Remove ads

General Exalted Thread

Reader mode
SunnySprings said:
I find it a bit odd that, in 3e Lunars, social-based Protean charms don't work in your true form. So, if you're using Beast-King Dictates on, say, your loyal beast-man retainer to get him to travel far South and speak with your shahan-ya, you don't get the Protean benefit unless you're pretending to be someone else with authority over him. Very strange, I hope they change the wording since it does screw over social Lunars who are running enterprises, kingdoms, or so on in their own true form.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Could that be intended? Are lunars not supposed to be able to fill that niche?

Actually asking, haven't looked st 3e mich yet
 
Sanctaphrax said:
If you ask me, pretty much every battle group should have its leader statted out as an individual character. It makes such a huge difference, mechanically speaking, if orders are represented as command actions rather than as part of the battle group's attack stunts.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yeah... Most of the situations I could see myself using a mob of goons with no discernable leader I'd question if it was worth the time to run combat.

It can also be a problem the other way, where the super elite, well-drilled Battle Group with no discernable heirarchy (might be automata but most likely its not considering what elite drill actually represents besides a defence bonus) causes trouble as the sole agressor of a combat encounter. The Battle Group's inert initiative and area attack kind of make dice roll variance a bad thing because a single freak roll on the area attack can crash all your PCs, then the inert initiative creates a situation where it might not be possible for characters to escape initiaitive crash before it gets to go again.

With initiative being a scarce resource and decisive attacks taken off the table, it makes the experience is a bit like reverting back to late 2nd edition for one scene.
 
You are ignoring content by this member.
rogthnor said:
Could that be intended? Are lunars not supposed to be able to fill that niche?

Actually asking, haven't looked st 3e mich yet
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Well, there's multiple examples of elder Lunars running their own dominions as themselves rather than through disguises, and Lunar territory charms incentivize players to have their own Lunar dominion if they can claim it. It's just very odd to me that you HAVE to be in another form than your own to use the more social ones. The problem isn't just limited to Lunar characters who want to be royalty or what not, as there are some charms in Appearance and Manipulation that have Protean tags. You could, say, be an incredibly frightening Full Moon who has built a reputation for brutality that has spread throughout the East, but if you wanna get the full benefit of some of your charms that boost your fearsome nature, you've got to take the form of another person who is very scary.
 
Is there any reason why using a Battle Group is better than using X number of separate minor characters, when the PC(s) do not themselves have a Battle Group?As in, is there any reason to use Battle Groups outside of actual wars and such?

It just seems like the effort it takes to make a Battle Group work offsets any reduced mental load on the GM that lumping all the minor characters together would get you.
 
You are ignoring content by this member.
ichypa said:
Is there any reason why using a Battle Group is better than using X number of separate minor characters, when the PC(s) do not themselves have a Battle Group?As in, is there any reason to use Battle Groups outside of actual wars and such?

It just seems like the effort it takes to make a Battle Group work offsets any reduced mental load on the GM that lumping all the minor characters together would get you.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Well, I mean, battle groups start at about six characters at the lowest possible Size and work their way up exponentially. I feel like it's far easier to just lump six quick characters into a battle group and tally up the modifiers they get from Size and Drill and Might than to torture yourself by rolling the actions of six different characters.
 
ichypa said:
Is there any reason why using a Battle Group is better than using X number of separate minor characters, when the PC(s) do not themselves have a Battle Group?As in, is there any reason to use Battle Groups outside of actual wars and such?

It just seems like the effort it takes to make a Battle Group work offsets any reduced mental load on the GM that lumping all the minor characters together would get you.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Several reasons - tracking initiative for a bunch of characters gets painful, magnitude effectively simulates fighting (semi-)trivial characters en masse rather than the withering+decisive loop reserved for more narratively important folks, fewer rolls to make when the battle group attacks more than one person at once...
 
Making a battle group is much, much, easier than making and running ten minor characters. Let alone two hundred.

Makes for a better fight scene, too. The process of routing a battle group is much more fun and satisfying than the process of cutting down insignificant opponents until the ST decides that the army's morale breaks. And often decomposing a battle group into individual characters will make it inappropriately deadly.

Battle groups should totally retain the Charms of their members, though.
 
ichypa said:
Is there any reason why using a Battle Group is better than using X number of separate minor characters, when the PC(s) do not themselves have a Battle Group?As in, is there any reason to use Battle Groups outside of actual wars and such?

It just seems like the effort it takes to make a Battle Group work offsets any reduced mental load on the GM that lumping all the minor characters together would get you.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
because @Omicron has too much power and i have too little :(
 
ManusDomini said:
Oh no, I don't say it because they lack power. I say it because they're one-note. They're very good at being blobs of health levels and doing ridiculous amounts of withering damage to people who lack NANOMACHINES, SON-levels of soak. They don't have any response to high soak, though, and they don't have any other cool powers to throw around; the Magnitude benefits scale nonsensically and Might eating up Charms makes them more one-note and boring. The basic chassis however, is quite fine. But note I never said weak. I said undertuned. Because they lack stuff to do.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I have literally elected to ignore all clarifications by devs that Might "eats up" Charms for that very reason. It's not clear in the books so I do what I want, and what I want is to have this Size 3 Might 2 Elite Drill group of Blood Apes using Principle of Motion into Brutal Ape Pounce.

ManusDomini said:
because @Omicron has too much power and i have too little :(
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
it's true, i do
 
Thanks for all the input.

Basically I'm having it end inconclusively with the DB being forced to bail once he realized he has been had. He thinks he is taking on just some bandits, not a merc company. He in fact got baited away from his stone keep which was assaulted the moment he was out of contact with it. This is happening in one of the petty kingdoms of Hundred Kingdoms by the way.

I'm writing this scene to help explore the character a merc and setting up the DB for stuff happening later in.
 
MiracleGrow said:
Thanks for all the input.

Basically I'm having it end inconclusively with the DB being forced to bail once he realized he has been had. He thinks he is taking on just some bandits, not a merc company. He in fact got baited away from his stone keep which was assaulted the moment he was out of contact with it. This is happening in one of the petty kingdoms of Hundred Kingdoms by the way.

I'm writing this scene to help explore the character a merc and setting up the DB for stuff happening later in.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
So is this something you're posting somewhere?
 
So as someone has never really had a chance to participate in a game of Exalted, I have a question for the people who have: how often does Limit Break actually occur, in your experience? The books address it so briefly that it from my perspective it feels kind of superfluous for something that should be so important; like you could just say "Limit isn't a thing" and it would change almost nothing.

I'm wondering whether or not it's a bigger deal at the table than it comes off on paper.
 
ichypa said:
So as someone has never really had a chance to participate in a game of Exalted, I have a question for the people who have: how often does Limit Break actually occur, in your experience? The books address it so briefly that it from my perspective it feels kind of superfluous for something that should be so important; like you could just say "Limit isn't a thing" and it would change almost nothing.

I'm wondering whether or not it's a bigger deal at the table than it comes off on paper.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Depends slightly on edition, but from the people and places I've been hanging around it happens at least once in their games.

In 2e for example, you get a point of Limit when you spend Willpower to resist Unnatural Mental Influence, so if you deal with a lot of that it could drive you over the edge, setting aside gaining limit from your Virtues or anything.

In 3e everyone has a Limit Gain condition, so if you picked something like "having to ignore injustice" you could end up wracking up a lot of Limit as well.
 
ichypa said:
So as someone has never really had a chance to participate in a game of Exalted, I have a question for the people who have: how often does Limit Break actually occur, in your experience? The books address it so briefly that it from my perspective it feels kind of superfluous for something that should be so important; like you could just say "Limit isn't a thing" and it would change almost nothing.

I'm wondering whether or not it's a bigger deal at the table than it comes off on paper.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Limit Break, and the Great Curse in general, is designed to be vague. As an example lets use Raksi. In every edition Raksi is a crazed and violent autocrat who rules her city with an iron fist. Whether or not that's a result of the Great Curse is unclear. You can trace reasons why she might have become a violent autocrat but you can also argue that it was the influence of the Great Curse that drove her there. If limit break is being properly integrated into a characters story you shouldn't notice. It should just seem like they chose bad options that cause suffering a couple of times.
 
You are ignoring content by this member.
Honestly I'd have just preferred the 3e Dragon-blooded way of representing the Great Curse applied to every splat, in which the player chooses when to roleplay it out and if it's a good scene everyone likes, they get a little bit of XP. Way better than the weirdly mechanical way of representing a character's urges going out of control.
 
SunnySprings said:
Honestly I'd have just preferred the 3e Dragon-blooded way of representing the Great Curse applied to every splat, in which the player chooses when to roleplay it out and if it's a good scene everyone likes, they get a little bit of XP. Way better than the weirdly mechanical way of representing a character's urges going out of control.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I enjoy the 2e Infernal way of bleeding limit, rather than hitting a limit break - do something that is definitely-not-optimal-but-in-character to bleed limit to keep from hitting Limit Break in the first place... though this can have a side effect of it acting more like have many mini-breaks instead of a large Break if it is set up right. Though it would suggest/require that the character has some sort of pressure that lets them know how close they are to a full Break.
 
Skelethin said:
I enjoy the 2e Infernal way of bleeding limit, rather than hitting a limit break - do something that is definitely-not-optimal-but-in-character to bleed limit to keep from hitting Limit Break in the first place... though this can have a side effect of it acting more like have many mini-breaks instead of a large Break if it is set up right. Though it would suggest/require that the character has some sort of pressure that lets them know how close they are to a full Break.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Infernal limit has the problem that it's got a great big punishment stick attached to it. It comes off as far more restrictive then the Dragonblooded one.
 
You are ignoring content by this member.
Mostly I just dislike the idea of there being a time where the player absolutely HAS to act disruptively at the table and the other players kinda just have to hope for the best.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top