Except Abyssals have a charm that let's them learn Solar charms, Solars have a charms to learn both Abyssal charms and Infernal charms, but there is no charm for Infernals to learn Solar Charms.

(I know how Eclipses work, but this is the point I was making)
That is irrelevant to the Fiend ability to learn non-Infernal charms, and also those charms are terrible for balance.
Also, there isn't the mirror theme between Infernals and anything, like there is for Solars and Abyssals (which is the justification for those charms).
 
Except Abyssals have a charm that let's them learn Solar charms, Solars have a charms to learn both Abyssal charms and Infernal charms, but there is no charm for Infernals to learn Solar Charms.
Abyssals and Solars are inverted mirror images of one another, they share a lot of charm design and it has been noted how disturbingly easy it was to invert them. They literally have Keyword to indicate which charms are shared between them, since there is so many. Abyssals and Solars are two different sides of the same coin, light and glory inverted to darkness and horror.

And in this metaphor, Green Sun Princes are paper money.

They have completely different design paradigm to their cousins, they use the esoteric charm trees of the Yozi while the Solars and Abyssals are ability based. Not to mention that they just plain don't share a lot similarities in terms of abilities; GSPs have Shintai charms, more permanent effects and low level mutation granting charms and broad range effects that apply to several abilities; life Green Sun Nimbus Flare, Spiteful-Sea Tincture and many others. Solars getting those charms goes against their abilities focused design.
 
I tried reading Nobilis, for example. Operative word- tried.
Nobilis 2e was actually really good as a technical manual...

...if you skipped over about 3/4ths of the book and kept your own notes as to where to find the rules sections.

The play examples were great! The definitions of powers and categorizations of Miracles are actually really clear!

The problem is that all of it was intermixed with huge amounts of fluff everywhere, so the only way to find the rules was if you'd sat down and read through all of it a couple of times already.

Nobilis 3e, unfortunately, isn't much of an improvement, as despite cutting down drastically on the total amount of text, it keeps everything weirdly organized and is filled with the really incredibly terrible art supplied by Eos Press.

It remains unlikely that a better version will appear, as Eos has screwed up everything to do with Nobilis 3e thoroughly enough that only pure luck has kept them from facing an attorney general's lawsuit over their handling of the Kickstarter.

Hey, myself and a guy of mine are going to be DM-ing an Exalted/Worm Quest with pre-Coil Lisa as a Night Caste Exalt. Since there are a lot of Worm/Exalt quests and fanfics, I would like to ask you guys: what elements do you think would help it to stand out from the other Exalted/Worm Crossover Quests?
Don't refer to Charms by singular names, as discrete "things" that are always learned in chunks, or as "put motes in and get magic out" black boxes.
 
Abyssals and Solars are inverted mirror images of one another, they share a lot of charm design and it has been noted how disturbingly easy it was to invert them. They literally have Keyword to indicate which charms are shared between them, since there is so many. Abyssals and Solars are two different sides of the same coin, light and glory inverted to darkness and horror.

And in this metaphor, Green Sun Princes are paper money.

They have completely different design paradigm to their cousins, they use the esoteric charm trees of the Yozi while the Solars and Abyssals are ability based. Not to mention that they just plain don't share a lot similarities in terms of abilities; GSPs have Shintai charms, more permanent effects and low level mutation granting charms and broad range effects that apply to several abilities; life Green Sun Nimbus Flare, Spiteful-Sea Tincture and many others. Solars getting those charms goes against their abilities focused design.
But they can. Solars can literally learn every Yozi charm if they have buy Primordial Principal Emulation enough times. While, yes, it is a high essance charm, Yozi charms have tons effects that only activate at high essance. Is Infernals being able to get an equivalent charm too much to ask? How is it fair that a sufficiently dedicated Solar could learn any of their charms but they can't do the reverse?
 
But they can. Solars can literally learn every Yozi charm if they have buy Primordial Principal Emulation enough times. While, yes, it is a high essance charm, Yozi charms have tons effects that only activate at high essance. Is Infernals being able to get an equivalent charm too much to ask? How is it fair that a sufficiently dedicated Solar could learn any of their charms but they can't do the reverse?
Most people on this forum believe that Primordial Principle Emulation, the Eclipse, Moonshadow, and Fiend Anima power, and any other ability that allows two Exalt types to share Charms is a bad power that shouldn't be in the game. As a part of that, this means that no one really cares for making equivalent charms in other splats since they don't want them in the game anyways.

EDIT: In case you're wondering, the reason they're considered bad is because they allow for broken combos of charms that were never meant to be comboed together, or capabilities that the Exalt type was not meant to have. For example, the Eclipse Anima ability allowing someone to buy Principle of Motion, which is effectively an 11 attack flurry and one of the strongest charms in the game. Solars aren't supposed to get that charm, but Eclipses can, and thus an Eclipse with no Melee can get out a more dangerous flurry than a Dawn using Iron Whirlwind Attack.
 
Last edited:
But they can. Solars can literally learn every Yozi charm if they have buy Primordial Principal Emulation enough times. While, yes, it is a high essance charm, Yozi charms have tons effects that only activate at high essance. Is Infernals being able to get an equivalent charm too much to ask? How is it fair that a sufficiently dedicated Solar could learn any of their charms but they can't do the reverse?
those charms are terrible for balance.
Also, not really in theme for either splat.
 
While I am not actually supporting charmshare, has anyone actually had "Eclipse can crush any other solar" type stuff actually occur in game? They do need a teacher to learn other charm types, after all.

How commonly does Charmshare actually wreck a game?
 
While I am not actually supporting charmshare, has anyone actually had "Eclipse can crush any other solar" type stuff actually occur in game? They do need a teacher to learn other charm types, after all.

How commonly does Charmshare actually wreck a game?

Traditionally, most GMs realize why this is a bad idea right after they let an Eclipse learn Principle of Motion and it gets used.

Principle of Motion being the first thing most Eclipse players try to get, for blatantly obvious reasons.
 
Last edited:
While I am not actually supporting charmshare, has anyone actually had "Eclipse can crush any other solar" type stuff actually occur in game? They do need a teacher to learn other charm types, after all.

How commonly does Charmshare actually wreck a game?
Who cares how often it actually happens? It shouldn't be an option unless a group deliberately makes it an option with house rules.
Bad balance is bad balance.
 
While I am not actually supporting charmshare, has anyone actually had "Eclipse can crush any other solar" type stuff actually occur in game? They do need a teacher to learn other charm types, after all.

How commonly does Charmshare actually wreck a game?

The worst game I ever took part in, involved a Fiend with somewhere about 1000 motes due to charmshare.
 
You know, rather than become a carbon copy of one of the Yozi, I'd have the "loyalist" endgame for Infernals be turning yourself into a prosthetic fetich soul for one of them; essentially either making them double down on whatever aspects of themselves you most like or adding on new ones in an attempt to "fix" them (making Kimbery less abusive, allowing Metagaos to think multiple meals ahead, restoring Cecelyne's faith in just rule), but in either case altering them enough that they can escape the Surrender Oaths.
 
While I am not actually supporting charmshare, has anyone actually had "Eclipse can crush any other solar" type stuff actually occur in game? They do need a teacher to learn other charm types, after all.

How commonly does Charmshare actually wreck a game?

I my case it was my third time running Exalted and the charms were a few of Sidereal charms that the player with a Gold Faction ally at four points picked up.

Impeding the Flow was one of them. I don't remember what the others were.

Eventually he did ask for Principle of Motion too, but I'd learned by then.
 
If you write "I can kill everyone I can see" on the paper in the book, I assume you mean "I can kill everyone I can see". I can then proceed to call this stupid, because it is. I can also then point out that the capability should be removed because including that capability in the game is insane, and I will be equally correct.

If you actually meant "I can kill everyone I can see in an area roughly the size of a football field, and center my AoE no more than a longbow shot away from where I am", then you should have written that down instead. If you write "I can kill everyone I can see" and expect people to get "I can kill everyone I can see in an area roughly the size of a football field, and center my AoE no more than a longbow shot away from where I am" out of it, you have failed as a writer and as a game developer. I, the reader, am not telepathic, nor am I supposed to be a game developer*.

*I seem to have turned into one as a side effect, but I do not want to have to do this.



Name a non-stupid use of "I can kill everyone I can see" which requires "I can kill everyone I can see" to actually be capable of killing everyone you can see, where "I can attempt to kill people I can see within a fair range limit" will not satisfy.
Name a non-stupid use of "I can kill everyone I can see" which requires "I can kill everyone I can see" to in fact do that, where "I can attempt to kill a group of people I can see within a range limit" will not satisfy.
Not the first case where the spirit (or at least a sensible, non-stupid spirit) of the rules doesn't match the literal reading.

Nice attempt at evasion. Remember that we are talking about enemies being actively and genuinely threatening so as to force players to react appropriately (jump through 'correct solution' hoops on pain of death) to that threat, so as to satisfy suspension of disbelief and player gameplay engagement. Definitionally, we want the threat rating in case of incorrect play to be high, in case of blatantly throwing the fight to be invariably fatal, and in case of correct play to be low to invariably victorious.
Since my paragraph looks like evasion to you, and yours seems like something evasion-like to me, I have to conclude that we're not having the same aspect of combat encounter balance in mind while talking to (or past) each other.

Chung doesn't advocate paranoia combat as the solution to Exalted.

He advocates paranoia combat as the only logical result of the meta in Exalted Second Edition.

You can have a game with no paranoia combat easily, but if you enter the realm of Exalts fite Exalts, then paranoia combat will enter the equation at some point.

Jon Chung doesn't want a game with paranoia combat, this is the reason he constantly mentions that the best solution to fixing Second Edition is to not play Second Edition.
For fuck's sake, vicky. The problem is that your fluffy roleplaying build is a red stain beneath the golden boots of the paranoia build. Yes, non-perfect defense strategies are terrible and all builds are judged against the p-combo. This is caused by the system being an unbalanced piece of shit. "Go optimal or go home" is bad. This is a state imposed by the system being bad and defining the gap between optimal and non-optimal to be that large. If you don't like this, you should be advocating for a system with less of a One True Build problem, not defending the broken system behind the shield of "oh, my GM can compensate, so it's fine".
There are two sides of the coin to the One True Build problem and their ilk. On one side, there's the fact that for a person who has a Play To Win/Powergaming/Optimising attitude, the system does encourage the one true build. The other side is that the problem comes up significantly more if the players in a campaign have such an attitude.
Sure, there's blame on the meta, but there's also blame on the players who take steps away from their original character concepts in order to make a set towards the meta.
In our campaign, the Paranoia Combat didn't show up in its full glory because nobody embraced the Path of the Ultimate Optimizer. We had a samurai with Ox-Bodies because his concept called for someone who is tough and not for someone who uses Essence to harden his skin, a Snake Stylist because the concept called for a MAist instead of a Mêléeist, a dodgy sniper who used a Dodge Excellency at 10 motes in one of the encounters even though Seven Shadow only costs 8 because at that point, Perfecting was conceptually inappropriate, uncool and unfair (he failed that dodge as a result, incidentally). Nobody died over the course of 25 sessions (or slightly more), even though there were close calls.

Do you think your GM would have enjoyed having your crap build and the traditional invincible sword princess in the same game, having to balance encounters around that wild disparity in actual effectiveness?
No, and that's the point: don't go all PenPen Powergaming in a party of roleplayers, nor even in a party of mildly optimising releplayers (I consider myself mildly optimising by comparison with your work on the big P).
 
The value of the Paranoia Combo is not that it makes you invulnerable or is overpowering. It is really powerful, sure, but it's not an exercise in optimization or powergaming.

What it is is the only way to not end up splattered against a wall by pure accident. Without the Perfect Dodge/Block and Perfect Soak, an Exalted can be trivially killed by expected in-game threats. Like, not just threats meant to be scary, but also things like "five guys with grapple charms", "any combat DB", and "anyone with poisoned weapons".
 
The value of the Paranoia Combo is not that it makes you invulnerable or is overpowering. It is really powerful, sure, but it's not an exercise in optimization or powergaming.

What it is is the only way to not end up splattered against a wall by pure accident. Without the Perfect Dodge/Block and Perfect Soak, an Exalted can be trivially killed by expected in-game threats. Like, not just threats meant to be scary, but also things like "five guys with grapple charms", "any combat DB", and "anyone with poisoned weapons".
Why shouldn't a combat DB be scary?
 
Why shouldn't a combat DB be scary?

Why should I bother playing when the first Dragonblooded we fight against will destroy me if I don't win join battle.

2e is so lethal that a non-paranoia combo'd dawn, no matter their investment is quite likely to end up splattered against a decently invested opponent.

By accident
 
Why shouldn't a combat DB be scary?

You do realize that it's entirely possible to have, like I keep trying to point out, an encounter which is invariably fatal (100% loss) if the players do not use their powerful resources/abilities/etc, and ramps up slowly enough that the players invariably know they need to use their A-game and play correctly, and invariably not (0% loss) if they do use their resources and play correctly, right? And that this is entirely possible to achieve in a sanely constructed system, complete with the gameplay being interesting?
 
There are two sides of the coin to the One True Build problem and their ilk. On one side, there's the fact that for a person who has a Play To Win/Powergaming/Optimising attitude, the system does encourage the one true build. The other side is that the problem comes up significantly more if the players in a campaign have such an attitude.
Sure, there's blame on the meta, but there's also blame on the players who take steps away from their original character concepts in order to make a set towards the meta.

No, there are not two sides, and this is lazy Stormwind thinking. If the idea is that players will just not design their characters to be effective at their role, then there is no point to the game mechanics at all; you can ditch them entirely.

And of course it ignores the case where the paranoia combat build is an honest reflection of their original concept.

Come on, Vicky. This is just lame. Why are you defending this point as if it were Stalingrad?
 
There are two sides of the coin to the One True Build problem and their ilk. On one side, there's the fact that for a person who has a Play To Win/Powergaming/Optimising attitude, the system does encourage the one true build. The other side is that the problem comes up significantly more if the players in a campaign have such an attitude.
Once again, I will say that, as somebody who's been around since before the Broken-Winged Crane was published, who has read RPG complaint threads and remembers the wealth of anecdotes from the old White Wolf Boards, your experience that this is an ethos which needs to be deliberately embraced, is aberrant.

The entire problem of Paranoia Combat, expressed in a nutshell, is that the Paranoia Combo is both dull and a necessary base competency package. Doing otherwise puts you at constant non-trivial risk of death from threats that are entirely expected and reasonable in-universe, but whose poorly-balanced lethality is massively out of scale with what you expect as a player.

The Paranoia Combo is not representative of a Play To Win/Powergaming/Optimising/Whateverthefuck buzzword mindset you want to call it. It is representative of a "I would like to be assured of living long enough to actually take a decent shot at telling the story I made this character for," mindset.

You have one anecdote of a campaign where it wasn't necessary. Bully for you. Your anecdote is insufficient compared to the dozen that I alone can recall, to say nothing of the real veterans in this thread who have been arguing with you, of people (some of them veteran gamers themselves) who tried to play the game either unaware of paranoia combat or who didn't think it was a big deal, stepped on a landmine and had to bury their character in a paper bag.

People have told you this, in so many words, in so many ways, for so many pages now. You simply keep restating your experience ad nauseum, as if it actually matters. You're either not listening, or you don't care to engage with the argument that people are actually having. I no longer care. I am entirely done with you.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top