Tier 3 Playtest for New Rules [Hunter: The Vigil]

Hunter: The Vigil logo
Hello, Hunter: The Vigil fans! I understand that you are anxious for an update, and today I’m pleased to announce the release of a Tier 3 playtest that will be open for feedback through November 10th, 2017. Exciting times! My team is very excited to get actual play feedback to put the finishing touches on our rules.

My team has designed three, system-focused scenes, inspired by the Slasher Chronicle found in the corebook, that will help us get a feel for how our new rules are working. To play, you will need a copy of the Chronicles of Darkness Rulebook for core rules. While Hunter: The Vigil 2nd Edition will be a standalone game, the manuscript’s current status (combined with the fact we’re playtesting new rules) requires us to rely on existing 2nd Edition rules that have already been released; we’ve used and marked them when appropriate in this playtest document.

In the interest of making the best, playable game possible, I will be relying on gaming experiences as opposed to cursory reads of the text. As noted, we have also marked that the text is customized for this playtest; this is by design to focus on my primary concern, which is to kick the tires on Integrity and Endowments.

Keep in mind the rules found in this playtest are not the final version. They are subject to change pending feedback and further development.

The link to view the Hunter: The Vigil 2nd Edition Tier 3 playtest is available below, and will be available through Friday, November 10th.

Hunter: The Vigil 2nd Edition Tier 3 Playtest Fall 2017

Please note: I will release a short poll on Tuesday, November 7th to collect feedback, names of playtesters, etc. so be sure to take notes! The poll will be linked to the playtest document, and will also be posted on the Onyx Path blog, too.

11 thoughts on “Tier 3 Playtest for New Rules [Hunter: The Vigil]”


    You know, I actually appreciate the usage of the Touchstone system from Vampire in Hoonter. Not only does it provide a very nice dichotomy, it also emphasises the large portion of hunter themes that wasn’t really adopted by players this eagerly in 1e, ie: Balancing monster hunting and mundane life.
    Who knows, I might just use the playtest rules for the game I’m gonna be starting soon-ish.

  2. Okay, still reading, 2 major problems with the Code;

    What about the pacifist hunters? You know, Yuri’s Group, the Talbot Group, most of Null Mysteriis, VASCU? The kind of people who would rather study monsters, even live in peace with them, then hurt them (first)? Do they all develop that -3 Social Penalty because their Code is amended to include “Hunt monster before it becomes a threat” and “being unwilling to forgive monster acting in good faith”?

    Second, while I like the buff Conditions (they provide a tempting target, and makes sense that a hunter really focusing on the Vigil to deal with trauma), it sounds…weird, for the Exceptional Success to be so, shall we say, unhealthy for a hunter that is otherwise dealing with trauma and guilt okay.

    • The penalty is when dealing with other hunters. I think when one hunter tells a group of hunters focused on destroying vampires to leave this one alone because “it’s a good vampire” it makes sense for there to be a penalty.

      Hunter on hunter violence is real. 😉

      • I agree with the above. Mechanically, the Code and it’s penalties for Breaking Points doesn’t rule out non-violent, approaches to the hunt or penalize a hunter for choosing to leave ‘nice’ monsters alone (on probation).

        I do think the Code’s narrative description could use some tweaking: as is, the discussion box about the “Us vs. them” viewpoint misleadingly implies that hunters go through a nervous breakdown if they don’t immediately respond to a monster’s presence by driving machetes through their skulls.

        This is take of things: hunter PCs can adopt all sorts of strategies on their hunt: research monsters, swindle monsters, police monsters, counsel monsters, redeem monsters, cure monsters, etc. But as hunters, they MUST always put the welfare of humans first.

        That’s the purpose of the Vigil: to stand watch over humanity and protect them from supernatural forces. Placed on the scales, human lives weigh more than monster lives. That’s why choosing a monster’s welfare over a human’s welfare, or a monster you spared going on to hurt other humans causes Breaking Points: the value hunters assign to human life is being tarnished.

  3. As someone who’s always quite enjoyed the Hunter/Slasher dichotomy they have going on, one of the things I’ve long enjoyed is that both sides (At least in 1st ED) are feasibly playable by players themselves.

    Certainly the Slashers are antagonists, but I do think it’d be a shame to close off that route for storytellers and players to use if they wanted a dark and villainous game. My major concern has been that Slashers would be altered as per the antagonists of other splats, to be unworkable from a player perspective. See Heroes and Strix.

    Though what’s there currently does seem to leave the Slasher mechanics of 1e untouched for now, bar the specification of storyteller in the writeup.

    On the more moral side, I think Touchstones are a great addition for Hunters. Losing their humanity doing what they do is only inevitable, and trying to hold into it in such a way adds more weight to their battles.


Leave a Comment