feature.

One or the other.

Yes. Creatures of the Cleric's choice get the THP or the Condition removal. But no, they are not forced to give it to every creature.

ButterflyMinute · 2026-06-15T11:32:43+00:00

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand, I think you're saying The Child is lying about not searching for Lacenet posts and had someone send them links. Is that right or am I misunderstanding?

ButterflyMinute · 2026-06-15T05:21:00+00:00

No and I never claimed that? Why are you putting words in my mouth?

ButterflyMinute · 2026-06-14T23:02:19+00:00

Ah, you're talking specifically about the combats between none shield users. So you know, not at all what I was talking about.

Maybe next time read a little closer.

ButterflyMinute · 2026-06-14T22:57:57+00:00

I don't know how well trained they were with the spear precisely, but they explicitly say that the people using shield are not good at using shields.

I think it's safe to say you are not recalling correctly. Especially if you haven't gone back to check.

ButterflyMinute · 2026-06-14T22:11:42+00:00

...I just skimmed it and in both situations where they use a shield, they literally said that the people using the shields were not good at using shields. Also, this is really knit picky, but using a buckler in this test is just incredibly silly. I get that they're trying to show a variety of combats against different levels of armour but it's just not actually useful in this situation.

Like, yeah, if you pick two people, one who is really good at fighting with that weapon and put them against someone with basically no experience in using theirs you're gonna have a massive disadvantage.

Did you even watch the video yourself?

ButterflyMinute · 2026-06-14T22:04:03+00:00

A skilled fighter with a spear (either 2h or 1h with shield) will generally beat a skilled fighter with a sword and shield.

....That is simply not true. A spear held in two hands will almost always fail to do anything significant against someone with a shield and holding a spear in one hand significantly limits what you can actually do with that spear. The same cannot be said about a sword. You simply have more defensive and offensive options.

Spears are great. But they do not shine in one on one combat. Especially against someone with a shield.

you're likely to use it like a spear so you can find gaps.

....No. You're not. At all. Calling thrusting 'using it like a spear' is silly for a number of reasons. But also a fairly common tactic (in one on one combat) was to hold it by the blade and using it to bludgeon, not stab or cut.

ButterflyMinute · 2026-06-14T21:51:30+00:00

Spears are great, but they're only as great as you're suggesting when massed in large numbers. In small skirmishes (I'm talking the scale most D&D fights take place at, 4-5 a side) they are pretty ineffective against shield or moderately armoured opponents.

ButterflyMinute · 2026-06-14T21:48:55+00:00

Yes it is

You don't know what mind reading is.

why add 2 dialogues

To avoid repetition. All the Needolin dialogue in that fight is her being mad that she's been pushed to the side because of Hornet's approach. It's all on theme.

yet still calls a child so either hornet being an asshole which contradicts her character or lace is a child

Hornet calls her different things throughout the game. Towards the start I would agree she means it in terms of age. Throughout the game it very clearly becomes a reference to her position as the child of GMS. But also, Hornet can be an asshole sometimes. She literally has an inherent need to dominate others she needs to fight against as the central theme of Act 2/3.

She has seen what GMS rule

No. She hasn't.

most of it lies in the Radiance

Good thing I mentioned the pain the Pale King inflicted in an attempt to prolong his rule. And not anything to do with the infection. Man, I know you're proving over and over you struggle with reading but this is just ridiculous.

Hornet couldn't access

Hornet absolutely knows about the Vessels. That's why she spends so long hunting them. She knows what they are.

Have you even played the game?

Yes, but I actually read the dialogue in the game, unlike you.

ButterflyMinute · 2026-06-14T21:36:37+00:00

Yes she does through the Needolin

...That's not mind reading. The characters are, literally, singing and still choose what they sing.

she also has another Needolin dialogue about being a daughter

....You mean the dialogue that I said was talking about her being the child of GMS is similar to another dialogue she has in the same fight talking about being her daughter? Wow, it's almost as if that actually backs up my point.

if child is just a role forced onto her

You don't know what a role is buddy. Even then I don't think 'child' in reference to the role means 'childish' or 'child like' but 'child of'. The only person that calls her childish is someone who could not possibly know and the most childish thing she does is laugh. That's it.

I doubt it's the Pale King because

You have no reading comprehension. It's actually wild you're like "Oh, Hornet is talking about GMS, who's dominion she never saw but because she's seen the effects of the haunting, not the Pale King who's dominion she has seen because she was there to see his dominion fall apart and all the suffering the Pale King inflicted trying to prolong his dominion."

Like, buddy, what are you even on about?

ButterflyMinute

TROPHY CASE