Remove ads

General Exalted Thread

Reader mode
This is a great post overall and neatly summarizes why I am so committed to rigor and diligence when critiquing 2e and 3e (even if I am vitriolic about the latter)

strange_person said:
In third edition, all that random variability, incomplete information, and resultant collateral damage just doesn't happen, mainly due to the dissociated mechanics separating withering and decisive attacks. In that paradigm, an effect like Path of the Arbiter Form's perfect defense against unintended harm being caused by your own actions would be silly and largely redundant, instead of a hard-earned license to rescue hostages using a flamethrower.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

But I wanted to really underline this point- one of the great things about 1e/2e that 3e sacrificed, was the ability to approach combat challenges non-linearly. Armor is hard to wear. You can't assume to have it on at all times, and those who can wear it 25/7 (DBs, some Lunars) are terrifying. Remember, Dragonblooded can sleep in full plate armor. Anyone else would barely catnap and be covered in chafing sores- even a Solar!

So in 3e, there's no incentive to approach problems atypically- the rules themselves force conflict down into the Initiative system/scale. Maybe that's a boon- because 'Ganked in your sleep' is cool if a player does it, but less cool if it gets done to a player without the storyteller knowing what they're doing. Basically 3e sacrificed a lot of the interplay of 2e in favor of it's own combat system.
 
strange_person said:
There is also the question of what the actual design goals are. I don't think Exalted combat should be a minigame that's consistently fun in and of itself. AWKWARD ZOMBIE A Dawn-caste tearing into unsupported mortals is just Anakin Skywalker massacring the Sand People... or the trainee jedi. Paranoia combos mean that mature exalts can't be murdered in their sleep, or even slain in direct confrontation at all without a horrible grind of mote attrition. So, any given celestial exalt with combat training is extremely hard to kill. Good strategy, then, means either figuring out how to get what you want without killing them, either by some mutually beneficial arrangement, or by targeting your enemy's weakest point instead of the strongest. Erfworld Archives - The Battle for Gobwin Knob - Episode 124 If murder is somehow the only feasible option, don't just charge in like Leroy Jenkins and expect that to end well.

The manga Assassination Classroom is all about a group of heroic mortals - and, later, exalt-like entities - trying to slay the equivalent of a paranoia-combo'd Adorjani 3CD before his task binding wears off. Most of the work is research and setup, preparing an ideal ambush position and softening up the target by noncombative means, rather than dynamic battle tactics; once join battle has been rolled, there are hardly any decisions left to make. Lot like how the Usurpation probably went, though sidereal divination and probability manipulation makes it easier to rule out unworkable plans without needing to forfeit the element of surprise by actually attempting them.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Paranoia combos are pretty much the exact opposite of what you'd want to make that kind of thing work, though.

strange_person said:
In third edition, all that random variability, incomplete information, and resultant collateral damage just doesn't happen, mainly due to the dissociated mechanics separating withering and decisive attacks. In that paradigm, an effect like Path of the Arbiter Form's perfect defense against unintended harm being caused by your own actions would be silly and largely redundant, instead of a hard-earned license to rescue hostages using a flamethrower.

On the subject of the functionality of yard-per-second movement rules, have you ever tried plugging in a tactical map with one-yard hexes from GURPS, or 25mm miniatures and prefabricated terrain pieces from tabletop wargames such as Warhammer 40k? Please try to contribute something constructive.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

That's not really true. Bringing someone down non-lethally isn't much easier in 3e.

And it's very constructive to point out that people don't actually use the 2e movement rules. Sure, you can use maps/miniatures instead of trigonometry, but who does?
 
Sanctaphrax said:
Paranoia combos are pretty much the exact opposite of what you'd want to make that kind of thing work, though.



That's not really true. Bringing someone down non-lethally isn't much easier in 3e.

And it's very constructive to point out that people don't actually use the 2e movement rules. Sure, you can use maps/miniatures instead of trigonometry, but who does?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Please clarify what you mean by the opposite of paranoia combos.

To my understanding, since 3e puts very few restrictions on mid-battle social influence, subduing someone without injuring them at all is, in principle, as simple as accumulating an enormous heap of initiative and then politely asking them to yield - backed by the implicit yet unambiguous threat of a devastating decisive attack which you can clearly display without ever needing to actually deliver.

By contributing something constructive I meant not merely the broadest sense of "constructive criticism" as opposed to unfocused insults, but rather a grander hope that steps could be taken toward constructing something new, that you would contribute some proposal of your own, rather than regurgitating established knowledge. Earlier you mentioned 1971 and 2006 in the context of eras of game design, as if they were vintages of wine. Are you a mere connoisseur, or will you step up and participate?

As for "who does," well, GURPS players. 40k players. D&D/Pathfinder. Systems in which the tactical movement rules are complete and well-explained and functional, instead of having loose wires jutting out of maintenance panels held on with duct tape, showers of sparks punctuated by the occasional puff of magic smoke.
 
Accelerator said:
Damn. Now I want to make custom wards that don't protect against particular creatures, but against effects.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That same chapter also includes a system for inventing new thaumaturgical procedures. Personal warding talismans are statted up right in the corebook, while Masters of Jade includes some tricks for protection against UMI, and for allowing unenlightened mortals to use certain artifacts. A well-prepared thaumaturge is not someone to take lightly, and even those with access to more powerful sorts of magic can benefit from that diverse toolkit of minor, specialized effects.

Probably the most important rule to remember is that, in addition to materials, every thaumaturgy procedure costs 1 wp to use. If you go through the motions without concentrating properly, that alchemical potion will just end up as a bottle of fruit juice, or the ward will be nothing but knotted string and chalk, or whatever other magical effect won't appear. That's what fundamentally separates thaumaturgy from crafting: a fairly simple machine can hammer iron into different shapes, but the true answer to the riddle of steel production involves magic, and magic requires a will to impose changes on the world.

It's not actually in any of the official books, but I always figure the key advantage thaumaturges gain with enlightened essence is that they can spend 3m instead of the willpower. Without that extra budget of four or more motes per hour, the only way for someone nonheroic to do a dozen Procedures per day is if they happen to be making progress on their Motivation - which means an enlightened mortal, maybe attuned to some low-rated manse or demesne, can casually churn out as much or more practical magic than an unenlightened workaholic who's (figuratively) pouring their heart and soul into the Art relentlessly and without reservation because they've finally found their True Purpose in Life.
 
Sanctaphrax said:
And it's very constructive to point out that people don't actually use the 2e movement rules. Sure, you can use maps/miniatures instead of trigonometry, but who does?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Seriously? Just about any RPG derived from wargaming (any D&D edition, d20 System games, OSR-based games, Warhammer Fantasy RP in any edition, any one of the Warhammer 40k RPGs,...), a lot of RPGs not derived from wargaming (GURPS, Savage Worlds system RPGs, Apocalypse World system RPGs, Shadowrun, Eclipse Phase,...).
Using miniatures or even just a map is a thing that games do to facilitate combat, so you don't have to ask the ST every time where are your opponents/allies in relation to you every tick/turn. This is more true the more combatants there are; if you have a simple 1 vs. 1 duel a map isn't needed, but if it's a full Solar Cricle vs. Wild Hunt fight seeing ahere your opponent are is absolutely important.
 
Flare said:
Seriously? Just about any RPG derived from wargaming (any D&D edition, d20 System games, OSR-based games, Warhammer Fantasy RP in any edition, any one of the Warhammer 40k RPGs,...), a lot of RPGs not derived from wargaming (GURPS, Savage Worlds system RPGs, Apocalypse World system RPGs, Shadowrun, Eclipse Phase,...).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I'm pretty sure people aren't using the Exalted Second Edition movement rules when they play D&D.

That sounds snarky. I don't mean it that way but I don't know another way to say it. What do all of those games have to do with the fact that almost nobody uses 2e's movement rules?

strange_person said:
Please clarify what you mean by the opposite of paranoia combos.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The purpose of the paranoia combo is to shut down every avenue of attack except gradually whittling down your mote pool through brute force. If you want a game where combat is quick and decided primarily by planning rather than raw combat ability, paranoia combos are the absolute last thing you should include in your game.

strange_person said:
To my understanding, since 3e puts very few restrictions on mid-battle social influence, subduing someone without injuring them at all is, in principle, as simple as accumulating an enormous heap of initiative and then politely asking them to yield - backed by the implicit yet unambiguous threat of a devastating decisive attack which you can clearly display without ever needing to actually deliver.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It doesn't limit mid-battle social influence, but it doesn't let you use Initiative for it either.

Gaining a decisive advantage in combat before demanding surrender is possible in both 2e and 3e, although in 2e it usually takes the form of mote-tapping (flavourwise, exhaustion) and in 3e it usually takes the form of a huge initiative lead (flavourwise, driving your opponent into a metaphorical corner). In both editions your opponent can spit upon your demands, and in both editions bashing damage is easily available. In 3e the guy who's losing has a significantly better chance of turning things around, though.

strange_person said:
By contributing something constructive I meant not merely the broadest sense of "constructive criticism" as opposed to unfocused insults, but rather a grander hope that steps could be taken toward constructing something new, that you would contribute some proposal of your own, rather than regurgitating established knowledge. Earlier you mentioned 1971 and 2006 in the context of eras of game design, as if they were vintages of wine. Are you a mere connoisseur, or will you step up and participate?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

...I don't recall saying anything about 1971 or 2006. Did you mean to address this to someone else?
 
strange_person said:
To my understanding, since 3e puts very few restrictions on mid-battle social influence, subduing someone without injuring them at all is, in principle, as simple as accumulating an enormous heap of initiative and then politely asking them to yield - backed by the implicit yet unambiguous threat of a devastating decisive attack which you can clearly display without ever needing to actually deliver.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Is that a bad thing? Effortlessly batting aside you're opponents blows and then knocking them down and pointing your sword at their kneck as you demand their surrender js very much in genre.
 
strange_person said:
To my understanding, since 3e puts very few restrictions on mid-battle social influence, subduing someone without injuring them at all is, in principle, as simple as accumulating an enormous heap of initiative and then politely asking them to yield - backed by the implicit yet unambiguous threat of a devastating decisive attack which you can clearly display without ever needing to actually deliver.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Accumulating a massive heap of initiative and your opponent having no way to reverse the situation would represent you totally dominating the battlefield without ever going for a finishing blow, it's clear that you're winning without really trying. In that case it's perfectly reasonable that when you shout yield if they value their life more then the victory.

But that's not all the initiative system models for. If you ask them to yield while you have high initiative and they still have a potential reversal in the bag they might go "Ha ha ha! Foolish Exalted you haven't even seen my final form!" and burst out whatever stuff might let them take control of the fight once more. It's not as simple as building up some initiative against a determined opponent, you have to prove to them through combat that you can shut down everything they try to reverse the situation and do it without killing them. If you have your foe on their back and are telling them to surrender but they haven't taken out their bankai/final jutsu/final form/secret technique yet there's absolutely room for them to say fuck you and keep trying to kill you.
 
strange_person said:
Please clarify what you mean by the opposite of paranoia combos.

To my understanding, since 3e puts very few restrictions on mid-battle social influence, subduing someone without injuring them at all is, in principle, as simple as accumulating an enormous heap of initiative and then politely asking them to yield - backed by the implicit yet unambiguous threat of a devastating decisive attack which you can clearly display without ever needing to actually deliver.

By contributing something constructive I meant not merely the broadest sense of "constructive criticism" as opposed to unfocused insults, but rather a grander hope that steps could be taken toward constructing something new, that you would contribute some proposal of your own, rather than regurgitating established knowledge. Earlier you mentioned 1971 and 2006 in the context of eras of game design, as if they were vintages of wine. Are you a mere connoisseur, or will you step up and participate?

As for "who does," well, GURPS players. 40k players. D&D/Pathfinder. Systems in which the tactical movement rules are complete and well-explained and functional, instead of having loose wires jutting out of maintenance panels held on with duct tape, showers of sparks punctuated by the occasional puff of magic smoke.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Initiative does not exist in system, for one, you would gain no bonuses for having a bunch because it's a game system thing, and the idiot who tries that anyways has a rude awakening coming. You don't want to sit on a big heap of initiative. You want to throw decisives the second you have enough intiative to do 3 or so levels of damage. A "devastating decisive" isn't the threat you think it is. The game is full of reactive defenses, and combat is swingy anyways, it's not that hard to turn the fight around really fast, which is in fact the whole point.

My reaction to someone trying shit like that is knowing that they just telegraphed what they're about to do, giving me a massive advantage, throwing my own social influence at them in return since we're taking the time to talk, and then showing them how very, very little having 25 initiative means when the other guy knows what you're about to do with it.
 
Flare said:
Seriously? Just about any RPG derived from wargaming (any D&D edition, d20 System games, OSR-based games, Warhammer Fantasy RP in any edition, any one of the Warhammer 40k RPGs,...), a lot of RPGs not derived from wargaming (GURPS, Savage Worlds system RPGs, Apocalypse World system RPGs, Shadowrun, Eclipse Phase,...).
Using miniatures or even just a map is a thing that games do to facilitate combat, so you don't have to ask the ST every time where are your opponents/allies in relation to you every tick/turn. This is more true the more combatants there are; if you have a simple 1 vs. 1 duel a map isn't needed, but if it's a full Solar Cricle vs. Wild Hunt fight seeing ahere your opponent are is absolutely important.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Those games also have things like meaningful rules for terrain, various mechanics for engaging/disengaging opponents, and more meaningful baseline design around positioning.

Exalted 2E really doesn't. In most instances, the only relevant thing about spatial relationships is "in range of my attacks" or "out of range of my attacks", in which the game actually suffers if you explicitly try to represent people's actual location on a grid because you're supposed to be able to be jumping around like crazy dodging attacks in the narrative. I've played a number of 2E games and literally never used a map, because it felt both obviously unsuited to the more narrative nature of the system's combat, and meaningless given that there were no real ways it added to clever play: you can't block a corridor and attack of opportunity anyone trying to run past, nor is the game improved by worrying about whether a given adversary is precisely in range of an attack.
 
strange_person said:
To my understanding, since 3e puts very few restrictions on mid-battle social influence, subduing someone without injuring them at all is, in principle, as simple as accumulating an enormous heap of initiative and then politely asking them to yield - backed by the implicit yet unambiguous threat of a devastating decisive attack which you can clearly display without ever needing to actually deliver.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
rogthnor said:
Is that a bad thing? Effortlessly batting aside you're opponents blows and then knocking them down and pointing your sword at their kneck as you demand their surrender js very much in genre.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
So is a response of "I would rather die than allow myself to be captured alive by you."
 
Sanctaphrax said:
I'm pretty sure people aren't using the Exalted Second Edition movement rules when they play D&D.

That sounds snarky. I don't mean it that way but I don't know another way to say it. What do all of those games have to do with the fact that almost nobody uses 2e's movement rules?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Of couse they aren't. The game they play isn't trying and failing to reinvent the wheel.
 
rogthnor said:
Isn't that just spending willpower to block their social influence?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Nah, not necessarily. Like, my Solar has a Defining Principle, "If demons exist, they live within the hearts of Dragons." If a Dragonblooded built up to 20+ initiative and rolled to force my surrender, I'd use that defining principle for +4 resolve, plus my stunt for +5 resolve, for a total of a static value of 9 (base 4 Resolve) that the DB has to beat before I spend motes on Integrity Excellency. Generally speaking, they wouldn't really be able to actually beat my resolve without burning some serious motes. And if they do, then yeah, I spend WP to spit in the Dragon's perfect face.

And then they throw a massive decisive attack at 20 initiative with double 10s to damage, very scary! And then my Reckless Fury Discard lets me look at their roll after they make it and raise my parry by the ones and twos, and the more dice they roll, the more of those they have. But lets assume they hit anyways, and I don't use Reckless Fury Discard.

20 damage, double 10s is about 10 decisive damage. I have Stamina 5, 3 -0 health levels. I spend 6m on Iron Skin Concentration and grow 5 more ablative health levels. Their "devastating decisive attack" has successfully put me in my -1 wound penalties (barely), I still have 10+ health levels total, they reset to base initiative, and have blown their entire mote pool on having enough social dice to beat my resolve and on having the dice and damage to hit me and actually deal damage.

I smile, and link Battle Against A True Hero in the OOC chat as I say "You'll have to do better than that" and I start launching alternating Withering and Decisive attacks to crash them and then just hit them with 5-8 initiative decisives because my damage has doubled 10s, rerolling 10s and every single hit I land will be devastating, because playing like no one can ever turn the fight around is the sucker's move. Having high initiative means you have a lot of momentum going, means you are consistently doing well, holding your ground and gaining some.

Doesn't mean things can't turn around like snaps.
 
Kaiya said:
Nah, not necessarily. Like, my Solar has a Defining Principle, "If demons exist, they live within the hearts of Dragons." If a Dragonblooded built up to 20+ initiative and rolled to force my surrender, I'd use that defining principle for +4 resolve, plus my stunt for +5 resolve, for a total of a static value of 9 (base 4 Resolve) that the DB has to beat before I spend motes on Integrity Excellency. Generally speaking, they wouldn't really be able to actually beat my resolve without burning some serious motes. And if they do, then yeah, I spend WP to spit in the Dragon's perfect face.

And then they throw a massive decisive attack at 20 initiative with double 10s to damage, very scary! And then my Reckless Fury Discard lets me look at their roll after they make it and raise my parry by the ones and twos, and the more dice they roll, the more of those they have. But lets assume they hit anyways, and I don't use Reckless Fury Discard.

20 damage, double 10s is about 10 decisive damage. I have Stamina 5, 3 -0 health levels. I spend 6m on Iron Skin Concentration and grow 5 more ablative health levels. Their "devastating decisive attack" has successfully put me in my -1 wound penalties (barely), I still have 10+ health levels total, they reset to base initiative, and have blown their entire mote pool on having enough social dice to beat my resolve and on having the dice and damage to hit me and actually deal damage.

I smile, and link Battle Against A True Hero in the OOC chat as I say "You'll have to do better than that" and I start launching alternating Withering and Decisive attacks to crash them and then just hit them with 5-8 initiative decisives because my damage has doubled 10s, rerolling 10s and every single hit I land will be devastating, because playing like no one can ever turn the fight around is the sucker's move. Having high initiative means you have a lot of momentum going, means you are consistently doing well, holding your ground and gaining some.

Doesn't mean things can't turn around like snaps.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Isn't that not actually a devastating attack by the standards you laid out? It only dealt 3 levels of damage, which is the amount you specified as a normal target.
 
Kaiya said:
Nah, not necessarily. Like, my Solar has a Defining Principle, "If demons exist, they live within the hearts of Dragons." If a Dragonblooded built up to 20+ initiative and rolled to force my surrender, I'd use that defining principle for +4 resolve, plus my stunt for +5 resolve, for a total of a static value of 9 (base 4 Resolve) that the DB has to beat before I spend motes on Integrity Excellency. Generally speaking, they wouldn't really be able to actually beat my resolve without burning some serious motes. And if they do, then yeah, I spend WP to spit in the Dragon's perfect face.

And then they throw a massive decisive attack at 20 initiative with double 10s to damage, very scary! And then my Reckless Fury Discard lets me look at their roll after they make it and raise my parry by the ones and twos, and the more dice they roll, the more of those they have. But lets assume they hit anyways, and I don't use Reckless Fury Discard.

20 damage, double 10s is about 10 decisive damage. I have Stamina 5, 3 -0 health levels. I spend 6m on Iron Skin Concentration and grow 5 more ablative health levels. Their "devastating decisive attack" has successfully put me in my -1 wound penalties (barely), I still have 10+ health levels total, they reset to base initiative, and have blown their entire mote pool on having enough social dice to beat my resolve and on having the dice and damage to hit me and actually deal damage.

I smile, and link Battle Against A True Hero in the OOC chat as I say "You'll have to do better than that" and I start launching alternating Withering and Decisive attacks to crash them and then just hit them with 5-8 initiative decisives because my damage has doubled 10s, rerolling 10s and every single hit I land will be devastating, because playing like no one can ever turn the fight around is the sucker's move. Having high initiative means you have a lot of momentum going, means you are consistently doing well, holding your ground and gaining some.

Doesn't mean things can't turn around like snaps.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Maybe I'm not explaining my point well? Like that's also all in genre. I'll I'm saying is that I like the idea of being able to use initiative gained in physical combat to boost a social action because beating someone up is very persuasive.
 
Cosar said:
Isn't that not actually a devastating attack by the standards you laid out? It only dealt 3 levels of damage, which is the amount you specified as a normal target.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
So far as I can tell, the difference is that, knowing they're about to go all in, she can actively pay for extra health, turning an eight damage attack into a three damage one, for twice what she'd pay blocking each of the five attacks at base three damage they could have done if wearing her down.

It's not as big a difference as perfecting a large attack vs. dealing with flurries was in 2E, but it's the exact same thing to a smaller degree.
 
Kaiya said:
Doesn't mean things can't turn around like snaps.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
If Infernals don't have a charm for going "This wasn't even my final form" while an enemy is making desicives I'll be most disapointed.

rogthnor said:
Maybe I'm not explaining my point well? Like that's also all in genre. I'll I'm saying is that I like the idea of being able to use initiative gained in physical combat to boost a social action because beating someone up is very persuasive.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That doesn't quite get at what initiative is meant to model though. Initiative isn't a number that says you're winning the fight. It tells you that you're controlling the flow of the fight and are gaining ground. Having initiative is almost certainly a prerequisite to making a yield demand, no ones going to surrender to the enemy backed against the wall and apparently barely hanging in there, but it shouldn't really add that much mechanically because reversal techniques are a thing. You can't get Freeza to surrender in his second form, you can't get an Exalt with another trick up his sleeve to surrender before he's tried it out (unless you're really damn impressive).
 
rogthnor said:
Maybe I'm not explaining my point well? Like that's also all in genre. I'll I'm saying is that I like the idea of being able to use initiative gained in physical combat to boost a social action because beating someone up is very persuasive.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Hmm. Honestly? That would work as a gambit, which are all the weird "we don't know what to classify this as" actions. Uses your initiative. Make a special "Demand Surrender" gambit, at difficulty 7 or 8, rolling your social influence pool instead of your normal pool as the activation action.


Cosar said:
Isn't that not actually a devastating attack by the standards you laid out? It only dealt 3 levels of damage, which is the amount you specified as a normal target.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yeah, that's the point. Saving up for a big haymaker initiative strike is a bad idea. Once you reach 20, you're kinda at critical mass and about to lose it, or you're invincible to your enemies anyways and the whole thing is perfunctory. 25 is about the limit you can really hold onto against a serious opponent before you start suffering. You know the guy in a movie who toys with the hero and tortures them and slaps them around, and you know things are about to turn around and you're thinking "Just shoot him you idiot!"?

That's what building up past initiative 20 is. It's fucking around when you should be going for the hit that settles the fight (and even then, it's not smart to go for 20 when you could go for 12 over and over and over).
beowolf said:
So far as I can tell, the difference is that, knowing they're about to go all in, she can actively pay for extra health, turning an eight damage attack into a three damage one, for twice what she'd pay blocking each of the five attacks at base three damage they could have done if wearing her down.

It's not as big a difference as perfecting a large attack vs. dealing with flurries was in 2E, but it's the exact same thing to a smaller degree.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This also, yes. You wanna build up to 12 init and use decisive-enhancing Charms to boost the low-level damage to mid-level damage. Once you have the other guy suffering from wound penalties while you aren't, the fight enters a death-spiral of them spending more and more motes to hit you. Your goal is to get them to their -2 wounds as far as possible while not entering -2 yourself, essentially. If you can do that, you win nine times out of ten, and the tenth is probably a Solar with a relevant Supernal or an Immaculate Master.
 
rogthnor said:
Maybe I'm not explaining my point well? Like that's also all in genre. I'll I'm saying is that I like the idea of being able to use initiative gained in physical combat to boost a social action because beating someone up is very persuasive.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Probably, but 3E specifically says that Initiative isn't a real resource that represents something, meaning you can't cash it in to show you're dominating the fight (moreso than one could just by winning a lot of roll offs and convincing your enemy they don't stand a chance). There are a number of objections to treating Initiative like this, including the one you just raised: combat feels more interesting to me if Initiative is a more definitive "the flow of combat" meter, but the devs decided against this.

I suspect that Crane style, or its equivalent, will have some kind of "spend Initiative for social actions/resolve a Decisive but with social effects" mechanic, which is in the ballpark of what you're describing.
 
DayDreamer said:
Probably, but 3E specifically says that Initiative isn't a real resource that represents something, meaning you can't cash it in to show you're dominating the fight (moreso than one could just by winning a lot of roll offs and convincing your enemy they don't stand a chance). There are a number of objections to treating Initiative like this, including the one you just raised: combat feels more interesting to me if Initiative is a more definitive "the flow of combat" meter, but the devs decided against this.

I suspect that Crane style, or its equivalent, will have some kind of "spend Initiative for social actions/resolve a Decisive but with social effects" mechanic, which is in the ballpark of what you're describing.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Crane Style is in the Ex3 core.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top