You:"You want to aim for attacks that deal end up dealing ~3 levels of damage. Unlike this example that I'm going to make where a 20 initiative attack deals about ~3 levels of damage and then leaves the opponent open to my devastating counter attacks, showing how foolish this is."
General Exalted Thread
- Location
- Land of the Midday Sun
Exalted 2E, by RAW, has characters move a certain amount of yards per tick. It has weapons with explicit ranges. This facts alone suggest that the combat is a mite more structured than a simple "is the guy in range?" game. Furthermore the combat flow tracks attacks, parries, dodges , guard actions, surprose attacks and many other actions. It takes into consideration if the combatants are flying, riding a mount, over difficult terrain, stuck in water and so on.
It's not, in any way, shape or form, a narrative combat system. It's a blow-for-blow affair, where every attack is resolved singularly. The narrative elements are uniquely found in how you/the ST tells the action and the stunt you make, not in the system itself.
- Location
- Pittsburgh, PA
To me, this very much implies that taking enemies alive is only possible if you completely outclass them; any fight against anyone who's more than cannon fodder demands nothing less than a rabid, unrelenting effort to tear your enemy's head from their shoulders, lest they do the same to you. Never let up, never hesitate, just keep stabbing at arteries until your blade gets through. Then ram the point home into their eye socket as their stance falters.
I'll admit, that's definitely a valid choice, but it's still something I'm seeing as a byproduct of the system as you've described it.
- Location
- Denmark
- Pronouns
- She/Her
Generally, Ex3 assumes that taking enemies alive is hard, especially when they don't want to be taken alive. Unless you can grapple them or render them incapable of fighting, such as disarming them and convincing them to surrender. Oh hey, all those three things are in the Exalted core! And of course, you can throw them in Initiative Crash, where they are left railing and pushing for air, and often incapable of activating their most powerful Charms, where surrendering can also be a good idea, unless they count on their ability to survive for a few more turns and turn the battle.
Of course, the real secret to taking people alive is to ask them to come with you and invoke a compelling reason they should follow you before combat begins at all, but that's not always possible.
Imrix
Periodically Malevolent QM
I'd just say it's a regular social influence roll with a circumstance bonus granted by the ST according to how they eyeball the Initiative score as a representation of how well that fighter is controlling the flow of battle. Or maybe it's just a purely roleplaying offer with no mechanical pressure behind it.
One of the points that was commonly raised as a way of coping with Paranoia Combat in 2e, but which is no less valid in a less awful environment, is that most opponents... aren't hardline idealogues who will fight to the death at the drop of a hat. This sometimes reached such extremes that actually fighting was the exception to the rule - look into Condottieri in the Italian Wars.
And then again, some people totally will fight to the death even if they're losing.
One of the points that was commonly raised as a way of coping with Paranoia Combat in 2e, but which is no less valid in a less awful environment, is that most opponents... aren't hardline idealogues who will fight to the death at the drop of a hat. This sometimes reached such extremes that actually fighting was the exception to the rule - look into Condottieri in the Italian Wars.
And then again, some people totally will fight to the death even if they're losing.
- Location
- NYC
Ah, I had forgotten. Yeah, if memory serves, there was one charm that does roughly what I described, although it requires that you actually do damage for some reason.
Exalted 2E, by RAW, is a pretty bad game in a lot of ways and has rules for things it doesn't need, and this is one of them. Yes, it was weapons with explicit ranges and such, but from a given PC's perspective, the only meaningful question is "are they in range", because there's no actual tactical play available. If a ranged character is faster than a melee character they can basically kite forever RAW, and the melee character (who may have no dots in Ranged, no ranged-applicable Charms, and no ranged weapon Artifacts) is generally screwed. The game just doesn't support, in most situations, meaningful engagement with the environment. In a few instances relative positioning of multiple parties becomes significant, but it's almost always "am I next to X" (such as guarding them) rather than it actually mattering that you're X yards from Y, but Z yards from A.
Like, the point here is that keeping track of such things is too complicated for the value it provides, and occasionally undermines actual player engagement in the game. It's a fairly easily ignorable subsystem that every table I've played at has ignored. Measuring distances in yards is in the rules, but they're bad rules. What are you arguing here?
Peanut-007
Hat or Hair? America decides.
- Location
- Maryland, United States of America
Getting surrenders is actually a place where Dawns shine. The giant golden war banner of terror makes people want to fight them less and is conducive to making the other guy drop his sword and put his hands up. He might be willing to fight to put up a good fight but he doesn't want to fuck with he guy so terrifying things that don't normally get scared are getting scared.
Yes. You want to get consistent three levels of damage really fast. Not three levels of damage once ever five turns. To make this a little easier on you:
Would you like to do a bunch of work on one day to get three dollars, or a little work across multiple days to get 20 dollars?
What's he's confused on is presumably that it's not obvious to him that you can get three levels of damage with only 12ish initiative, since building up to 20 only got you 3 as it is.
You're not gonna burn all your defenses on a 12 init attack. Go for low damage rather than high damage that gets reduced to low.
You're example already listed and then discarded one charm that you could use but chose not to. Also in the example you're down six motes, and while that's more than 1 turns worth of mote regen you'd also essentially negate one of the smaller attacks you're arguing as better. That doesn't sound like going all out. Furthermore, you keep stressing the attritional nature of these attacks, so it seems worthwhile to counter a lesser attack and thus prevent oneself from going into negative health levels.
Additionally, your example is states that attacking afterward allows you to punish them for resetting to base initiative, but all of these lesser attacks also set them to base initiative.
You may have an argument that addresses this, but so far you have yet to bring it out.
You know what. You go ahead and spam high initiative attacks and try to flurry social influence to force surrenders. See how well that actually works out for you. Meanwhile, I'll keep using my actually incredibly effective strategy and best you literally every time you try one of these silly little gotchas you got by skimming the rules.
Peanut-007
Hat or Hair? America decides.
- Location
- Maryland, United States of America
Lowering health more incrementally rather in large attacks compounds the effectiveness of attacks as wound penalties build up. You can go much further with your resources if the opponent is gradually building wound penalty then if you try to hit it all down at once.
That makes some sense once they have wound penalties. The scenario given is about getting the first wounds on them so it's not entirely applicable here. Though more critically the argument used a charm that appears to make smaller attacks dramatically less effective. It cost some amount of resource, yes, but it's not clear to me that it costs enough to empty your mote pool quickly since you can't really chain decisive attacks back to back without withering attacks inbetween. Especially since, as I said, her example had going back down to base initiative as an excellent point to start hammering away at the opponent. So, given that scenario, why would weaker attacks be better? Is their another limit on the charm? Is mote regeneration more limited?
I'm not talking about the social influence stuff. I'm asking about the large decisive vs small decisive attack stuff because you haven't explained why it's better. You keep saying it's better based on the same example, but I'm not clear on how your example shows that.
Though if "getting large amounts of initiative and making a massive decisve attack" is actually some sort of gotcha I'm not sure if there's any real argument against 3rd edition being a pile of shit just as bad if not worse than 2nd.
- Location
- Denmark
- Pronouns
- She/Her
She has explained multiple times and patiently so. It's better to use multiple, smaller decisives than a single large one because the latter is putting all your eggs in one basket and makes you a bigger threat which also means people will be more interested in fucking you up and getting that Initiative down, whereas smaller decisives, on the other hand, let you pull down someone step by step and means that if you get your initiative torn down, you can quickly build it up again. Some people do like huge decisives; Single Point stylists especially come to mind.
This is bad debate practice, and we both know you can do better. Don't claim that an argument you're unsatisfied with somehow impacts the quality of an entire edition.
If you do the mechanics equivalent of telegraphing a powerup while screaming, people OOC will go "Oh shit he's building up, knock him down". Or, in a duel, "Okay, now is the time to push him to overcomitt to this attack". If you launch said power up, they know this is the time to burn their once-per-scene Charms so they come through unscathed and you wasted motes and initiative and are less able to defend against the blows to come.
Meanwhile, just spending moderately to wear opponents down step by step doesn't telegraph anything in particular, lets you keep all cards up your sleeve, and makes someone pinging a once-per-scene defense against you a tactical win, because you weren't particularly invested in pulling this exact attack off.
The best strategy is to build up to 12 initiative. If you have a solid withering suite, you can do this in one or two turns from base initiative. Launch a decisive, then build back up to 12. This will let you reliably land about 3 damage, 5-8 damage if you have a charm like Adamant Fists of Battle, and you are advantaged by them shutting any one attack down because, again, you didn't invest much resources, while the big defenses are flat costs, you pay 6m or 8m or whatever the cost is regardless of whether you remove 20 or 50 or 5 damage in the end. Well, except Heavenly Guardian, that is "pay to remove what you want and no higher", but Solar Melee is the best Charm tree, news at 11, we didn't start the fire ect ect.
She's touched on parts of that that, yes, but as I keep saying I'm not clear on why her example shows that, and her example also is approaching the subject from a different direction. Her example has one charm used to lessen a heavy blow, but it looks like it could also erase lighter blows, which tied into the issue with wound penalties seems to imply that using this charm to counter lighter attacks would be an effective strategy against them. I keep being told that this isn't the case, but I'm not being told why beyond it being too many resources. Except it's only 6 motes and one charm. That doesn't seem like a lot to cancel out decisive attacks.
- Location
- Ottawa
Really depends on the Charms in play, I think.
If you've got Adamant Skin Technique to knock 16 damage off a decisive attack for 8m, it makes me want to stockpile an absolutely ridiculous amount of initiative before swinging. I don't want to spend three turns going from base initiative up to 12 just to get that attack no-sold. Actually, I don't even want to swing from 20 initiative against that. Not like I can hope to inflict wound penalties, rolling 4 dice against someone who can create half a dozen -0 health levels on command with one of AST's prereqs.
On the other hand, if you have Ruin-Abasing Shrug and Fury-Fed Ardor, I know that an absolutely huge attack is likely to backfire. So I'm better off aiming for smaller attacks, taking advantage of the once/scene limitation on Ruin-Abasing Shrug.
(Of course, Ruin-Abasing Shrug requires Adamant Skin Technique. Solar Resistance is a real bugger.)
If you've got Adamant Skin Technique to knock 16 damage off a decisive attack for 8m, it makes me want to stockpile an absolutely ridiculous amount of initiative before swinging. I don't want to spend three turns going from base initiative up to 12 just to get that attack no-sold. Actually, I don't even want to swing from 20 initiative against that. Not like I can hope to inflict wound penalties, rolling 4 dice against someone who can create half a dozen -0 health levels on command with one of AST's prereqs.
On the other hand, if you have Ruin-Abasing Shrug and Fury-Fed Ardor, I know that an absolutely huge attack is likely to backfire. So I'm better off aiming for smaller attacks, taking advantage of the once/scene limitation on Ruin-Abasing Shrug.
(Of course, Ruin-Abasing Shrug requires Adamant Skin Technique. Solar Resistance is a real bugger.)
- Location
- Washington, USA
Assassination Classroom involves hundreds of plausible-seeming sneaky plans, most of which come nowhere close to succeeding. The very best ones usually just end up hitting hard enough to reveal another component of the target's paranoia combo. That's not at all "decided primarily by planning."
I want a game where the outcome of violence is most often decided by raw combat ability, where disparities in skill can be vast enough to reliably overcome the action-economy advantage of superior numbers in most "fair fight" types of scenarios, but which also includes mechanical depth to arrange a variety of decidedly unfair fights. A game where the PCs don't usually need to worry about their own survival - thus freeing up mindshare to worry about everything else in Creation and beyond - but that invulnerability is never flawless and absolute, nor the result of multilayered OOC plot armor.
I like the idea of sorcery, MA Form-type charms, Infinite Mastery, and/or other major scenelong buffs not being comboable, due to the metaphysical logic and tactical implications of the idea that focusing your full power inward to unlock something necessarily involves redirecting that power away from, say, the deflector shields. With the Defend Other action, it provides a new reason for Back-to-Back Badasses - TV Tropes right after surprise-negators have rendered the original 'free unexpected attack for being completely surrounded' issue moot. That means disguises and treachery remain a potentially significant part of the game, because there's a common type of situation where optimal play involves trusting somebody to watch your back from time to time, and leaving yourself meaningfully vulnerable if that trust is deceived or betrayed. Even with a perfect effect for confirming somebody's identity, free will means that's still not quite the same as confirming their loyal intentions.
'Meaningfully vulnerable' need not mean 'utterly helpless.' A celestial circle sorcerer betrayed mid-casting might still be forced to endure for an action or two with hardly any defenses... other than, of course, non-excellency-boosted DVs, armor and other hardness/soak, non-charm-activation perfects such as Protection of Celestial Bliss, Escape The Dawn, or Alloyed Reinforcement of Flesh which can only be used a limited number of times per scene, last-ditch "I'll get you next time, Gadget!"/"you haven't even seen my final form" powers like Birth of Sanity's Sorrow, Driven Beyond Death, Final Ray of Light, Immortal Malevolence Enslavement, and artifacts or hearthstone powers which can be used reflexively, such as a Metasorcerous Phylactery's contingent spells or a modified / automaton-controlled Ring of Vanishing Escape. "Oh, cry me a river" says the god-blood, "your worst-case nightmare scenario is a ten-second slice of my usual vensday tea-time with grandma Sikunare, plus two or three layers of security blankets and getaway plans."
Yes, that was General Exalted Thread - Megathread - Pen & Paper | Page 2011 I apologize for misattributing the sentiment.
Iron Skin Concentration is once-per-scene.
- Location
- Washington, USA
You can defend a corridor with the Blockade Movement action, or, even without the 2.5 rules, by aborting an Aim or Guard action to take a swing at someone when they approach you. There are meaningful rules for terrain right in the corebook: climbing and swimming and falling on p 126, drowning and environmental hazards on p 130-131, DV modifiers for cover and height advantage on p 147, unstable footing and water/muck on p 155. The Athletics tree from Graceful Crane Stance through Eagle-Wing Style was meant to interact with those terrain rules, and most of the rest of Solar Athletics expands the main options (Jump and Dash) that anyone has for covering ground quicker in order to engage or disengage.
You never used a map because the corebook never explains how to use a map, and the official adventures published for 2e never included tactical-scale maps, leaving most physical confrontations de facto set in a featureless white room until specified otherwise. The system's development was, as previously discussed, badly mismanaged, with key components inadequately documented, improperly connected to the frame and left to rattle around loose inside the casing, or omitted entirely. That is what we're trying to fix.
Why would you ever bother blockading movement, though, when there are so many ways around it and doing so just wastes an action you should probably have been attacking with? This is kinda the problem with Ex2. Even when the alternate option exists, it doesn't actually matter. Because, well.
Ex2 is an awful system that just isn't worth the effort to fix. Ex3 exists. Scion exists. Dungeons and Dragons exists, it would be so much easier to mod Exalts into D&D than fix Ex2 into an actually playable state.
- Location
- Gladstone, OR
I can't speak for @strange_person , @Kaiya , but speaking for myself:
Even if Ex2 is an awful system, Ex3 outright removed, ignored or depreciated systems and concepts that were useful, interesting or otherwise seen as valuable- setting aside if they were enjoyed or not. This is not a statement or assessment of value or taste- That doesn't really matter when it comes to design. Seeing as Ex3 lacks these mechanics in even any reasonable form, their glaring omission means that the only other source is other games, including Ex2.
The fact, is neither system did Everything everyone wanted, (and expecting it to unrealistic, but goals are goals). But the constant refrain of 'Exalted 2e is a shit system' is actively toxic. It poisons the well against meaningful discussion. You're not helping the thread or anyone in it by doing so. 2e is no longer supported, so any work done with it is done at the will of the person interested. 3e is in active development- and again speaking for myself, I critique 3rd edition because it needs to be critiqued. Without anyone exploring, analyzing it and showing it's flaws and virtues, there can be no improvement.
The reality is that people who 'hate' 2e don't really hate it. They hate that it keeps getting talked about. They hate the buy-in required for it. They're tired of it. 3e was not taken as a Good product, it was taken as 'Anything but 2e'. That bias must be recognized before you can more reasonably assess either editions' faults and successes.
Even if Ex2 is an awful system, Ex3 outright removed, ignored or depreciated systems and concepts that were useful, interesting or otherwise seen as valuable- setting aside if they were enjoyed or not. This is not a statement or assessment of value or taste- That doesn't really matter when it comes to design. Seeing as Ex3 lacks these mechanics in even any reasonable form, their glaring omission means that the only other source is other games, including Ex2.
The fact, is neither system did Everything everyone wanted, (and expecting it to unrealistic, but goals are goals). But the constant refrain of 'Exalted 2e is a shit system' is actively toxic. It poisons the well against meaningful discussion. You're not helping the thread or anyone in it by doing so. 2e is no longer supported, so any work done with it is done at the will of the person interested. 3e is in active development- and again speaking for myself, I critique 3rd edition because it needs to be critiqued. Without anyone exploring, analyzing it and showing it's flaws and virtues, there can be no improvement.
The reality is that people who 'hate' 2e don't really hate it. They hate that it keeps getting talked about. They hate the buy-in required for it. They're tired of it. 3e was not taken as a Good product, it was taken as 'Anything but 2e'. That bias must be recognized before you can more reasonably assess either editions' faults and successes.
- Location
- Washington, USA
Thank you so much for backing me up here, @Shyft
Have you actually tried doing this, or is it hyperbole/speculation? I'm actually running games in parallel on TGchan right now, one mostly based on D&D/Pathfinder (plus some GURPS) and another mostly based on Ex2, same core group of players, and I've been making what feels like slow but steady progress toward adequate Ex2 rules, whereas I wouldn't even know where to start on modding recognizable exalts into the most basic D&D system of character levels, while GURPS seizes up and chokes on it's own vomit trying to work out the appropriate point-buy cost and other mechanical interactions for something as simple as HGD or Duck Fate.