u/MILTON1997

No worries! Being new as well as solo play is a pretty interesting and fun time imo! Be confident in your interpretations and how you fill in the rulings of the game. It's very hard to go wrong imo.

Your example is pretty close. but basically the Deft Warlock would be leveraging their skills and tools, rather than just popping up a fireball. That Demonic Codex could be relevant to help task rolls about evil entities, figure out weaknesses, gain an upper hand when directly dealing with such creatures, etc. I could totally see a Deft Warlock doing the near impossible and figuring out how to get a demon to help them out and provide some service. But it is definitely a slower, more skill and tool focused route that needs some legwork compared to a Wise Sorcerer with Summon Demonic Servant haha.

A Deft Wizard wouldn't pay HP for miracles because those are the rules for the Wise class. The attunements wouldn't be miracles, they would follow the rules and mechanics of the Deft class.

Edit: as an example, consider a Deft Warlock attuned to a Demonic Codex, which they use to get their bonus when negotiating or making pacts with demons and evil creatures. Or they attune to the creepy staff the party found in the dungeon and can more efficiently use it/stretch its abilities than other characters would be able to. So It's not big flashy miracles, it's relying on skills, teachings, and objects as per usual.

Some careful reading is needed, but hopefully this helped!

As for your follow-ups:

• Expanding on the Deft Wizard example, think of the classes as "how does this character mechanically adventure", with groups being the "who is this character and what do they know" for ease of use. So what does gameplay look like with such a character? It looks like a Deft character using their skill, items, and teaching to go above and beyond other characters! They probably just have a magical bend due to the "who" of the character e.g. demonic familiars, arcane scrolls or ritual implements as attunements, etc.
• Attunements are, to put plainly, things a Deft character can use to justify using their extreme skill to get special difficulty rules. You get two to a slot (1 active, 1 inactive) and there are limits on what they can be e.g., teacher, item ,etc. That's pretty much it.
• As Deft character go up in level they gain additional slots that they fill with more attunements, each active attunment being invocable once per day. If an attunment is lost or destroyed, it cannot be gained short of divine aid or some sort of means beyond the written rules.

For attunments in action, check the example on p. 21 about a Deft character being attuned to a bow.

That's a fair amount of questions! In teach-a-man-to-fish style, I'll cite a bunch of pages, since they do lay out your answers. In loose order:

- For the classic classes, there is *loose* correlation between Strong = Fighter, Wise = Magic-User/Cleric, and Deft = Thief in that those archetypes easily accommodate such characters and their HP gain/XP requirements are comparable. As for weird combos, see my later answer re: Groups.

- Those "tags" on characters are called Groups. They define the "who" of the character, e.g. I am a Strong *Mercenary* (Vocation) of the *Iron Company* (Association). Check out p. 41 that easily lays out all the info on them and how they are used. Since "Wizard" has nothing to do with class here, something like a Deft Wizard is perfectly easy to do.

- The Strong looting ability can be as mundane (chopped off a fang) or as magical (full-on Blue Mage essence copy) or mystical (the spirit of the dragon lingers on you giving gold sense) as a player likes for their character. It should be pretty easy to work out what is appropriate or "feels right" based on concept. A Strong Mutant-spawn could totally do some regen stealing. A Strong Bandit probably does pretty mundane looting. See p. 34 for the limitations and how it works.

- Regarding miracles, that covers any "arcane negotiations with environmental forces", and chemists are explicit called out alongside wizards, cultists, etc. A Wise Alchemist is perfectly good here. See p. 20 for a miracle costing example, reread the Wise page, then my Miracle 101 to set you up on costing. Then Miracle 201 to learn more.

- It can totally be that easy. HD, SV, MV, and some keywords and you're good to go. The monster listings show great examples of minimal stat lines. The example monsters starting on p.123 show how these an be expanded to a paragraph or two as desired. I have a Monsters 101 post as well that might help.

Also probably good to check the easy rules ref and other useful links pinned on the sub here. Happy hacking!

Yep this is right of it. Teachers and places might be a bit harder to lose, a vehicle, item, or pet are a lot more present and vulnerable to being stolen/destroyed/slain/etc.

Actually replacing a truly ruined attunement is beyond the standard rules, but very worthy of Divine Aid or an epic quest imo.

You're not wrong on the encouragement! That bit of the deft archetype is meant to enable classic dual-wielding and swashbuckling (if you have a combat vocation).

That offhand weapon can be any one-handed weapon, since there's no limitations listed, so swords are fair game. The bonus for dual wielding is pretty clear though: "[...] but get +1 to damage and DF from an off-hand weapon if their vocation is combat oriented."

As for why you'd wield anything else, there's plenty of reasons. Weight, ranged capability, concealability, magic considerations, etc. Missiles go first then lighter weapons on tied initiative for example. A deft assassin with daggers can be pretty potent often and at a greater range. A deft warrior with twin sabers might do more damage in a straight brawl. A deft duelist with a sword and a light dagger in the offhand is pretty flexible, being able to seize a tied initiative with the light blade, or use the longer one for more damage. All different concepts for different situations that benefit.

Perhaps I should I add a note to the FAQ! Last I heard from Christian on it was from late last year fwiw:

As for the White Curse, there's something about it that ain't right. I have several projects in such a stage. Sometimes they stay there seemingly indefinitely. At other times they break out of stasis after I suddenly see what the problem is, or come up with a different way to use it. It's all I can say.

Your observations on solving every problem with violence being a bad idea isn’t wrong. HP is short supply and if you look at the XP rewards for foes violence for violence sake alone is very much not worth it!

e.g. a 16 HD (!) dragon wouldn’t even net ~3500 XP. Split a few ways that’s nothing for such trouble! But XP would be a pitiful amount compared to the training its hoard could pay for or the quest XP to convince it to attack a foe’s castle.

So in classic old school spirit, it’s more that the enemy XP is meant to be a bit of extra on the side while quest and treasure carry most of a party’s advancement. And such questing or getting funds for training needn’t be violent at all. For example, winning a tournament and getting money and quest goals or stealing treasure to humiliate a rival temple.

I always liked Kevin Crawford's take on it in Wolves of God. It's very simple and generous which is key to avoiding that bad feeling of it probably not being worth giving up damage.

Special Combat Maneuvers

Some players are hesitant in battle, and think only to throw the dice for ordinary attacks, never trying to do anything else in a struggle. Some GMs are uneasy with inventive warriors, and do not know how to judge any effort that is not written out in a book. Both should learn better, lest their battles be tedious.

When a player wishes to do something that is not written here, such as hurling a brazier full of coals at a foe, or hacking down a post which an enemy is climbing, or overturning a hall-table before a foe to drive him back, the GM should not disallow it out of hand. Instead, he should measure it so.

If the effort requires striking a foe with something, make it an attack roll. If it requires manipulating some object around the foe but not directly attacking him with it, let it be a skill check, usually Exert, and perhaps opposed.

If it succeeds, let injurious effects do the same damage as the hero’s usual weapon damage, but +2 or +4 on the damage roll, because he thought of something clever in his fighting. If the effect is hindering rather than directly injurious, take away the enemy’s Main Action, or Move action as they struggle to deal with the vexation done to them. Actions that both hurt and hinder a foe might do both, or lesser measures of both.

So no penalties to trying this means you get some bonus damage for your troubles and you'll probably hinder the enemy. Similar to DCC's Might Deeds it incentivizes trying creative stuff often since there's little risk, especially compared to other common implementations that gate effects behind additional saves or make a choice between such maneuvers or damage.

Personally I'd recommend The Crimson Gutter. It's city neutral and meant to be an intro source book. Any of the story setups in there could serve as a good basis for an evening's session. It got a solid cast of characters ready to roll and a good chunk of material to riff off of.

Don't sweat the lore too much for a one shot though imo. It's a long and storied game in a long and storied setting. A one shot is for getting into the drama and action fast, rather than long term lore build ups or making sure some esoteric detail is "accurate" enough. The most important thing is gonna be knowing enough of the basic rules to facilitate players engaging in a simple session and a feel for pacing of things to keep it moving. That's my two cents away!

I think folks are mistaking the rules for mortals. Normal mortals in Revised/V20 do this, as do mages in Revised/M20, as you note. Garou have their own extended rules in Revised/W20, so Kindred in Revised edition onward are the exception to this.

Once bashing levels reach Incapacitated, mortals fall unconscious, but do not sink below Incapacitated… yet. However, any further bashing wounds are X’d over previous bashing ones, making them lethal. At that point, recovery is handled as lethal damage. In this way, a mortal can be slowly beaten to death.

V20, p. 286 concerning mortals and bashing damage

When a character who is Incapacitated due to bashing damage takes further bashing damage, each additional new bashing level of damage (while soaked like bashing damage) is marked with a second slash on the highest bashing level of damage, changing it into a level of lethal damage. In this way, bashing levels turn progressively into lethal damage levels. Once your character’s Health chart fills with lethal damage, the next level of damage, whether bashing, lethal or aggravated, kills her.

Mage Revised, p. 246 concerning mages and bashing damage

Funnily enough, DAV20 does something entirely different from all of these editions (including Dark Ages: Vampire!) and explicitly uses the form that seems to be a common misinterpretation here along with many other changes:

If the health track is full, further damage “upgrades” other damage to the next worst type. With a health track full of bashing damage, further bashing damage becomes lethal damage at the top of the track. When the health track fills with lethal damage, further lethal damage becomes aggravated.

DAV20, p. 352

Thanks. I only had it all on hand because this exact thing came up in my session just yesterday lol

When a vampire's health is filled with bashing the next hit upgrades to lethal and then after thats full aggravated.

This is actually not quite how it works. Other folks have pointed out in some of the comments but I wanted to cite the relevant sections under Torpor and each type of damage in the V20 book for some clarity. Outside of mortals, you actually won't find a rule that states that filled health track of bashing converts futher bashing to lethal that then converts further bashing to agg. damage for vampires. You don not actually go down the track twice or anything like that.

Final Death: If a vampire is at the Incapacitated health level or in torpor and takes one more level of aggravated damage, he dies permanently. A player’s character who meets Final Death is removed from the game; the player must create a new character if she wishes to continue play.
An incapacitated or torpid vampire may also be sent to Final Death through massive amounts of bashing or lethal trauma (decapitated, trapped under a 10-ton rock, fed into a wood chipper, caught at ground zero of an explosion, crushed by deep-sea pressure, etc.). Typically, this damage must be enough to destroy or dismember the corpse beyond repair.

V20, p. 284 concerning causes of final death

If your character falls to Incapacitated and then takes another level of bashing damage, she enters torpor (p. 283). If your character falls to Incapacitated due to bashing damage but then takes a level of aggravated damage, she meets Final Death.

V20, p. 285 concerning bashing damage (note here you can fall to incapacitation and torpor via bashing only! No mention of needing lethal here)

When your character’s Health boxes fill to Incapacitated and she takes a further level of lethal damage, she enters torpor (p. 283). If your character is reduced to Incapacitated via lethal damage, and she takes a further level of aggravated damage, she meets Final Death.

V20, p. 285 concerning lethal damage

Only under the "Mortals' Healing Times'" section do we get mention of the health track converting damage in that way, sans agg. damage of course (which is how other splats like Revised/20 Mage and Werewolf work).

Once bashing levels reach Incapacitated, mortals fall unconscious, but do not sink below Incapacitated… yet. However, any further bashing wounds are X’d over previous bashing ones, making them lethal. At that point, recovery is handled as lethal damage. In this way, a mortal can be slowly beaten to death.

V20, p. 286 concerning mortals and bashing damage

When a mortal sustains lethal damage down to Incapacitated, he’s one health level away from death. If he takes one more wound (whether bashing or lethal), he dies.

V20, p. 286 concerning mortals and lethal damage

TLDR: Those four dudes with stones would need to "destroy or dismember the corpse beyond repair" in order to actually kill a vampire and not just leave a very messy torpid vampire. We're talking a fully mushed and ruined head and/or body here.

I don't think that's mentioned on those pages though. Rather it says (emphasis mine):

Final Death: If a vampire is at the Incapacitated health level or in torpor and takes one more level of aggravated damage, he dies permanently. A player’s character who meets Final Death is removed from the game; the player must create a new character if she wishes to continue play.
An incapacitated or torpid vampire may also be sent to Final Death through massive amounts of bashing or lethal trauma (decapitated, trapped under a 10-ton rock, fed into a wood chipper, caught at ground zero of an explosion, crushed by deep-sea pressure, etc.). Typically, this damage must be enough to destroy or dismember the corpse beyond repair.

V20, p. 284

And then more clearly under "Lethal Damage" it further says:

When your character’s Health boxes fill to Incapacitated and she takes a further level of lethal damage, she enters torpor (p. 283). If your character is reduced to Incapacitated via lethal damage, and she takes a further level of aggravated damage, she meets Final Death.

V20, p. 285

It's quite the opposite, when not dealing with aggravated damage, an incredible amount of normal damage is needed to truly kill a torpid vampire.

This is a fun little bit of muddled rules in the systems design. Unlike mortals (full track damage type upgrades further damage for them, check “healing bashing damage on p. 285) and every other splat, vampires put into torpor via normal damage needs either aggregated or “a massive amount of bashing or lethal trauma” like a wood chipper to meet final death.

I think it's workable, though some elements would likely be best done via more advanced elements of the system like Templates and custom Species Groups. If you like to tinker and world build though it would be a fine project, though lack of experience with how the game plays might mean things need tweaking as you go. I have done several campaigns myself that are rather distant from classic vanilla fantasy and they worked fine (everything from a NieR rippoff to sci-fi cyberpunk to vampire western with bio-mecha).

At it's core Whitehack is an adaptation of classic adventure style games where characters are defined by who they are (represented via Groups) crossed with how they adventure (the actual rules of their capabilities established by class). The magic system of one of the classes is very open-ended, and the rules for Groups do a lot to make diverse skills, species, and occupations very easy to use in game, e.g., "Yes, a character with the Affiliation "Charon Corp." would be trained to detect signs of ghost activity." This means its a very gameable system that can very easily go beyond knights and dragons. This openness can be intimidating and not everyone's cup of tea, but it's a real treat for world builders imo.

• Your average person sounds like they have a Template to represent either middling psychic powers or physical potential.
• Deep dives into psi powers could very easily be represented by the Wise classes' magic.
• The Corruption system in the game could easily be used to separately track all the nasty stuff you mentioned.
• The other types of people seem like simple Species Groups which is easy enough.
• Strange equipment would use the rules for Scrolls and Artifacts and could be as simple or complex as you like. The sample artifacts would be easy guidelines but you could easily go far beyond as needed.

If you do end up reading and trying the game, folks here and on the discord would be happy to help adjust or tweak it! I've got several setting adjustments on my blog that might give an idea of things too.

Oh don't misunderstand me, I didn't post that to try and say your reading on it is wrong or ignore your point! Only noting that I myself found the alleged clarity of the text on it questionable. Especially so since "what constitutes a breach" is less a definite rule thing a more down to the players, writers, the fictional rules of the Prince enforcing the tradition in a given city, and a thousand other things it'd be pointless to argue absolutes about in reddit comments tbh.

You shared a link to your citations on your interpretations in another comment and it actually got me to crack open the ol' OG '93 Nosferatu clanbook again. I think there's some additional bits to support your reading on it not being a de facto breach! Mainly via the sample characters!

• The Cleopatra entry notes they were turned by "a disgusting bum who approached [them] in the subway station and asked [them] for change."
• The Luchador Professional is "El Diablo Verde, who only fights at night and who never removed his mask" and has "franchised goods and throngs of screaming fans."
• The Shock Rocker had "bandmates who didn't really even notice the change" who "assumed [their] visage was either a freaky mask or an illusion from all the drugs" who became even more popular after the Embrace.
• The Vet has a flavor quote literally saying, "No, man. That ain’t it. Come here. (conspiratorially) Vampires don’t exist, man. It’s Agent Orange that did this to me. It’s a government cover-up."

These are quite amusing but do show that for every mention along the lines of 'oh god I saw them and know monsters are real!' or 'am I in hell that's a living nightmare attacking me!' in the clanbook's sample characters there's others hiding perfectly in plain sight.

/tangential rambling

I wrestle with this quite a bit myself, honestly. The language of ableism and sexism is already so pervasive today, even before looking into the cultural ubiquity of using images of disabled bodies in the realm of horror to inspire fear or disgust. Because of this, the ease with which a player or ST can resort to using such imagery in a gothic horror game like Vampire does, in my opinion, warn of some need for critical evaluation of one's own rhetoric and assumptions.

At the same time, provided lines/veils has been established at a table, there could be immense value in a chronicle interrogating why the imagery or themes central to the concept of the Nosferatu (and really VtM on the whole) are presumed to evoke discomfort. I often think the clan can really serve as a narrative vehicle to expose anxieties or vulnerabilities often left unexamined.

As always though, thoughtful engagement vs the uncritical reproduction of stereotypes matters in Vampire!

/end rambling

This is good! I’ll have to check through my Dark Ages books, but I bet there’s a good deal of texts mentioned in the older editions.

I’ve been looking for a similar text to get ideas for my Cainite Heresy in medieval Bosnia.

I think that’s anything but explicit, right? I know you have a rather strong opinion on this but if it was actually explicit, would it not be like V5 and directly give a rule like “despite their cursed appearance Nos don’t innately break the Masquerade etc.”

Like, V20 also doesn’t explicitly mention that Samedi break the Masquerade and they literally look like putrid corpses ambulating around. There’s not a mention of breaching for the giant winged stone vampires either for their weakness or appearance.

From my own reading, I take Appearance 0 to be below and outside human limits. Even the classic Merits/Flaws concerning mundane injury and physical differences (I don’t like calling them “deformities) can’t take you to App 0. Not being ableist here, so you of course look perfectly human even with the most varied or non-typical medical differences.

Only the actual “Monstrous” flaw, and the obviously overt Kindred, e.g Nosferatu, Harbingers, Samedi, and Gargoyles get a big ol’ 0 dots. Rotting corpses, stone fantasy monsters, cadaverous necromancers scarred by the Underworld, and the poor old Nos. Hence why“Nosferatu and other bloodlines whose weaknesses cause them to start off with Appearance zero cannot take this Flaw.” Oh and if you get flesh crafted to 0, that’s obv beyond mundane appearances too.

Do humans only have "heartsblood" when they're resurrected undead treated with semi-sentient magical blood carrying a fraction of the personality and nature of an Antedeluvian?

Definitively yes. The Kindred term "hearts-blood" comes from the Banu Haqim and their ancient studies of Quietus and the secrets of vitae. It's basically a mixture of not just the soul/essence/self, but also of the Beast and the supernatural power of the Curse itself. You can't diablerize a human because you simply can't take what isn't there.

The scholars of Alamut recount that Haqim himself developed Quietus after a long period of self-exploration. By examining his own blood, he unlatched the secrets of affecting others’ vitae.

Dark Age: Vampire, p. 207

Masters of Quietus have a control over the supernatural properties of vampiric vitae that is terrifying to behold. Blood Essence demonstrates some of the most frightening aspects of this control since it clearly illustrates that he who controls the blood has access to the unlife of the vampire. With the power an Assamite can distill the unholy life force of a vampire and extract it as a thick, blackish blood. This process is deadly to the victim and very similar to diablerie. Indeed, the distilled essence truly is what Cainites refer to as the “heart’s-blood,” the potent vitae that contains all of the vampire’s power and self. Once extracted, this mere cupful of blackish liquid contains all the destroyed vampire’s essence, and anyone who consumes it effectively diablerizes the victim.

Dark Ages: Vampire, p. 209

Assamite sorcerers and viziers are said to have many uses for the heart’s-blood, using it to peel back the layers of a victim’s long existence year by year.

Ibid., p. 209

Sins of the Blood goes into a little bit about what many vampires philosophize about concerning the Amaranth and one of the chief concerns, aside from the usual addiction, threat to elders, etc. is that by essentially slurping more than just the soul. You're also getting your victim's Beast as well and adding it to your own.

Even more dangerous, diablerie is the quickest way into the clutches of the Beast. Vampiric philosophers wonder if this is so because the act not only steals another’s damned soul, weighing down the hope of redemption, but because it amplifies the Beast’s roar by absorbing the victim’s savage nature as well.

Sins of the Blood, p. 58

So a mortal in WoD will have a soul, of course. But they won't have the soul + vitae mix inside of them that allows the Kindred to add their Beastly essence to their own, therefore getting their Generation, Disciplines, etc. from the act.

On your last point, there's some fun examples in the lore of Kindred creeping about the water, with a special note on Kindred that are old enough doing just fine in the depths!

Clanbook: Nosferatu (Revised), p. 20:

If you were to ask me where we all came from, I’ll tell you: We are descendants of the first life in the oceans. In fact, many Nosferatu still hide themselves beneath the water. We don’t need to breathe, being dead and all; if we did, we would have choked on rivers of sewage long ago. Storm tunnels, viaducts, irrigation canals — whether filled with sea water, urine or chemicals, we can submerge ourselves in just about anything and survive. We don’t trudge along the ocean floor, of course, since the pressure eventually gets too great — at least for the more recent generations — but I know many of you here tonight are going to shamble off back underwater when we’re done here.

It's hinted that the Nosferatu Antediluvian has also been chilling in the abyss of the sea and one of the end-of-the-world scenarios in Gehenna went into this a bit.

Gehenna, p. 190:

Absimiliard has spent most of the last few thousand years as a creature of the ocean deeps, and he looks the part. The Ancient is a bloated, slick, translucent creature like a humanoid jellyfish. He has the wide mouth, needle-like teeth and huge pop-eyes of a deepsea fish.

The Giovanni clanbook had the Premascines, old Giovanni Cappadocians who took refuge in the canals of Venice, that having a sort of boogeyman like-relation with the Venice Giovanni before the Family Reunion in V5. In Modern V5 nights I see no reason for them to just ditch these secret old city havens!

Clannbook: Giovanni (Revised), p. 24

Some are rumored to have taken refuge in the canals of Venice. They supposedly make their havens beneath the surface of the water. Granted, I’ve never seen one; no one I know has [...] The very idea scares the shit out of me, and I’ve seen shit that would turn you paler than you already are. Now, you know that tonight’s Venice is built on the ruins of old Venice, right? That every year, the water table rises just a bit higher in the Old World? Well, that’s where they make their havens, in the submerged old city.

Speaking of V5... I don't have the book on hand for the Blood Cults, but the Cult of Shalim was founded by a Lasombra Methuselah who slithers along the seabed as a great mass of shadow in some sort of semi-torpid trance state.

Aside from the pinned cheat sheets/quick refs I’m not sure I’ve seen a dedicated ref screen.

The closest I’ve done myself is print my one page ref sheet and some encounter tables for the module I was running on a binder.

100% this. This sub sits at the lovely nexus of being an open forum on Reddit, being about a setting with a copious amount of metaplot/lore, and being a highly subjective tabletop game that can vary drastically from ST to ST. Trusting anything here is basically preference, fanfic, or interpretation. Even citing the books like scripture you could probably frame whatever take you prefer by omitting or including this or that citation.

None of these are bad things per se! Reading the material and making it your own is a lot of the fun imo. But when they are passed off as“one true way” prescriptive type takes it is so annoying!

Revised/V20 is my main jam. Revised, in my opinion, has a great run of supplements that work well for dipping into various areas. Want to do a sect war chronicle? Archons? Sabbat inquisition? Twisted kindred faith? Each has a book to mine for ideas and rules.

Some easy standouts that come to mind for me:

Essential: Revised Clanbooks, as others have mentioned, are great. The Camarilla and Sabbat books go into far more detail on the Sects than the V20 overview, though the V20 Companion covers a lot of the various roles/hierarchy in more details. I keep these at close at hand with my V20 corebook, supplemented by the bits I like from the Lore of the Clans/Bloodlines.

Very Useful: I personally prefer the two revised thaumaturgy books, Blood Sacrifice and Blood Sorcery, over V20s Rites of Blood which I found a little underwhelming imo. Very good for magic focused stuff. Gilded Cage is an amazing book going over details about vampiric influence over society.