Dracula (with character sheet) by Russel Bailey & Ben Baugh

Christian A:

The Count is not Ordo Dracul. You want Dracula, not Count Dracula. :)

That's actually what I was thinking. This is an elder vampire who's taken on a persona to define himself and is a force with which to be reckoned. Hence the addition of the word "Fucking" to the title. If he were the author of the Rites of the Dragon and founder of the Ordo Dracul, he'd at least be a Master of Equilibrium. However, being a Master of Equilibrium is not necessary to be a badass who makes big changes wherever he goes.

I like the write up and all, and I love the concept of the fighting style, but did anyone notice how broken it is?  And by broken, I don't just mean overpowered.

Level 1 is classically overpowered unless you're using the stun combat hack from Armory Reloaded.  Just look at how much better it is over Boxing 1 and you'll see why. 

Level 2 is awesome, but could easily save any melee-focused combatant a lot of XP that would otherwise be split between Brawl and Weaponry, never mind how well it combines with other Brawl-based Fighting Styles.  It is really cool, though, and would love to see at what price it might be considered a balanced ability.  It seems especially appropriate for a Krav Maga user (actually, the whole fighting style does).  Somehow, I think it might only be at the point at which you'd be just as well off buying Weaponry dots. 

Level 3 is probably the weakest level.  Unless you are using the extended wound penalties hack, it will only really help if you've taken a lot of bashing, as otherwise, you're definitely out of "I don't want this minor penalty" territory and into "I'm going to fucking die imminently!" land.

Level 4 and 5 are the other kind of broken, in that they are not clear on how they actually work.  What does it mean to "face" an opponent in melee?  Does it mean how many are close enough to melee you or does it mean how many actually attack you?  If it's the latter, then you only really know that as they attack you, meaning you don't get the full bonus against the first opponent and each successive one will simply have the bonus canceled by the multiple attacker penalties.  In fact, the only time such a thing would not be identical to MAC 4 or Filipino Martial Arts 4 is if you already had one of those two merits, so its just awkwardly worded all around. Then comes the second part where you can "spend a point of willpower each" to attack multiple people.  Since you can't spend more than one willpower per turn, does that mean you can't ever use this?  Or is it not "each" attack but rather "each" extra attack, meaning that you could use it, but only for one extra attack at a time?  If that's the case, then it's still worded very oddly.  And of course that would also mean its overpowered, since every other multi-attack merit (which are already too strong) carries with it some drawback. 

Level 5 doesn't explain at all what effect it has.  What does "go down in a mewing pathetic heap and clutch their ruptured vitals, turtling up in hopes that you won’t keeping hurting them" actually mean?  They drop prone, I assume.  What else?  Are they forced to take full dodges?  Are they helpless?  How long does this effect last?

Like I said, I love the thematics of it, but its too rough.  I could accept the overpowered nature of the merit as it not being intended for general consumption, but rather just as a way to make Big D scary in combat (so that you can't just gank him with a big group).  However, I'd still like a better explanation as to how the latter levels are supposed to work at all, and I think it might have been better to just describe such a thing as special abilities intrinsic to Big D instead of allowing people to think its an even remotely balanced/working merit they can convince their STs to let them take (well, ok, there are certain sets of combat hacks that would make the beginning of it fair, but under normal circumstances?).

Sparketh:

That's actually what I was thinking. This is an elder vampire who's taken on a persona to define himself and is a force with which to be reckoned. Hence the addition of the word "Fucking" to the title. If he were the author of the Rites of the Dragon and founder of the Ordo Dracul, he'd at least be a Master of Equilibrium. However, being a Master of Equilibrium is not necessary to be a badass who makes big changes wherever he goes.

No, Count Fucking Dracula does not claim to be Vlad Dracul.  He claims to be his grandchilde.  There's a rather large difference.

EarthScorpion:

No, Count Fucking Dracula does not claim to be Vlad Dracul.  He claims to be his grandchilde.  There's a rather large difference.

I think you misunderstood me. I didn't say that I think he is claiming to be the original Vlad Dracula, I was clarifying that I don't see them as the same person. Thus, I'm not really sure what in my post you are disputing.

As for CFD being Vlad's grandchilde, that's just in the rumors section. It could be true or false. Or is that information in Savage and Macabre?

Sparketh:

Or is that information in Savage and Macabre?

Yes.

Christian A:

Sparketh:

Or is that information in Savage and Macabre?

Yes.

It's there, but IC. That info is what the CFD says about himself.

Uxas:

It's there, but IC. That info is what the CFD says about himself.

That does fit with what EarthScorpion said.

EarthScorpion:

No, Count Fucking Dracula does not claim to be Vlad Dracul.  He claims to be his grandchilde.  There's a rather large difference.

Either way, he hasn't taken on the persona of Vlad the Impaler. Also, like with other elders, the truth is often irrelevant to what he believes or claims. Its hardly worth challenging his story when his specialty is grinding you into a fine dust.

Sparketh:

Either way, he hasn't taken on the persona of Vlad the Impaler.

No, he's specifically not Dracula. He's Count Dracula (or "Count Fucking Dracula", to use his own words). This is an important difference.

It's all explained in Gangrel, really.

Christian A:

No, he's specifically not Dracula. He's Count Dracula (or "Count Fucking Dracula", to use his own words). This is an important difference.

It's all explained in Gangrel, really.

Isn't that what I said?

Maj:

So...whats with the Promethean reference? What creature? Is Count (Fucking) Dracula a Promethean?

Sparketh:

Christian A:

No, he's specifically not Dracula. He's Count Dracula (or "Count Fucking Dracula", to use his own words). This is an important difference.

It's all explained in Gangrel, really.

Isn't that what I said?

Christian A loves recapitulation...

;-)

I love recapitulation.

mplindustries:

I like the write up and all, and I love the concept of the fighting style, but did anyone notice how broken it is?  And by broken, I don't just mean overpowered.

Level 1 is classically overpowered unless you're using the stun combat hack from Armory Reloaded.  Just look at how much better it is over Boxing 1 and you'll see why. 

Level 2 is awesome, but could easily save any melee-focused combatant a lot of XP that would otherwise be split between Brawl and Weaponry, never mind how well it combines with other Brawl-based Fighting Styles.  It is really cool, though, and would love to see at what price it might be considered a balanced ability.  It seems especially appropriate for a Krav Maga user (actually, the whole fighting style does).  Somehow, I think it might only be at the point at which you'd be just as well off buying Weaponry dots. 

Level 3 is probably the weakest level.  Unless you are using the extended wound penalties hack, it will only really help if you've taken a lot of bashing, as otherwise, you're definitely out of "I don't want this minor penalty" territory and into "I'm going to fucking die imminently!" land.

Level 4 and 5 are the other kind of broken, in that they are not clear on how they actually work.  What does it mean to "face" an opponent in melee?  Does it mean how many are close enough to melee you or does it mean how many actually attack you?  If it's the latter, then you only really know that as they attack you, meaning you don't get the full bonus against the first opponent and each successive one will simply have the bonus canceled by the multiple attacker penalties.  In fact, the only time such a thing would not be identical to MAC 4 or Filipino Martial Arts 4 is if you already had one of those two merits, so its just awkwardly worded all around. Then comes the second part where you can "spend a point of willpower each" to attack multiple people.  Since you can't spend more than one willpower per turn, does that mean you can't ever use this?  Or is it not "each" attack but rather "each" extra attack, meaning that you could use it, but only for one extra attack at a time?  If that's the case, then it's still worded very oddly.  And of course that would also mean its overpowered, since every other multi-attack merit (which are already too strong) carries with it some drawback. 

Level 5 doesn't explain at all what effect it has.  What does "go down in a mewing pathetic heap and clutch their ruptured vitals, turtling up in hopes that you won’t keeping hurting them" actually mean?  They drop prone, I assume.  What else?  Are they forced to take full dodges?  Are they helpless?  How long does this effect last?

Like I said, I love the thematics of it, but its too rough.  I could accept the overpowered nature of the merit as it not being intended for general consumption, but rather just as a way to make Big D scary in combat (so that you can't just gank him with a big group).  However, I'd still like a better explanation as to how the latter levels are supposed to work at all, and I think it might have been better to just describe such a thing as special abilities intrinsic to Big D instead of allowing people to think its an even remotely balanced/working merit they can convince their STs to let them take (well, ok, there are certain sets of combat hacks that would make the beginning of it fair, but under normal circumstances?).

I have the same questions about the fighting style, plus he doesn't qualify for the devotion.

lbeaumanior:

plus he doesn't qualify for the devotion.

This was explained, I believe possibly by Russell Bailey, earlier in the thread. Basically, the answer is that the Count can teach the Devotion, but he cannot use it himself. This is referenced in Savage and Macabre.

kurasu:

lbeaumanior:

plus he doesn't qualify for the devotion.

This was explained, I believe possibly by Russell Bailey, earlier in the thread. Basically, the answer is that the Count can teach the Devotion, but he cannot use it himself. This is referenced in Savage and Macabre.