Posting this in this section because I was thinking about it while rereading the Ghosts of Albion rules.
Am I the only one who finds Strength x 3 more than a little excessive for a vampire's bite? Especially in matched up with the Constitution drain from feeding?
We are talking about just a pair of elongated canines (not all that large and definitely not the shark grin special from Buffy/Angel). Strength x 2 or even (Strength-1) x 2 would make more sense to me. To me, the worst part of the vampire's bite attack has always been that it tends to be near major arteries/veins (or neck if the vampire is just trying to bite your throat out) and followed by forced exsanguination , not the damage of the attack itself.
In Buffy/Angel, where the damage was also used for the exsanguination the Strength x 3 made a little more sense (but honestly, not much to me). With Tim changing the blood loss mechanic to a Constitution drain, the damage now makes even less sense.
-Weylin
Am I the only one who finds Strength x 3 more than a little excessive for a vampire's bite? Especially in matched up with the Constitution drain from feeding?
We are talking about just a pair of elongated canines (not all that large and definitely not the shark grin special from Buffy/Angel). Strength x 2 or even (Strength-1) x 2 would make more sense to me. To me, the worst part of the vampire's bite attack has always been that it tends to be near major arteries/veins (or neck if the vampire is just trying to bite your throat out) and followed by forced exsanguination , not the damage of the attack itself.
In Buffy/Angel, where the damage was also used for the exsanguination the Strength x 3 made a little more sense (but honestly, not much to me). With Tim changing the blood loss mechanic to a Constitution drain, the damage now makes even less sense.
-Weylin
