So basically as I've proposed a few dozen pages ago: replace all combat mechanics with a roll-off between characters with modifiers from charms which characters would've used in the fight.By letting the PCs win.
No, seriously, you let them just win. Here is how I decide if my PCs plans will succeed. I listen to them make the plan, and then that plan succeeds. I throw a handful of complications that players have to improvise around, but generally speaking I just let them out smart the villains. I occasionally throw in a few rousing moments of NPC teeth-gnashing and fist shaking at the brilliance of the PCs undermining their carefully laid schemes.
It's much like how I just throw some plot hooks into the air, watch as the PCs discuss them among themselves to try and figure out what the bad guys are up to, and then have the bad guys scheme be whatever the players cooked up.
Only game mechanics required are a poker face and a willingness to allow the players to succeed.
I can't remember where it is, but basically it boils down to the Yozi in question having two root charms for the most part....I remember Revlid or ES put up 'how to design a Yozi Charm-Tree' somewhere, but I can't remember where.
Not really. Solars and Abyssals are based on super-human excellence taken to the extreme. It makes sense for them to have their magics to be based off of their natural abilities. The other kinds of Exalted work in the same way; Lunars are 'flexible', so they have a few very broad Exellencies and powers that aren't as powerful as a Solar's, but are more useable in different situations. Sidereals powers are based on communicating with the Loom Of Fate, so their powers are more esoteric and more than a bit unusal. The samw appliers to their execellency, which can only add (Essence) Dice, but is compenstated with their ability to lower the target number of a role to their advantage.Hmm... that kind of makes sense - "how I see things" and "how things see me".
I wonder if Exalted charm trees should have a similar structure now.
I don't hate the idea of players using powers that invoke narrative fiat in general. I have a problem with powers that invoke narrative fiat in this context, namely, an otherwise mechanistic, process-driven, extremely rules heavy system with a multitude of exception-based powers, particularly given the in-setting stakes involved with the powers in question.
Such a system demands a high level of buy-in from gaming groups, particularly in the case of the GM, who is obligated to know how the thing works so he can construct everything else in the gameworld apart from the PCs' sheets. The unspoken, expected return for spending the time and effort to learn a complex, heavy system is that the system itself provides enjoyment through engagement on the game layer or setting-emulation resolution layer. Should a system not deliver either of these things, a question arises: why did our hypothetical gaming group bother learning this (and, y'know, paying the game company for a 600-page doorstopper tome plus extra supplements) if it has zero to negative utility? Clearly not worth it.
My view is that this particular kind of system, with this kind of buy-in, does not mix well with the prospect of throwing around narrative plot fiat mechanics balanced by social contract, because the presence of such things is more likely to cause problems than in, say, Fate, which is a much friendlier context for them.
Righteous Devil is one of the Styles from Scroll of the Monk, IIRC. A Celestial Stylehey Dudes and duddettes, what book can I find Righteous Devil Style in? Thank you very much in advance.
And you would be right.Righteous Devil is one of the Styles from Scroll of the Monk, IIRC.
Do you seriously think the one a season cooldown on God King Shrike or the (negligible if you build for it, apparently - taking this board's word for it since I still don't have the enthusiasm required to go out, find the leak and read it)
Do you think Creation-Slaying Oblivion Kick would have been fine if we put a once a year limit on its usage, and Zeal would be OK if we charged Masky McMask or Falafel 10XP every time he tried to use it? Because that's cold comfort in the aftermath of their uses. Creation is still, well, kicked to death. Your entire circle has still been Zealed. gg, no re. The fact that Ketchup can't Kick again for a year or Masky lost 10XP is kinda unimportant.
Yeah, I don't think "I can flawlessly destroy any city in existence on the face of Creation with no possible defense or counter from my work desk once a season, note no possible defense or counter" and such is "the kind of epic feat that highly-talented Solars can sometimes do", is the thing. Or rather, it shouldn't be, and if the game is saying it is, we have a problem.
If this is the kind of epic feat that highly-talented Solars can sometimes do, then, well, if my PCs' Circle has made highly-talented Solar enemies and has infrastructure that can be blown up, why is it not blown up? One can't simply go "because that would be a bad story", because we have established by the existence of this effect in the book (by your own words) that this (and things like it) is a thing Solars are supposed to do. So I have a choice now: are my Solar antagonists all retarded and unable to figure out that blowing up your enemy's base with a flawlessly auto-successful attack is a good idea (which would not be a good story), or is this not a thing Solars do (and the book happens to be huffing paint)? Not fun, that.
Or, let's look at this from the other angle, and posit my Circle of highly talented Solars has this capability and we want to snipe our enemies' capital cities off the face of existence one at a time, once per season, as this would be a very useful military advantage. I can simply use my mighty GM fiat authority to declare that this isn't acceptable, but hey, apparently wiping cities off the face of existence is a thing you're supposed to do, so I'm kind of being a dick here. Not fun? And a bit of a waste of space of that Charm given that neither side is allowed to use it.
Or, let's make it worse and say I do posit that my Circle's Solar enemies are in fact retarded, while not stopping my own PC Circle's city-razing efforts. This now looks like a farce, the sort of thing that should be accompanied by Benny Hill. Not fun. Why does this thing exist?
And "I can build robo-Solar duplicates of myself which require no commitment or upkeep that apparently are so good in terms of emulation of my personality and Solar magical power they can make the greatest Solar detective on the face of Creation look like a rube with no possible defense or counter" and "I can destroy any city on the face of Creation with no possible defense or counter from my room (hurr watch me nuke the Imperial Manse)" are good statements to make about the people who have them?
TBH, not seeing a lot of difference here. City-Killing Oblivion Punch (with a 1 Season Cooldown!) is certainly smaller in scope than Creation-Slaying Oblivion Kick, but it's just as impossible to stop and almost as irritating, as an example. If either of these things would have been released in Dreams of the First Age, would either of us have tried to defend them as not that bad?
Like I said in my previous post, this logic can be used to excuse just about any problem in the game that we have ever seen in its publication history. From the perspective of someone who's spent a lot of time talking about mechanical problems in the game which look remarkably like the sort of Charms people are talking about in this thread, this kind of argument makes me, let us say, negatively predisposed to this product without even having read it.
So basically as I've proposed a few dozen pages ago: replace all combat mechanics with a roll-off between characters with modifiers from charms which characters would've used in the fight.
Nah, the difference here is that we do have a system for resolving physical conflicts but we do not have a system for resolving a duel of wits, so to speak. There is no system for running a Sherlock vs Moriarty conflict. The system is basically "eh, wing it". Since there is no system for it there should be no Charms for it.
If Exalted had a intellectual conflict simulator as complex as the physical conflict simulator, my answer would be terrible because I'd be short changing anyone who expended resources into interacting with that system. But since Exalted (including 3e from what I have seen)
What circle should a spell to combine a human and an animal or two animals, creating a composite creature with the best traits of both be? For balance I'd say that it cannot be cast on Exalts unless it's a control spell, and if it's cast on an Exalt it only lasts one day. It would be a ritual costing 3 wp, and require two creatures, either a human and an animal or two animals, as components. I was thinking Celestial circle personally, but I could be wrong.
Since Heaven's Ladder Style got cut, here's my try at what a theoretical I Don't Want No Trouble While Holding A Baby In A Ladder Table And Chair Factory Style would look like. Can't quite decide a capstone, though.
What circle should a spell to combine a human and an animal or two animals, creating a composite creature with the best traits of both be? For balance I'd say that it cannot be cast on Exalts unless it's a control spell, and if it's cast on an Exalt it only lasts one day. It would be a ritual costing 3 wp, and require two creatures, either a human and an animal or two animals, as components. I was thinking Celestial circle personally, but I could be wrong.
Plus, Dragonblooded sorcerers should totally be allowed to have unnatural creatures in their laboratory. How else are they meant to be decadent unethical sorcerers?
Superhuman intelligence and planning ability is one of those traits it's pretty difficult to model without involving retcons of some sort.I guess my question is, how do you take into account "my character is smarter and better prepared than I ever could be, so she would have thought to take measures against this even though I, the player, did not" without having retcon mechanics like DMG and so-on?
"Not everything is our fault! And that is unreasonable prejudice against us!"
Why, though?