My perspective

[Marius]

Jason,

I know you read this patiently because that's the guy you are, but please don't reverse your position on simultaneous challenges. The rules might say that players have to defend against a challenge, then respond with a challenge of their own (unless they have alacrity) but aside from doubling the number of challenges thrown in a round, the only other effect of insisting on initiatives in combat is to reduce the number and type of skill traits spent per round. Your system rewards crackerjacks (people who specialize) rather than jack of all trades (people who have lower skills but more variety).

As for the weapon traits, I actually think they should factor into initiative if you do decide to start using them. Afterall, if I have a greatsword and you have a knife, I do have the advantage over you. I might have to pay extra physical traits to wield it, but you are going to have to get inside my swing before you can bring your knife to bear.
That argument makes less sense with guns until you remember that anyone shooting a gun at point blank range was stupid to let a melee fighter get that close and deserves to get his ass handed to him. The whole point of a gun is to be at range and it needs to be aimed and fired at arm's length. That can definitely take more time than swinging a sword. Larger guns shoot better from the hip so it does make more sense that they have more traits. In the end, yes, a Greatsword goes before a gun because the gunwielder needs to aim and the only way the greatsword's traits make a significant advantage there is if the gunwielder was stupid enough to let a melee fighter get close. That seems like plenty of justification for keeping maintaining the status quo.

Finally, I think that the Speed ability is a good argument for weapon traits being included in initiative. If you continue with the practice of simultaneous action vs action, instead of initiative based action vs. defense, then defense vs. action, then weapons with the Speed ability (low trait weapons) actually have the advantage in combat, because they can respond to the attackers declaration, without sacrificing the ability to deal damage simultaneously if they choose.

Frankly, Scott's interpretation is just that, his interpretation and I have no trouble making your interpretation seem realistic if I allow myself a little imagination, and open my mind to seeing it from a new perspective.

SAM

PS - Scott, the mental, social, physical order of challenges was a house rule grandfathered in from first edition MET in Underpup.

[Solomon Gargoyle]

Your wrong on weapon traits and initiative Sam. The book specifically states that weapon traits are NOT used in initiative. Page 201, 2cd paragraph, Sentence 3. "These Traits cannot be used as an initial bid. Instead they add to the user's total when she is comparing Traits." So NO. They do not add to initiative whatsoever. None. The Greatsword example only works when comparing traits. It would work for attacking and defense. NOT for seeing who goes first. Besides which, the knife has the Speed Ability which works vs items that are heavy, slow or clumsy. Which a Greatsword has.

You need to read up on Speed Ability. It does NOT allow you to add the weapons traits to your initial bid. All it does is give you the pre-empt ability, thus allowing you to attack first if and only if the other guy is using a weapon that has Clumsy, Heavy or Slow as a neg trait. So a dagger fighter would go before a greatsword user. However he would have to deal with the problem of the other guy having more traits. So while he'd get the first attack of, it most likely wouldn't hit unless he has more traits, wins outright or has win all ties abilities.

Order of challenges is on page 196 btw and it does say the person with more traits should be going first in a challenge. (Keeping in mind weapons traits don't help.)

Pre-empt does indeed allow you to go first and going first is indeed important in a fight. Even if it doesn't, going first and taking someone out before they can do something should be allowed. Going simultaneously regardless of traits is unrealistic and someone with more traits should indeed be going first. An elder with 20 traits is gonna go at the same time as a mere mortal with 8? Bullcrap. He should be far far faster than any mortal. Even without celerity. And celerity is supposed to make it so you can go first. And I've SEEN you yourself use pre-empt to go first once before and now your arguing against it? Initiative needs to be used. People should not always be going at the same time. I should not be going at the same time as some mortal when I've got far more traits than him and/or celerity.

Frankly, my interpretation is NOT just my interpretation. Some of it is from the book as I have proven.

[Anna Russo]

That argument makes less sense with guns until you remember that anyone shooting a gun at point blank range was stupid to let a melee fighter get that close and deserves to get his ass handed to him. The whole point of a gun is to be at range and it needs to be aimed and fired at arm's length. That can definitely take more time than swinging a sword. Larger guns shoot better from the hip so it does make more sense that they have more traits. In the end, yes, a Greatsword goes before a gun because the gunwielder needs to aim and the only way the greatsword's traits make a significant advantage there is if the gunwielder was stupid enough to let a melee fighter get close. That seems like plenty of justification for keeping maintaining the status quo.

Hey look...We're still around, LOL!

Just throwing my $.02 in (no clue what prompted the rules discussion, but honestly I'm not sure that matters...) Every law enforcement person I've known in my life has observed that 30 yards or closer, if the person has a gun, you go on the offense. If they have knife, you go on the defense. Within running distance (roughly 30 yards), a knife is far more dangerous, and quicker, than a gun (particularly if your gun is not already in hand...)

Your wrong on weapon traits and initiative Sam. The book specifically states that weapon traits are NOT used in initiative. Page 201, 2cd paragraph, Sentence 3. "These Traits cannot be used as an initial bid. Instead they add to the user's total when she is comparing Traits." So NO. They do not add to initiative whatsoever. None. The Greatsword example only works when comparing traits. It would work for attacking and defense. NOT for seeing who goes first. Besides which, the knife has the Speed Ability which works vs items that are heavy, slow or clumsy. Which a Greatsword has.

While I understand the point of the book, I think it's not only impractical, but also mostly wrong. In general, a blade at even semi-close distance (within running range) has a bigger change of doing damage that would render the gun attack useless, if not impossible, than a gun within the same range, even if both weapons are drawn at the same point (due to the person with the knife being able to zigzag, etc...) If, within real life and thus two humans, a knife is more dangerous...than honestly, between any vampire (thus with heightened ability) and a human...the vamp is going to be ahead of the game.

Just my $.02 though...

[Solomon Gargoyle]

That's not how the traits work. They don't add to initiative. Then everyone should use longbows and Greatswords? Forget guns? That's really silly. Longbows give +6 traits. So the longbow is faster than a gun? Your inviting people then to just use whatever has the most traits. And a gun is still faster. You just pull the trigger. Weapon traits should definitely NOT be added to initiative. They are used when someone ties and needs to compare traits. That's it.

I also know some police too and some soldiers and the gun is still more deadly. They realize the knife IS deadly at that range but a gun is still more deadly.

[Theseus Ahroun]

Bottom line in the rules are rules discussion is as written in the books ST's have oversight and the ability to not only pick or choose which rules to use in the game they are running.

In this case I like the option that was offered up I believe a couple months back when this topic was first discussed, those with Alacrity can choose to declare that in order to declare there action last. In a sense allowing them to more freely react to what is going on in that round.

Personally I prefer the way things are being handled with the contested challenges currently. Worst that happens in the current system is you loose the challenge you suffer from whatever your opponent is trying to do, loose a trait and possibly a retest. If challenges are handled individually in the worst case you still suffer from whatever your opponent is trying to do, loose 2 traits and possibly 2 retests not to mention to resolve a single action it becomes more of a cluster with easily twice as many chops. The nights we end up in combat such as last night things can drag on forever and tweaking the rules would only increase that.

Also to add on any weapon in a skilled persons hands can be instantly fatal in the real world. While a single small caliber gun shot can be fatal in the real world it takes multiple shots to get the same result in the WoD. Cops don't back away from the knife wielding loony because the knife is necessarily more dangerous in close combat, a skilled marksman can squeeze off an accurate shot with there pistol at point blank as easily as anyone could swing a knife. They back away, or move to disarm, because it only takes one lucky shot for them to have a really bad night and there gun is every bit as dangerous out of the knifes range as it is in the knifes range.

[Marius]

Scott,

Just because someone has read the book doesn't mean they understand the rules. Though some people are good at quoting rules, that doesn't mean their interpretation is the only one. For example, the sentence:

"These Traits cannot be used as an initial bid. Instead they add to the user's total when she is comparing Traits."

...doesn't sound like it has anything to do at all with initiative. It has to do with declaring traits for a challenge. The word initial and initiative have the same root, but don't mean the same thing. Now, during initiative, you compare traits. Sounds like this sentence DOES tell you to add them to trait totals during initiative. But that's my interpretation. It's different from yours.

It find it a little strange that you can't recognize the difference between interpreting the rules and reading the rules.

SAM

[Solomon Gargoyle]

@Ryan, still need a way to go first. Sometimes it's important as hell to get off that first attack or first action. (In fact a lot of the time it is.) If everyone is simultaneous there is no way to stop someone from doing something. Say someone has a bomb and you really want to stop them from activating it. Can't do it since all actions are at the same time. Sniper gonna take someone out you'd rather they not? Can't do it cause it happens at the same time. Don't want a fight to happen at all and want to do a social challenge, you can't cause everything happens at the same time. Elder vamps really should be going before the neonates and mortals. Jason did say something about how he wanted to make some of the "bosses" tougher. Well that's one way. If they were going first, as they should be if they have more traits, they would get off the Alpha strike attack.

@ Sam, you don't add them for initiative. Weapons don't have descriptor traits, and when you do the initial bid you have to declare a trait. It states that as well under initial bids. If they were added then why not everyone just use longbows and greatswords? They have the most traits. Then longbow would always go before someone with a gun? That doesn't sound right at all.

[Solomon Gargoyle]

It find it a little strange that you can't recognize the difference between interpreting the rules and reading the rules.

SAM

That sounds a bit rude. Was that your intention?

[Solomon Gargoyle]

Another problem with everything happening at the same time is that shouldn't that mean then that you can't change the action you were doing initially? If I'm a sniper who is gonna shoot someone and you sneak up and hit me just as I'm shooting, doesn't that mean I'd still be shooting that person and NOT reacting to your attack? Doesn't that also mean that when I do act I shouldn't have my wound penalties yet because my action was at the same time as yours?

[Marius]

Solomon wrote:

Marius wrote:
It find it a little strange that you can't recognize the difference between interpreting the rules and reading the rules.

That sounds a bit rude. Was that your intention?

Actually no. How I originally wrote it was rude. That was my attempt to not be rude. It does seem to me that you are failing to distinguish between interpretation and reading, and I find that unusual enough to remark on. I guess I'm not politic enough to phrase that in a way that cossets your feelings.

I also feel I need to remark on the fact that you changed the subject rather than admit you are accusing us of breaking rules when in reality we are just interpretting the rules differently than you. I admitted you were right about initiatives being in the rules, but I like the current houserules more for all of the same reasons as Ryan.

[Solomon Gargoyle]

I dislike them because you are not able to go before someone and prevent them from doing something under those rules, which should be allowed. At the very least if you already have your weapon out or are not using your pre-empt to draw a weapon you should be able to use it to go before someone. But that would still mean a non physical or celerity character has no way to go before someone else.

I didn't accuse people of "breaking" the rules. I said it seems there was a lot of confusion on initiative though.

[Marius]

You're right. under these rules, a celerity action doesn't allow you to go first, and that's okay. There isn't any confusion (except on your part), and we appreciate that simultaneous resolution reduces the number of chops we have to throw.

@ Sam, you don't add them for initiative.

You haven't shown me anywhere it says that. Until you find somewhere in the rulebook where it says: 'Do not add weapon traits when comparing traits for initiative.' you are the one that is wrong here.

Weapons don't have descriptor traits, and when you do the initial bid you have to declare a trait. It states that as well under initial bids.

You are confused an initial bid and initiative again. When determining initiative (which is pointless when we use simultaneous resolution anyway), you compare traits. The book says you add weapon traits when comparing traits. Stop guessing at the rules and read them.

Then longbow would always go before someone with a gun? That doesn't sound right at all.

It doesn't matter what you think 'sounds right'. What matters is what the rules say. This is another example of you trying to interpret rules instead of read them. If you want everyone to play by your rules. Go write a set of rules instead of trying to rewrite the rules to make more sense to you. It's annoying to have you stop and argue a point with a storyteller when I would like to avoid tedious arguing and just play.

[Solomon Gargoyle]

The rules do indeed allow someone to go first with a pre-empt.

The rules do indeed say you don't add weapons traits to initiative. You have to bid a trait in the initial bid. Weapons do not have traits like a PC does and furthermore it says you do not use weapons traits in the initial bid. Thus I am indeed right on this. Your the one guessing at rules and trying to interpret them to benefit yourself. I have indeed shown you were it says that. You choose to ignore it and put in your own interpretation, which is exactly what your accusing me of doing.

We aren't going to agree ever and I agree to continue to disagree.

[Marius]

Initial bid=Your descriptor trait
Initiative=Comparing traits to determine who acts first

If we don't agree on that, then yes, we are both interpretting the rules differently, but it said that weapons do add when comparing traits. So I think they add to initiative. Sorry you disagree with me, but that doesn't mean I am wrong. The rules YOU quoted support me.

And reread Alacrity. It never says 'go first' it says 'respond with a challenge instead of just defending'.

[Solomon Gargoyle]

Initial bid=Your descriptor trait
Initiative=Comparing traits to determine who acts first

If we don't agree on that, then yes, we are both interpretting the rules differently, but it said that weapons do add when comparing traits. So I think they add to initiative. Sorry you disagree with me, but that doesn't mean I am wrong. The rules YOU quoted support me.

And reread Alacrity. It never says 'go first' it says 'respond with a challenge instead of just defending'.

Yes it does. Last sentence. "If you attempt to preempt someone using Celerity or a similar speed enchancing power the character with the highest degree of Celerity acts first." Logic would then dictate that if someone has zero levels would go after someone who had celerity. Also what about the sentence about getting in the way of an ally to defend them against an aggressor hmm? If you couldn't go first how could you do that? The actions would be at the same time.

No, what I said about weapons did NOT support you. Initial bid is essentially initiative. Weapons do not add to that bid. It specifically says that in the book. They mean comparing traits in the case of a tie. Not initiative. By your interpretation everyone should use longbows and greatswords because they have the most traits. A gunman would never go before someone with a longbow.

[Marius]

The example in the book under Alacrity does not support your conclusion. I'm going to have to disregard your argument in favor of the example in the book. When you use words like 'logic woul then dictate' and 'essentially' and 'they mean', you are interpretting the rules. Stop interpretting the rules. You didn't write them. Stop trying to tell me what 'they meant' and just read the rules. If you can't do that, stop pretending that your interpretation is the only one that exists. Here is why I feel that my claims are not an interpretation.

How do you determine initiative?

You compare who has the highest traits.

When are you allowed to use weapon traits?

When comparing traits.

These are not interpretations. They come straight out of the rules. You are the one who wants initial bid to mean initiative. It doesn't. And guess what. It doesn't matter unless Jason decides to adopt cumbersome initiative rules.

Jason,

Please don't bother with cumbersome initiative rules. They may be important in a larger game, but in the size of game we are in, it has only come up once in any significant manner in 6 months.

Thank you,

SAM

[Solomon Gargoyle]

Your claims ARE an interpretation and it does say that you go first. I quoted it and like you've been doing this whole time you ignored it. It's pointless to argue with you because just like Marius you wordplay everything.

Jason,

Actually initiative is important. Sometimes at the very least people should go first. How can you stop an action someone else is taking you'd rather not happen? If everything goes at the same time then how could you possibly change your action? It's simultaneous. So if I was shooting at someone and someone else attacks me, wouldn't my previous action still be in place? Also if it's simultaneous then any wound penalties and such shouldn't actually take affect until the next round because we all go at the same time. They actually have indeed come up in a significant manner. I remember quite a few times when people really needed to go first, even if Sam doesn't.

[Solomon Gargoyle]

So you really are saying someone with a longbow would always go before someone with a gun? Wow.

[Theseus Ahroun]

Scott, you can still interupt somebodies action with the current rule set, though there are some actions that require very specific phrasing of your action and intent. For example if someone's action is to activate the bomb they have strapped to themselves and your action is to potently knock there hand away from the switch and you win the chops guess what. You have successfully interupted that action.

Bottom line in a small game like this where all the players get along pretty well the simplest solution will typically be the best. If we had a playerbase that I felt looked for loopholes to get an advantage against eachother in a detrimental way I would be more eager to get the ST's to mediate how Alacrity was used in the game but I don't believe we don't. I also don't believe J or D have regular access to the net just yet so it's doubtful either will see this discussion for quite some time.

[Marius]

I thought J and D got their internet back. Well then, I don't need to be here. I can go back to ignoring Scott's whining.

[Solomon Gargoyle]

I thought J and D got their internet back. Well then, I don't need to be here. I can go back to ignoring Scott's whining.

Pot. Kettle. Black. Grow up and have a argument without resorting to being rude, or is that totally beyond you when you cannot win? To quote you "I find it strange" that you say I'm rude but when you cannot convince me in an argument you resort to being rude. Simply accept you and I cannot agree and move the hell on. There is no need for insults at all. We are already both upset. Your comment does no one any good.

Found this under Bonus Traits Page 196: Certain weapons and special powers grant bonus traits during a challenge. You may add these traits toward a character's total when determining a tie involving that weapon or special ability. A tie. Not during an initial bid or initiative.

[Solomon Gargoyle]

Since this came up:
Thamaturgy page 177 Paragraph 3, sentence 3+4: "Unless otherwise noted, casting Thamaturgy takes a full turn and the magic takes effect at the time of your action. You cannot accelerate Thamaturgy with speed-enchancing powers such as Celerity." So that sounds like you can't use alacrity with it. Besides, I believe their MIGHT be a path or some whacky combo discipline that can do something to speed up tham or allow you to use two thamaturgical actions.

[Patrick Connely]

Thaum happens on the everyman. Even if someone drudges up some weird path that works with celerity I won't allow it.

However, you can still activate celerity and do non casting things during your pre-emptive and celerity actions.

For example. Cast...slash...slash with sword. Or Cast, run back 3 steps, run back 3 steps.

[Solomon Gargoyle]

It specifically says Thaum takes a full turn to use, unless otherwise noted, so like you CAN do hands of Flame and use celerity with it. You couldn't use Celerity the same round your using Thaum. You can't cast and then do something else. You cast your magics and that's it. Edit: (Also, even if you could, thuam requires a blood trait to use any of it. So you'd have to be at least 9th gen to activate Cel and Thaum.)

[Patrick Connely]

"Unless otherwise noted, casting Thamaturgy takes a full turn and the magic takes effect at the time of your action. You cannot accelerate Thamaturgy with speed-enchancing powers such as Celerity."

I see your argument scott.

You're saying that a round is a set block of time. That celerity allows you to do more things during that set amount of time. Since casting, in most cases, has a length of time equal to the Every man round, trying to squeeze in 2 more celerity actions on top of the every man is like trying to hurry your casting to get it all in the same block of time.

Where as my interpretation has been that celerity is extra time tacked onto the Every Man round. That you can not use celerity in conjunction with thaumaturgy because the somantic and verbal cue's of casting must be done at a certain speed / intonation of voice. The actions are basically too complex and precise to be done at a high rate of speed. My interpretation does not make as much logical sense as your interpretation scott. However, I do feel that the game is enriched by my interpretation, and allows for more interesting combats, as well as gives tremere a much needed tactical boost. After all, take this last session for example. Win all Ties is king, at least a tremere with a bit of celerity can run from you. If you're sporting Win all Ties they will be damn lucky to get a spell off, before you re-arrange their face.

So, while it may seem like an illogical decision, there is a reason for my madness. I only hope that some day you will begin to have faith in my decisions instead of challenging my rulings.

[Sponsored content]