Remove ads

General Exalted Thread

Reader mode
Anyway, liking the rules so far. Most of my complaints are minor enough that I could patch them with houserules, and honestly might not even be problems once the full of the extent of the rules drop.

The way that hardness and power interact feels a little weird. Since hardness doesn't subtract die from your damage, it means that attacks against someone with high hardness will be less frequent but more devastating. And that means that you will be doing the same average damage to them. \

Also, both Fortitude and Finesse can be used for defence, but not Force, which feels weird since that is the only time that I've noticed where you can't use any attribute for any action.
 
Deations said:
Rich Thomas was always in charge, he's the person who created and ran OPP from the beginning. He was also in charge of the original corebook writers, and indeed, all of OPP and every decision it has made, good or bad.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

My mistake then. *shrug* I've never had an issue with Rich on a personal level. My biggest issue with Exalted 3e has always been the fiasco that was the corebook kickstarter, including but not limited to Holden and Morke's commentary on it.
 
Red Orion said:
Also, both Fortitude and Finesse can be used for defence, but not Force, which feels weird since that is the only time that I've noticed where you can't use any attribute for any action.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The game outright tells you that it's fine for the ST to specify what attributes are applicable on any roll tho? Also stuff like the Marrow Iconic (the riddle must be contested with Force + Sagacity), etc.

It's a bit confusing because the game is also telling you that the ST should err on the side of permissiveness, but the general unwritten rule seems to be "vetoing your players if they propose something dumb doesn't make you an asshole".
 
mothematics said:
I literally write for Onyx Path. Whatever rumors you've heard aren't true, Rich is a pretty solid guy whose biggest fault if anything is that he's too patient, and I've enjoyed every one of my contracts immensely.

But that's not even the point. I'm not really inclined to be silent when somebody just talks shit about every single freelancer who writes for OPP just cause, while acting like a fandom can do no wrong ever. It's gross and unfair and pretty infuriating actually!
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

When did I say anything about the fandom? Let alone "the fandom can do no wrong"?



I apologize if I came across as criticizing all writers every affiliated WW/OP. That was not the intent, just as I don't believe the comment about the fanbase I was responding to was castigating all fans (since I assume that the person who wrote it is a fan themselves). I don't think that's a reasonable reading of my post, but as this is understandably more personal to you, again, let me apologize.

Part of the reason why I am critical of WW/OP is because of the thing I have heard *from* freelancers who worked for WW/OP about the internal culture thereof - their comments have given me a very negative impression of their 'corporate culture'.



You say that OP is very different from WW, and I'm willing to believe the OP of today is shiny and new and changed for the better, sure. I trust you.

But Holden worked for OP. He came on SV and posted. Remember that? The "No, actually it's your fault for reading rapey-ness into our rapey rules text" bit? I mean, I've seen some pretty bad behavior from devs in other companies, but not to the point of going out to forums attack the players personally because we dared to criticize.

For that matter, while they are certainly better than Holden, my introduction to SLS was them coming into an exalted thread on RPG.net where I was talking about animism in exalted and comparing spren from Stormlight Archive to basically say 'I'm not a fan of Brandon Sanderson, also it's clear to me one reason his writing sucks is because he's Mormon.' Not in those words, but the bigotry was pretty evident.


I mean yes, OP has shucked Holden and Morke, and all credit to them for doing so, but that doesn't change the long history of problems that have existed, and quite obviously persisted from WW to OP. Like I said, I'm happy to accept your word that things are better now. But it's clearly not a case of a clean break from WW to OP.
 
Last edited:
Chloe Sullivan said:
But Holden worked for OP. He came on SV and posted. Remember that? The "No, actually it's your fault for reading rapey-ness into our rapey rules text" bit?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I mean, I was there for that. Between constantly accusing Holden of rape apologism, willfully ignoring anything to do with the Red Rule in order to push the idea that this is all rape apologism (in a way that came off as even creepier and more unpleasant than anything Holden managed), and only semi-ironic advocacy for female genital mutilation on our parts, I think we all know that the thread was an utter shitshow. Discussion of Celestial Bliss Trick is banned for a reason, and there's a reason why civility is emphasized so heavily in the mod post from 2018. It's sort of an injoke among us at this point in terms of how the thread is an awful cesspool, and I'm not sure we're the ones who should be badgering and berating these people about civility. If they want an example of civility and proper conduct than the last place they should look is here.

At the very least, if I used this thread as a template for what constitutes good conduct and civility, I would be infracted and out on my ass in pretty much every other discussion site outside of here, and 4chan. I think we're all aware that the thread is pretty toxic at times.

Continuing the withering vs build power discussion from earlier though...

It does look like Withering is more optimal than I initially thought, because it seems that you still gain the Overwhelming value of a weapon in power, even on a miss. A Medium Artifact Weapon has 3 Overwhelming, so there's really no reason not to use Withering instead of Build Power, even if you're a pretty poor combatant otherwise. A minimum of 3 Power, even on a miss, is nothing to sneeze at, even if you are only cherry tapping an opponent. It's even simpler if you're a dedicated front line combatant and you have someone donating Power to you: even if you only miss an attack, you're guaranteed to max out on power by the first round. I still have some misgivings about it: it seems relatively trivial to max out on power quickly, making the whole thing feel like a speed bump before things start mattering with Decisive. I'm trying to avoid making assumptions, but given how the dicepools work out and how excellencies largely seem to work as they do in prior editions, I kind of feel that everything outside of Decisive is in a very weird and strange place mechanically. It may genuinely not be worth it to waste resources to defend against withering attacks given how trivial gaining Power seems to be, which is a strange, strange place for things to be.
 
Last edited:
Red Orion said:
The way that hardness and power interact feels a little weird. Since hardness doesn't subtract die from your damage, it means that attacks against someone with high hardness will be less frequent but more devastating. And that means that you will be doing the same average damage to them. \
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Presumably, most of your hardness will be coming from your armor (or Charms), and thus someone with high hardness should have commensurately high Soak. Thus, you have to spend more time building Power against a high Hardness opponent, then they soak most of the damage, and so you have to spend more time once again building Power.
 
Well, keep in mind extra successes add to decisive damage in ExEss (iirc). If you didn't have hardness then Invincible Sword Princess could simply spend 1 Power on a decisive each turn and get a lot of 'free' damage from a very high roll.
 
Deations said:
We've also seen how it benefits Build Power. Page 31 of the chapter manuscript note that having an anima in an active state gave a player one bonus success to Build Power, even though the Zenith anima itself doesn't specify anything to do with Build Power (unlike Sidereals). This leads me to conclude that having a flared anima in and of itself is sufficient to enhance Build Power rolls, whereas no such provision exists for combat. In contrast to the Dawn Iconic, which simply allows them to spam out more attack actions.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I believe you'd be incorrect. Go back and read the Zenith active anima power -- they add their essence in automatic successes to Presence or Performance rolls. The example you're thinking of was specifically an Inspire action, which also uses either Performance or Presence (in the example, it's Presence).

That one auto success from the example is because she's an essence 1 Zenith, not from a universal bonus.
 
Last edited:
I've actually playtested the Essence rules in a couple of games now.

In practice, attacking is a much more reliable way to build up power than Build Power if you've got any kind of combat investment - Build Power is there for non combat people to contribute, or if you and the GM want to do a dramatic sort of "staredown" phase prior to a gunslinger showdown or iaijutsu strike, or if circumstances say you currently can't apply your main combat ability (you're a swordsman and your enemy is out of range, for example).

Similarly, it's worth noting that accuracy adds successes to your attack rolls, and the damage boost from weapons adds successes to the decisive damage roll... but soak subtracts that damage, removing successes after the enemy has rolled, and can take it all the way down to zero. So something like the Dusk anima ability of "always do at least one damage" is a lot more useful than it might otherwise look, because it bypasses that passive protection.

Also, the fact that you can only activate one charm in a step has a major impact. Solars don't pay the mote cost for their excellencies, but it still counts as a charm, which locks you out of basically all other step one charms that modify your dice pools etc.
 
Maugan Ra said:
In practice, attacking is a much more reliable way to build up power than Build Power if you've got any kind of combat investment - Build Power is there for non combat people to contribute, or if you and the GM want to do a dramatic sort of "staredown" phase prior to a gunslinger showdown or iaijutsu strike, or if circumstances say you currently can't apply your main combat ability (you're a swordsman and your enemy is out of range, for example).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I've playtested it for something close to about a year at this point, and generally speaking when playing my character who was very focused on Presence and social Charms, I still ended up using Close Combat now and then to Build Power as a more reliable tool. You can definitely do the other, and I have a fellow player who did in fact do that, but generally speaking I've found Building Power with actual attacks more useful.
 
elfgames said:
The game outright tells you that it's fine for the ST to specify what attributes are applicable on any roll tho? Also stuff like the Marrow Iconic (the riddle must be contested with Force + Sagacity), etc.

It's a bit confusing because the game is also telling you that the ST should err on the side of permissiveness, but the general unwritten rule seems to be "vetoing your players if they propose something dumb doesn't make you an asshole".
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

That's why I found it so strange. The general rule seems to be "use whatever Attribute + Ability you feel is appropriate" but then specifically call out using Finesse for evasion and fortitude for parry.
ichypa said:
Presumably, most of your hardness will be coming from your armor (or Charms), and thus someone with high hardness should have commensurately high Soak. Thus, you have to spend more time building Power against a high Hardness opponent, then they soak most of the damage, and so you have to spend more time once again building Power.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yeah, but that's an assumption. We don't know if its true.

Also, it doesn't solve my main issue which is that someone with hardness is more likely to go down in one decisive attack. In fact, the more hardness you have the more damage each decisive attack is going to deal, and that feels counter for what hardness is meant to represent.
 
Red Orion said:
Also, it doesn't solve my main issue which is that someone with hardness is more likely to go down in one decisive attack.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It seems to me that that would only be a problem if getting to the point where you can deliver that crushing blow is too fast.

Like, if you have to make a really big effort to unleash that decisive Decisive Attack, then I have no problem with "the supercharged deathblow that hits hard enough to punch through your adamantium armour basically cores your squidgy bodymeats like an apple".
 
Red Orion said:
Also, it doesn't solve my main issue which is that someone with hardness is more likely to go down in one decisive attack. In fact, the more hardness you have the more damage each decisive attack is going to deal, and that feels counter for what hardness is meant to represent.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Does it?

Scenario. You're a Hearth of Dragon-Blooded fighting a Dawn Caste in Orichalcum articulated plate or whatever. In the fiction, the concentrated withering attacks glance off of their armour again and again, maybe subtly getting them off balance, maybe subtly putting them in a bad position, you build power throughout, until finally one of you goes in for a decisive attack and rams a sword through the slit in their helmet. It makes a lot of sense to me that like, an attack you all spend so much time and effort and narrative heat building up to should feel more meaningful than the one you just pop off on round two.
 
Last edited:
Red Orion said:
Also, it doesn't solve my main issue which is that someone with hardness is more likely to go down in one decisive attack. In fact, the more hardness you have the more damage each decisive attack is going to deal, and that feels counter for what hardness is meant to represent.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

But the more hardness you have, the more soak you're also likely to have, so... this works out as a wash in the end, probably?
 
grommile said:
It seems to me that that would only be a problem if getting to the point where you can deliver that crushing blow is too fast.

Like, if you have to make a really big effort to unleash that decisive Decisive Attack, then I have no problem with "the supercharged deathblow that hits hard enough to punch through your adamantium armour basically cores your squidgy bodymeats like an apple".
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Gazetteer said:
Does it?

Scenario. You're a Hearth of Dragon-Blooded fighting a Dawn Caste in Orichalcum articulated plate or whatever. In the fiction, the concentrated withering attacks glance off of their armour again and again, maybe subtly getting them off balance, maybe subtly putting them in a bad position, you build power throughout, until finally one of you goes in for a decisive attack and rams a sword through the slit in their helmet. It makes a lot of sense to me that like, an attack you all spend so much time and effort and narrative heat building up to should feel more meaningful than the one you just pop off on round two.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I guess? It still feels off to me, but I can't really come up with a rebuttal.
elfgames said:
But the more hardness you have, the more soak you're also likely to have, so... this works out as a wash in the end, probably?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Maybe. We can't really assume that that is true though.
 
Given that hardness caps out at 10 and Exalted add Essence to their hardness, I wouldn't be sure that armour will have much hardness since otherwise you're at 10 too fast/easy.
 
Moving on, but based on the venture rules it looks like Essence is running with the idea that artifacts differ from regular magical items due to their extreme potency.

Which, honestly I'm fine with. As long as we still have regular "magic" items (i.e. items which we would consider magical, but in Creation are just part of the world because their physics differ from ours" then I am happy.

What I am leery about is gating artifact creation behind a charm rather than simply requiring high rolls. I'm hoping that the charm has extra effects so its not just an XP tax, but even if does it still feels like a needless way to gatekeep charm creation.

If they really want to stop mortals from making artifacts, a simpler solution seems like it would be just to set the rolls high. That way in theory we could still have stories of exceptional mortals sacrificing everything to get the bonuses they need to create an artifact and make it nearly impossible for mortals to do so in practice.
 
I'm fond of making permanence the dividing line between artifacts and mere magic items. A magic potion gets drunk; a non-Artifact magic sword will eventually lose its magic or just break.

Gazetteer said:
Scenario. You're a Hearth of Dragon-Blooded fighting a Dawn Caste in Orichalcum articulated plate or whatever. In the fiction, the concentrated withering attacks glance off of their armour again and again, maybe subtly getting them off balance, maybe subtly putting them in a bad position, you build power throughout, until finally one of you goes in for a decisive attack and rams a sword through the slit in their helmet. It makes a lot of sense to me that like, an attack you all spend so much time and effort and narrative heat building up to should feel more meaningful than the one you just pop off on round two.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Seems to me that this argument would work just as well if you made it in support of an entirely different conclusion.

Yes, of course an attack with a lot of buildup should mean more. But that's true whether the buildup is required due to armour, parrying, dodging, or just a tactical choice on the part of the attackers. Doesn't really have anything to say about Hardness.
 
Sanctaphrax said:
Seems to me that this argument would work just as well if you made it in support of an entirely different conclusion.

Yes, of course an attack with a lot of buildup should mean more. But that's true whether the buildup is required due to armour, parrying, dodging, or just a tactical choice on the part of the attackers. Doesn't really have anything to say about Hardness.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm not actually sure how it would need to say anything special about hardness! Defensive actions build power. So do tactical maneuvers. So, yes, these things also reward the effort you or your group put into the fight by letting you cash it in for increased damage or other benefits. What completely different conclusion do you mean?
 
Red Orion said it felt weird that, the higher your Hardness, the more likely you are to get one-shot.

You responded with a scenario in which a high-Hardness character got one-shotted in a way that made sense. The conclusion presumably being that there's nothing weird about the Hardness rules.

Maybe that wasn't your conclusion after all. In any case, I think Orion's concern stands.
 
My conclusion was that a single telling blow doing more damage the longer the fight has gone on and the more investment you put into building up to it makes sense in the kind of narrative these mechanics are trying to facilitate. I think that does mean that hardness isn't weird in the way that Orion was saying it is. It takes more time and effort to beat a high hardness than a low one, so I'm fine with that eventual blow doing more.
 
Last edited:
I'd also expect most super high hardness foes to come with some extra health levels as well. A deathlord for example isn't going to get one-shot by a 10 power attack, I'd wager.
 
Last edited:
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top