The problem with the "sorcery is just physics so obviously you have to understand it to make stuff" position is that... sorcery is not physics in Exalted. Occult is physics. Normal people can learn Occult. Sorcery requires initiation.
 
Vicky, people have already talked about plenty of works like FF7, Berserk, etc that provide ample inspiration for oversized weapons. You're going to have to work a lot harder to show Exalted's oversized weapons draw specifically from Warcraft as well.
Oh, I apologize, I didn't mean to imply that the style exclusively belongs to WarCraft, but rather brought it up as one of the examples of the broad style (though they do seem visually similar, which, again, does not mean exclusivity). I did write 'at least some cue', after all. It's just that given how many Exalts there are in the setting, and how many daiklaves there are, 'this is a rare chararacter, one who has a surfboard-sword' seems to no longer apply.
The problem with the "sorcery is just physics so obviously you have to understand it to make stuff" position is that... sorcery is not physics in Exalted. Occult is physics. Normal people can learn Occult. Sorcery requires initiation.
Shouldn't that be Lore? (As in, 'this is the skill of secrets of the universe and operating ancient technological devices'?)
 
Last edited:
Oh, I apologize, I didn't mean to imply that the style exclusively belongs to WarCraft, but rather brought it up as one of the examples of the broad style (though they do seem visually similar, which, again, does not mean exclusivity). I did write 'at least some cue', after all. It's just that given how many Exalts there are in the setting, and how many daiklaves there are, 'this is a rare chararacter, one who has a surfboard-sword' seems to no longer apply.
Well, no, because the inspirations that Exalted actually draws on for oversized weapons, as Revlid pointed out, treat oversized weapons as rare and impressive things, indicative of great strength.

Warcraft doesn't treat oversized weapons like that, but Warcraft is irrelevant to this conversation, because it's not a work that Exalted cares about one way or another.

Exalted tries to treat daiklaves as rare and impressive things in order to allow everybody to enjoy that feeling of being exceptional heroes with powerful weapons, but in doing so it proliferated artifact weapons so much that they lost their lustre. This is not news, vicky, we've been over this before. The game has a pretty clear goal it was going for with artifact weaponry, and the execution failed to achieve that goal.
 
Last edited:
Shouldn't that be Lore? (As in, 'this is the skill of secrets of the universe and operating ancient technological devices'?)

Lore= Humanities (Geography, history, wharever).

Occult= Sciences (Mathematics, astrology, taumaturgy, etc).

-----

Granted, this isn't very clear, specially given that Lore ended up with a lot of essence manipulation charms for some reason.
 
Well, no, because the inspirations that Exalted actually draws on for oversized weapons, as Revlid pointed out, treat oversized weapons as rare and impressive things, indicative of great strength.
I guess much comes to how rare is rare and how impressive is impressive.
The obvious minimum rareness is 'about as rare as Exalts and Enlightened Mortals in general'. OTOH, they are not indicative of superhuman strength. For instance, the Grimscythe has a blade that is a yard across, and yet only requires Strength 3 to wield comfortably. Even the Grand Goremaul only requires a 4. It's pretty explicit that magic makes all these artefacts possible wield with strengths below the human maximum.
This is clearly a deliberate setting design choice to make them very large and heavy, but make sure not to prevent slightly above-average character from wielding most of them.

Now, if the stats of the larger artifact weapons required either buying Legendary Strength or using Increasing Strength Exercises to wield, that would be a totally different statement about the intents of the design of the setting. But it isn't, so the goal is clearly to maintain visual grandeur of weapons while not necessarily implying that they're exclusive to inhuman brutes.

Lore= Humanities (Geography, history, wharever).

Occult= Sciences (Mathematics, astrology, taumaturgy, etc).

-----

Granted, this isn't very clear, specially given that Lore ended up with a lot of essence manipulation charms for some reason.
This is the interpretation I keep encountering in this thread, but for me it seems to clash with the stuff that Lore actually does. I mean, do you really think that it takes humanities (Geography, history etc.) to program a computer or repair a particle accelerator? This is what Lore does, and it seems to be closer to sciences to me, while Occult, by contrast, seems to be more about, well, occultism, thaumatology, cults, spellcraft and the like.
 
Last edited:
... Vicky, you're trying to derive authorial intent from system details again. Why are you doing this? We've had several conversations about how this doesn't work in Exalted, due to the lack of editorial oversight making sure that what is written lines up with what the game is about.
 
Judging by the descriptions of artifacts and their picture, it does seem to be taking at least some cue from this style
Yeah, and I have to ask here - why exactly do you think "cartoonishly giant weapons" was made the default, effectively forcing anyone who wants to play with a weapon like those that the vast majority of Exalted's inspirations use into Rule Zeroing it or not using an Artifact? What do you see as the reasoning behind making all the sample weapons cartoonishly large, when a great many people aren't going to want cartoonishly large weapons if their character has any form of fighting style that is, for example, rapier-like or samurai-esque?

Enabling people to play Guts or Sephiroth is one thing, but the corebook is effectively trying to force it by giving no examples of regularly-sized artifacts. If Rule Zero is a solution to this problem, can you give a reason it wouldn't have been better done the other way around, with largely normal-sized examples mixed in with a few cartoon surfboard-on-a-pole examples? What's the appeal here for people who aren't in love with the idea of toting around a telephone pole if they want to play a spear-user?
 
... Vicky, you're trying to derive authorial intent from system details again. Why are you doing this? We've had several conversations about how this doesn't work in Exalted, due to the lack of editorial oversight making sure that what is written lines up with what the game is about.
Largely because I've seen @Shyft do it successfully and I want to learn from him to do it too, because I like how he manages to produce insights into the game line by this method. Of course, Shyft is a veteran of this, while I'm largely a dabbler.

Yeah, and I have to ask here - why exactly do you think "cartoonishly giant weapons" was made the default, effectively forcing anyone who wants to play with a weapon like those that the vast majority of Exalted's inspirations use into Rule Zeroing it or not using an Artifact? What do you see as the reasoning behind making all the sample weapons cartoonishly large, when a great many people aren't going to want cartoonishly large weapons if their character has any form of fighting style that is, for example, rapier-like or samurai-esque?

Enabling people to play Guts or Sephiroth is one thing, but the corebook is effectively trying to force it by giving no examples of regularly-sized artifacts. If Rule Zero is a solution to this problem, can you give a reason it wouldn't have been better done the other way around, with largely normal-sized examples mixed in with a few cartoon surfboard-on-a-pole examples? What's the appeal here for people who aren't in love with the idea of toting around a telephone pole if they want to play a spear-user?
Stylistic choice, I suppose? Much like in many WH40K RPGs, there are certain very strong stylistic default assumptions (the Gothic architecture of all of your ships and buildings, the retrotechiness of weapons, the theology inherent in everyday speech etc.), and moving away from them requires something like a special permission.
Much like the shininess of the default splat of Exalted is largely a stylistic choice, and the only way around it is to play a Night Caste and suppress one's anima (this is actually example of a stylistic choice in Exalted that I disliked and spent effort and motes avoiding; the other was indeed the fact that I requested a more delicate dire chain, so it's not like I'm defending a style I personally like).

It's pretty hard for me to provide a rational reason for stylistic choices, other than 'an author liked the idea of making it so'. Æsthetics are a highly subjective thing.
 
Last edited:
I thought the Reaper Daiklaive was the blade you went for if you wanted to be swinging a katana around.

Problem is that the Reaper Daiklave is, at its smallest, a two handed nodachi while it's supposed to be basically any sabre type weapon. Including a sword that's not as big as the horse and the rider upon it.
 
Yeah, and I have to ask here - why exactly do you think "cartoonishly giant weapons" was made the default, effectively forcing anyone who wants to play with a weapon like those that the vast majority of Exalted's inspirations use into Rule Zeroing it or not using an Artifact? What do you see as the reasoning behind making all the sample weapons cartoonishly large, when a great many people aren't going to want cartoonishly large weapons if their character has any form of fighting style that is, for example, rapier-like or samurai-esque?

Enabling people to play Guts or Sephiroth is one thing, but the corebook is effectively trying to force it by giving no examples of regularly-sized artifacts. If Rule Zero is a solution to this problem, can you give a reason it wouldn't have been better done the other way around, with largely normal-sized examples mixed in with a few cartoon surfboard-on-a-pole examples? What's the appeal here for people who aren't in love with the idea of toting around a telephone pole if they want to play a spear-user?
I think that's a fair point, but I find your proposed solution lackluster.

Guts or Sephiroth don't spend limited power resources to wield their enormous weapons; they don't enter brief bursts of fury that are the only times when they can fully wield their powers. They can just wield oversized weapon as a matter of fact.

And what is more important, this is not presented as a tactical decision - not in the sense that there are merits and drawbacks to using oversized weapons, and they're opening certain weaknesses in exchange for the benefits of their enormous reach and damaging power. They wield oversized weapon because they are able to, and being able to do it makes it automatically a superior choice. The Dragonslayer is the only way for a human-scale opponent to go toe to toe with the superpowered Apostles. There is no implication at any point that Cloud or Sephiroth would be just as powerful with smaller weapons, trading damaging power for the speed of a lighter weapon. If you can wield it, the oversized weapon is optimal.

Now, of course, this isn't always the case. Manga is rife with easily-dispatched mooks and antagonists of the week whose oversized weapons are too cumbersome and sign their downfall. But they're, well, mooks and opponents of the week. And in general, the point is that they don't have the strength to fully wield these weapons, their blows being slow and telegraphed. When a protagonist is the one saddled with an oversized weapon, it is very often presented as the best kind of weapon to have - it's just that there is a high enough gate to entry that people using them are rare or even unique.

Obviously this is problematic to implement in an RPG. You want balance, not for every fighter to splurge on max Strength and ISE so they can wield a super-grand-ultra-greatklave and win all fights forever.

But I find the proposed solutions unsatisfying because they betray their source material. Guts, Cloud, Sephiroth, Soulsborne characters - if they can wield their oversized weapon, they just can. They don't need to fuel it with magic, and they are not short-lived glass cannons who must expend huge amounts of power with every blow and be exhausted quickly.

What doesn't betray the source material, then? Well, mostly, the "underwhelming" option as outlined by @Revlid. Yes, it is something of a cop-out. But ultimately - in Bleach, powerful Shinigami can tank hits from Ichigo with minor injuries. Guts mows through hordes of mooks, but Apostles can take more than one of his blows. FF7 has heavily abstracted combat, but peripheral material shows Cloud having to hit opponents repeatedly, generally without causing gruesome wounds. Bosses can take several hits from an Ultra Greatsword.

Giant weapons are, in most source material, an equalizer. They serve to put an ostensibly "human" character on a level with their opponents; where ordinary humans are mooks, their giant weapon allows them to deal enough damage that, while they cannot win in a single hit, they can engage the opponents in equal terms. The monster wounds them, they wound the monster. Attrition occurs.

They are, in a sense, Exaltation. They serve both as the visual signifier setting this "human" apart from others, and as the medium through which their abnormal power can be leveraged to deal with opponents that should be out of their league - whether this be giant monsters or supernatural beings of supposedly greater age and power.

Which, in the bottom line, makes it so that Ichigo's ridiculous sword can only deal shallow cuts to a powerful Shinigami, Guts has to hack and slash at an Apostle to kill them, Cloud has to pull off his nine-hit-combo to defeat Sephiroth, etc. So, I'm fine with giant weapon being just "Strength X to wield, +Y damage," because the alternatives are either 1) having them be the optimal choice, 2) having some bizarre system that isn't true to their source material where just hitting with a grand goremaul is functionally equivalent to using a damage-boosting Charms and so costs motes every time.
 
Last edited:
I think that's a fair point, but I find your proposed solution lackluster.

Guts or Sephiroth don't spend limited power resources to wield their enormous weapons; they don't enter brief bursts of fury that are the only times when they can fully wield their powers. They can just wield oversized weapon as a matter of fact.

And what is more important, this is not presented as a tactical decision - not in the sense that there are merits and drawbacks to using oversized weapons, and they're opening certain weaknesses in exchange for the benefits of their enormous reach and damaging power. They wield oversized weapon because they are able to, and being able to do it makes it automatically a superior choice. The Dragonslayer is the only way for a human-scale opponent to go toe to toe with the superpowered Apostles. There is no implication at any point that Cloud or Sephiroth would be just as powerful with smaller weapons, trading damaging power for the speed of a lighter weapon. If you can wield it, the oversized weapon is optimal.

Now, of course, this isn't always the case. Manga is rife with easily-dispatched mooks and antagonists of the week whose oversized weapons are too cumbersome and sign their downfall. But they're, well, mooks and opponents of the week. And in general, the point is that they don't have the strength to fully wield these weapons, their blows being slow and telegraphed. When a protagonist is the one saddled with an oversized weapon, it is very often presented as the best kind of weapon to have - it's just that there is a high enough gate to entry that people using them are rare or even unique.

Obviously this is problematic to implement in an RPG. You want balance, not for every fighter to splurge on max Strength and ISE so they can wield a super-grand-ultra-greatklave and win all fights forever.

But I find the proposed solutions unsatisfying because they betray their source material. Guts, Cloud, Sephiroth, Soulsborne characters - if they can wield their oversized weapon, they just can. They don't need to fuel it with magic, and they are not short-lived glass cannons who must expend huge amounts of power with every blow and be exhausted quickly.

What doesn't betray the source material, then? Well, mostly, the "underwhelming" option as outlined by @Revlid. Yes, it is something of a cop-out. But ultimately - in Bleach, powerful Shinigami can tank hits from Ichigo with minor injuries. Guts mows through hordes of mooks, but Apostles can take more than one of his blows. FF7 has heavily abstracted combat, but peripheral material shows Cloud having to hit opponents repeatedly, generally without causing gruesome wounds. Bosses can take several hits from an Ultra Greatsword.

Giant weapons are, in most source material, an equalizer. They serve to put an ostensibly "human" character on a level with their opponents; where ordinary humans are mooks, their giant weapon allows them to deal enough damage that, while they cannot win in a single hit, they can engage the opponents in equal terms. The monster wounds them, they wound the monster. Attrition occurs.

They are, in a sense, Exaltation. They serve both as the visual signifier setting this "human" apart from others, and as the medium through which their abnormal power can be leveraged to deal with opponents that should be out of their league - whether this be giant monsters or supernatural beings of supposedly greater age and power.

Which, in the bottom line, makes it so that Ichigo's ridiculous sword can only deal shallow cuts to a powerful Shinigami, Guts has to hack and slash at an Apostle to kill them, Cloud has to pull off his nine-hit-combo to defeat Sephiroth, etc. So, I'm fine with giant weapon being just "Strength X to wield, +Y damage," because the alternatives are either 1) having them be the optimal choice, 2) having some bizarre system that isn't true to their source material where just hitting with a grand goremaul is functionally equivalent to using a damage-boosting Charms and so costs motes every time.
Not quite the case for Guts; he's been in at least one situation I think of where his opponent used his weapon's size against him. Souls characters are also making explicit trade offs terms of speed and stats use big weapons. Total nitpick, I know.
 
Not quite the case for Guts; he's been in at least one situation I think of where his opponent used his weapon's size against him. Souls characters are also making explicit trade offs terms of speed and stats use big weapons. Total nitpick, I know.
Serpico, yes. I think this actually goes to my point. Serpico is a very fast, very agile fencer using a rapier, and it's made very clear that in an open field, Guts would have destroyed him. In both of their fights, he exploits specific narrow environments that constrain the use of the Dragonslayer sword and he is still made out to be the underdog, frantically scrambling for every advantage he can get and still being on the losing side.
 
I thought the Reaper Daiklaive was the blade you went for if you wanted to be swinging a katana around.
It's a Daiklaive designed for speed and agility, but it's still a Daiklaive.
A Katana would probably be a Short Daiklaive.
In fact, a Daisho set would just be Paired Short Daiklaives with one slightly longer and one slightly shorter.
 
Last edited:
Serpico, yes. I think this actually goes to my point. Serpico is a very fast, very agile fencer using a rapier, and it's made very clear that in an open field, Guts would have destroyed him. In both of their fights, he exploits specific narrow environments that constrain the use of the Dragonslayer sword and he is still made out to be the underdog, frantically scrambling for every advantage he can get and still being on the losing side.
And that was because Guts was crazy powerful. If he had a normal sword in that arena then it's implied Service wouldn't have stood a chance.

The point of the fight is to show Serpico is clever, exploiting a weak point that others hadn't.
 
Largely because I've seen @Shyft do it successfully and I want to learn from him to do it too, because I like how he manages to produce insights into the game line by this method. Of course, Shyft is a veteran of this, while I'm largely a dabbler.
Y-eees, but from my perspective, and I think @Shyft would agree with me here, a great part of deriving insights from interrogating parts of the system is knowing where that system is worth interrogating for trustworthy insights, and a large part of that is understanding what the system is trying to achieve. You can't just examine the mechanics for what they imply and work backwards from there to find what sort of inspirations it implies. You must know the context of these mechanics, what they were meant to model, and then judge them according to how they attempt to model that. Background knowledge is a major part of the difference between a veteran and a dabbler.

In this case, if you're examining the rules for oversized artifact weapons, you have to understand that these are rules intended to model characters like Guts and Cloud Strife, exceptional figures who wield impressive weapons to match their heroic stature. From here you can make worthwhile insights - like how the way the game tried to enable playing Guts or Cloud Strife was damaging to playing any of the myriad characters who are also inspiration for Exalted, but who don't wield an airplane wing with an edge.
 
. If a laser gun survives from ancient times, it will be regarded as magic, and there will be ritual requirements for its use, like keeping the sacred lens of pure crystal polished and clean, or placing its solar battery out in the sun and beseeching the Sun god to instil it with his burning wrath.

You know, something that annoys me of the whole magic-as-tech is that there is no way for the player to see the difference between actual, proper magic and cargo cult magic, except in the number of successes you get in your occult roll.

How can i know, at a glance, if the ritual these people are using to power the ancient solar lance is the right one or the creation equivalent of carving wood headphones?
 
Yeah, and I have to ask here - why exactly do you think "cartoonishly giant weapons" was made the default, effectively forcing anyone who wants to play with a weapon like those that the vast majority of Exalted's inspirations use into Rule Zeroing it or not using an Artifact?

Honestly? I think its because "I have an artifact weapon" became the default of gameplay. The ability of players to spend 2BP on a daiklave meant that there was no reason not to have one. Apparently, the damn things were as common as coffee tables. In one of my early games the PCs ended up with so many jade daiklaves after repeated skirmishes that one player made them into fenceposts.

I think the default arms for most of the Chosen should be regular mundane weapons. In which case, yes, they can look like normal mundane weapons because they are. And if the PC can fight with that weapon as well as the guy with the artifact daiklave its because they are Just That Damn Good that having a surfboard sword is not required.

I think "I don't have an artifact" weapon should be an entirely valid character choice.
 
I think "I don't have an artifact" weapon should be an entirely valid character choice.
It is in Ex3; a valid choice. But it isn't optimal.

Which, I think, is an issue that isn't raised as often as it should be. Valid doesn't mean optimal.

Two out of my five players use Artifact weapons. The group's strongest fighter, the Dawn, does not, instead prefering beautiful mundane swords she draws in quick succession. And it works! It works just fine. She's more powerful than most of her opposition. But if she had a Reaper Daiklave and committed five motes to it, it would be better, statistically; it would be optimal. But she still wins without it, including defeating opponents who do have Artifact weapons.

A choice being suboptimal doesn't mean it's valid. My player values several things - his Merit dots at chargen, the size of his mote pool for purposes others than boosting accuracy/damage, the aesthetics of his chosen fighting style - and it works. To me, that's fine.
 
Y-eees, but from my perspective, and I think @Shyft would agree with me here, a great part of deriving insights from interrogating parts of the system is knowing where that system is worth interrogating for trustworthy insights, and a large part of that is understanding what the system is trying to achieve. You can't just examine the mechanics for what they imply and work backwards from there to find what sort of inspirations it implies. You must know the context of these mechanics, what they were meant to model, and then judge them according to how they attempt to model that. Background knowledge is a major part of the difference between a veteran and a dabbler.

In this case, if you're examining the rules for oversized artifact weapons, you have to understand that these are rules intended to model characters like Guts and Cloud Strife, exceptional figures who wield impressive weapons to match their heroic stature. From here you can make worthwhile insights - like how the way the game tried to enable playing Guts or Cloud Strife was damaging to playing any of the myriad characters who are also inspiration for Exalted, but who don't wield an airplane wing with an edge.
I am of course not @Shyft, so of course he knows better. But the impression his essays gave is that quite often he examined the system in order to figure out what the authors were trying to achieve. E.g. his observation that Solars are very much about removing typical task obstacles and . . . 'conditional problems' (not his wording, but the best way I can put it into a few words) . . . comes from analyzing Charms such as JET, CNNT, Lock-Opening Touch, Food-Gathering Exercise, Seven Shadow Evasion etc. Looking into older materials / other background knowledge seems to be more Chung's and ES' shtick.

Again, not saying that I'm an expert or anything like that. Just commenting on what aspects of Shyft's essays stand out for me.
 
Last edited:
It is usually preferable to not present a contradiction between "fulfilling my character concept" and "optimizing" in the first place.
I'm not sure how you could do that, in this context. Either you make daiklaves balanced with mundane weapons, at which point it's questionable why they exist, or not taking one for the sake of concept will be a deliberate weakness. There isn't much space in-between.
 
I am of course not @Shyft, so of course he knows better. But the impression his essays gave is that quite often he examined the system in order to figure out what the authors were trying to achieve. E.g. his observation that Solars are very much about removing typical task obstacles and . . . 'conditional problems' (not his wording, but the best way I can put it into a few words) . . . comes from analyzing Charms such as JET, CNNT, Lock-Opening Touch, Food-Gathering Exercise, Seven Shadow Evasion etc. Looking into older materials / other background knowledge seems to be more Chung's and ES' shtick.
That's exactly what I'm talking about though. Shyft already knows broadly what Solars are and what they do (impossible excellence derived from human skill and so forth), so examining how the game puts that into practice leads to the insight of how Solar power has a common element of stepping directly from desire to resolution while skipping the means. It's an insight into how the game actualises what it wants to be - but you have to know what it wants to be first.

Note that Shyft is perfectly willing to dismiss elements of the game as badly written or unfitting of what it's trying to be, like prefacing his old Craft essay by saying that he won't belabour points like Craft Bloat and artifact restriction. Because Shyft has already studied the game enough to have gone through the selection process of which bits of the system are worth interrogating for worthwhile insights.
 
Last edited:
In the section explaining Familiars in 2e, it mentions Direwolves, yet the stats for them are nowhere to be found. Are they in any other books, or is this just another case of poor choose-one-of-a-million-things?
 
Back
Top