ok ... you are right ... you totally can make a poison potion. that should be easy more or less.

How do you suppose it would be applied? would it be ingested? would it be applied to a weapon as a contact or wound poison?

Have I understood correctly? Would it be a sedative and not a deadly venom?

I'd probably not use the poisoned rules form the claws power for poisoned weapons.

First of all I'd make it a craftsmanship, recourses or weapons declare if someone would like to use poisoned weaponry. If the declare goes through the weapon is poisoned. That'd allow for consequence aspects that wouldn't be possible otherwise.

An attack with a poisoned knife that dealt a minor consequence could place a "Poisoned" Aspect on the Target that could be tagged or compelled by the player or that I'd compel myself as a GM. That way it wouldn't be OP and it's simpler then coming up with potions rules that are adapted to poison making. I find this elegant.

A poison effect that deals stress bot doesn't cost refresh is a bit much in my opinion. An other way to go is to design a Stunt that leads to the venomous claws rules. I don't know. This seems to be an other gray area in the books.

Guys, you are going at it the wrong way. The "not being pierced" thing means that if someone sees through the veil, he sees through the veil - unlike other blocks, the veil doesn't go away suddenly. Which means that if you see through a veil, your allies don't automatically get to see through one as well.


As for the werewolves finding Moly in under a minute, they got echoes of the Beast for +1 to their rolls in this case. Also, Moly is not some master wizard yet; her quick veils are about power 5 or so. A half-dozen people all with effective alertness 4 searching for her means they will roll above her veil soon enough.

Also a veil is technically not a glamour...

That's definitely not a good situation to have. The GM can't try to concede or ask that the players spare their enemies, and then turn around and make things worse for the players as a result.

As a matter of fact I usually try to make it a very decisive win for the players if I let the villain escape through concession. At least I think I do. It's even in the rules. The concession needs to have a harsh or at least sufficiently painful edge for the looser. Problem is that I sometimes feel my players see it otherwise ...

... thanks for the so far amazing input on this matter by the way. This thread has tremendously helped me rethink the concession mechanic.

Of course, that 'haggling about conditions' might include, 'no, he's not getting away, I gonna run him down and pop a few shotgun slugs in his head'.

In which case the conceding party might just say: 'Hell no, I have just conceded to prevent this from happening. I prefer running away while screaming ridiculously and wildly flailing with my arms'. What you are proposing isn't reasonable debating over the terms of the concession. It is clearly a taken out result that may be chosen in said situation.

Not sure if you were serious though.

Ok. I get what luminos said but the rules are pretty strait forward about under what circumstances concessions are allowed. Technically they have nothing to do with the goals of the PC that manage to force the concession. They are all about the character that concedes. To me that is the fundamental difference between the simple takeout and the concession. The conceding character looses but gets to have a strong word to say how this loss takes shape.

Example: During our last game session I let a red court nobel (a face of the campaign) concede and take flight into the deeps of the mine that she and her minions had taken shelter in. The party had set out to free a distressed damsel out of her claws and therefor succeeded. The vamp had taken some consequences, pretty much lost the fight and her prise already, so the concession was solidly grounded in the rules. I saved a face and the opportunity to bring her up in future scenarios. We debated the concession and I made amendments yet I didn't get the feeling that everybody was satisfied...

... an other thing to consider is, that concessions aren't NPC only. A beaten PC may also concede to save his hide and proceed on an alternative path. Usually I don't like to draw on the novels too much during rule discussions, but Harry does this all the time! If the game table doesn't allow the reasonable concession of a NPC then - in my opinion - the hole concept has to be taken into question and a cornered PC shouldn't get to concede either...

He even wears glasses on the drawing in OW118 and the glasses are mentioned in the writeup on him.