General Exalted Thread

[Deations]

This is a post. That was said. By a defender of Exalted 3E. Are you saying this post doesn't exist? Or that it's a false flag attack by the Technocratic Union Exalted 3E hate brigade?

(Also, losing that "Do not believe what the scientists tell you" thing that was in 2 editions is apparently not a betrayal of the core themes of Exalted yet using junks instead of triremes is? Weird.)

Click to shrink...

This is a beautiful post.

You seem to have laid the post made by Fenrir666 at my feet, even though we're not exactly a hive-mind. I think I clicked like once or twice on his posts, if that's sufficient evidence of conspiracy. Maybe, just maybe, I have thoughts different than his and I am not in fact his mother. I'm guessing Aleph did the same, given that she lumped in my arguments with his! But I don't really have a response for Fenrir666's post because I'm not invested in him on any level.

Then you accused me of acting like you and Aleph are a part of some kind of hate-brigade hive-mind, right after pulling out some other poster's post and asking me "how do you respond to THIS!?"

I have no response. I have no reason to care. What do you expect from me re: this other person's opinion that I do not really agree with?

I want this put on the record. I don't have a problem with people criticizing 3E. I'll probably argue with some of the criticisms, and I hope that's not too much of a problem.

I think, right now, my problem is less "MJ12Commando's opinion on an elfgame!" and more "MJ12Commando, the person, needs to chill and not treat arguments over an elfgame as a war between two opposing sides."

This whole attitude that I'm somehow responsible for Fenrir666 is fucked, guy!

 

[azoicennead]

I can address her criticism of 3E itself, if you like. I mean, I could at least try to rebutt it, and people could take it or leave it but I am getting the distinct impression that something that may not be welcome here.

Click to shrink...

It's more welcome than you complaining about people making points about the system you're trying to defend.

Oh come on, if you're going to be an idiot maybe you should post on hugboxes like the Exalted thread on Sufficient Velocity.

Click to shrink...

... I'm not sure you understand what a hugbox is.

You seem to have laid the post made by Fenrir666 at my feet, even though we're not exactly a hive-mind. I think I clicked like once or twice on his posts, if that's sufficient evidence of conspiracy. Maybe, just maybe, I have thoughts different than his and I am not in fact his mother. I'm guessing Aleph did the same, given that she lumped in my arguments with his! But I don't really have a response for Fenrir666's post because I'm not invested in him on any level.

Click to shrink...

Nope!
Aleph said "people are trying to tell me not to complain about 3e", MJ12 cited the post where, lo and behold, someone said to stop complaining about 3e. This means that there are, in fact, people trying to silence people complaining about 3e.
Obviously, they're doing a shit job.

This is not your fault! It does, however, contribute to frustration toward people defending 3e, especially when the defenses they use aren't defending the actual system, they're ways to interpret the system to address the problems (which is called a houserule; you may be familiar with such famous ones as "The Monk class is proficient with unarmed attacks" from 3.5e D&D).

 

[Sucal]

*Meerkat distracts the argumentative Prana*

So anyone know any good Alchemical City charms?

 

[Nuts!]

warning OPPRESSIONBOT 1011011 ONLINE

Everyone involved in the current fracas, kindly simmer down a tad.

 

[CircleTheSkies]

Hmmm...

I wonder - does anyone else think that each ability might be able to be boiled down to ten or a dozen charms? I've been fiddling a bit with Craft (as one of the more oversized ones) and I think it can be condensed quite a bit.

 

[Deations]

Nope!
Aleph said "people are trying to tell me not to complain about 3e", MJ12 cited the post where, lo and behold, someone said to stop complaining about 3e. This means that there are, in fact, people trying to silence people complaining about 3e.
Obviously, they're doing a shit job.

Click to shrink...

Oh please. Yes, Fenrir666 got bitchy. But it was extremely cute to lump me in with this presumed hivemind. When did I say for people to suck it up and deal?

And we have MJ12 pulling the same shit, presumably asking me to take responsibility for his post? Iunno.

This is not your fault! It does, however, contribute to frustration toward people defending 3e, especially when the defenses they use aren't defending the actual system, they're ways to interpret the system to address the problems (which is called a houserule; you may be familiar with such famous ones as "The Monk class is proficient with unarmed attacks" from 3.5e D&D).

Click to shrink...

Sweetie, have you read the long obnoxious argument I've had over God King's Shrike? Because not once did I appeal to Rule 0 to say 'uhm, homebrew would fix it!' No matter how red in the face people would get over my reading of it, I never brought in any outside authority but that which was written in the text.

[warning=Warning]OPPRESSIONBOT 1011011 ONLINE

Everyone involved in the current fracas, kindly simmer down a tad. [/warning]

Click to shrink...

Yeah ok

 

[Dark Lord Bob]

@Nuts! While the box is imposing, it's sad that it lessens the contrast between your text and the background. That yellow was the most imposing/cool mod-colour.

 

[horngeek]

From the bottom of my heart, Nuts, thank you.

*Meerkat distracts the argumentative Prana*

So anyone know any good Alchemical City charms?

Click to shrink...

Unfortunately, no, although I remember someone wrote up some Colossi Charms.

 

[MJ12 Commando]

This is a beautiful post.

You seem to have laid the post made by Fenrir666 at my feet, even though we're not exactly a hive-mind. I think I clicked like once or twice on his posts, if that's sufficient evidence of conspiracy. Maybe, just maybe, I have thoughts different than his and I am not in fact his mother. I'm guessing Aleph did the same, given that she lumped in my arguments with his! But I don't really have a response for Fenrir666's post because I'm not invested in him on any level.

Then you accused me of acting like you and Aleph are a part of some kind of hate-brigade hive-mind, right after pulling out some other poster's post and asking me "how do you respond to THIS!?"
I have no response. I have no reason to care. What do you expect from me re: this other person's opinion that I do not really agree with?

I want this put on the record. I don't have a problem with people criticizing 3E. I'll probably argue with some of the criticisms, and I hope that's not too much of a problem.

Click to shrink...

I'm not accusing you of being Fenrir666's mom. I'm saying that these posts made by an ardent defender of Exalted Third Edition exist on this forum and do exactly what Aleph says someone has tried to do, and create the context in which Aleph's post was made. This context is something you then proceeded to deny:

Aleph, nobody is trying to oppress or silence you by disagreeing with you.

Click to shrink...

From searching your last 50 or so posts, what you were doing isn't obviously an attempt to silence criticism by going 'you don't like it, tough shit, stop talking about it,' so I'm not going to say you were doing it as well. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. If you had just limited your post to going "Look, I've never done personally that so stop accusing me of doing it" we wouldn't be here.

I think, right now, my problem is less "MJ12Commando's opinion on an elfgame!" and more "MJ12Commando, the person, needs to chill and not treat arguments over an elfgame as a war between two opposing sides."

This whole attitude that I'm somehow responsible for Fenrir666 is fucked, guy!

Click to shrink...

You know, often the best tactic if you don't actually agree with the other guy's stance despite him nominally supporting you and someone is hitting you with it as collateral is to make an ass-covering excuse as to why you didn't notice it ("I was drunk" works really well in these situations) and then say "But I, personally, don't agree with him and never did."

If you had done that in response to @Aleph's post, you'd have a much better position instead of being dragged into the land of collateral impeachment. If I was treating this as an actual 'war between two opposing sides' I wouldn't just be pointing out Fenrir666's behavior and saying 'this was an actual thing that happened, therefore your post holds no water' I would actually be attacking you.

EDIT: You know the worst part about doing research for posts? Things move faster than what you write.

 

[Deations]

I'm not accusing you of being Fenrir666's mom. I'm saying that these posts made by an ardent defender of Exalted Third Edition exist on this forum and do exactly what Aleph says someone has tried to do, and create the context in which Aleph's post was made. This context is something you then proceeded to deny

Click to shrink...

Well I guess we're going to be continuing this argument, just in a more civil tone then. Sorry Horngeek!

I'd be more willing to buy the relevance of Fenrir666's posts if weren't for the fact that they were addressed C.o.S.a.R and Random Entity, specifically, and not Aleph.

Which, in light of that makes

On another note, no longer directed specifically at Omicron, I rather love the varied attempts to get me and those who are similarly unimpressed with 3e to stop saying so.

Click to shrink...

Something I take issue with.

From searching your last 50 or so posts, what you were doing isn't obviously an attempt to silence criticism by going 'you don't like it, tough shit, stop talking about it,' so I'm not going to say you were doing it as well. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. If you had just limited your post to going "Look, I've never done personally that so stop accusing me of doing it" we wouldn't be here.

Click to shrink...

As far as I'm aware, nobody told Aleph 'Tough, take it or leave it' as a silencing tactic either. This could have also been avoided by not presenting herself as the object of those statements because as far as I'm aware it didn't happen.

You know, often the best tactic if you don't actually agree with the other guy's stance despite him nominally supporting you and someone is hitting you with it as collateral is to make an ass-covering excuse as to why you didn't notice it ("I was drunk" works really well in these situations) and then say "But I, personally, don't agree with him and never did."

Click to shrink...

If you read the earlier posts, I pretty much said 'I don't agree with him.' I suppose Fenrir666 might owe C.o.S.a.R and Random Entity an apology, if he's inclined to give it?' I don't know what you think he might owe Aleph.

That's not even getting into the issue that you seem to think I bear some responsibility for Fenrir666's stance on one issue, given that we might believe somewhat similar things on another one. Why do I even need to acknowledge it? I'm not responsible for it. It's a cheap tactic, and a bad one.

If you had done that in response to @Aleph's post, you'd have a much better position instead of being dragged into the land of collateral impeachment. If I was treating this as an actual 'war between two opposing sides' I wouldn't just be pointing out Fenrir666's behavior and saying 'this was an actual thing that happened, therefore your post holds no water' I would actually be attacking you.

Click to shrink...

Literally no one tried to silence Aleph. I did, however, get accused of attempting to silence her... in reaction to two angry posts from Fenrir666 that were placed six minutes apart and made to two posters who were not in fact Aleph.

I am unhappy, and felt that it was an extremely cheap way to get me written off as a part of a cult of Dev worshippers whenever someone tried to make a counterargument. As was done before, when Omicron tried to comment.

Or for that matter, when the arguments I gave over God King's Shrike was basically met with a response of 'wow, you must *really* like this game.'

 

[MJ12 Commando]

The quote function isn't something you use to address one person in specific, FYI. It lets you make broad-ranging points. Fenrir666's post clearly isn't specifically addressed to @C.o.S.a.R unless you're saying they have a personal vendetta beyond this which means that he'd accept identical posting from other people.

Which, given similar posting led to a flip-out, is untrue?

The point is that people have tried to use "if you don't like it, leave" as a silencing tactic. @Aleph is correct on that count. You haven't done it. Okay. That doesn't mean she's incorrect here.

We can get into semantics games about this but I doubt your position would be strengthened in that case.

 

[Deations]

The quote function isn't something you use to address one person in specific, FYI. It lets you make broad-ranging points. Fenrir666's post clearly isn't specifically addressed to @C.o.S.a.R unless you're saying they have a personal vendetta beyond this which means that he'd accept identical posting from other people.

Which, given similar posting led to a flip-out, is untrue?

The point is that people have tried to use "if you don't like it, leave" as a silencing tactic. @Aleph is correct on that count. You haven't done it. Okay. That doesn't mean she's incorrect here.

Click to shrink...

No, that last part is way too strong a claim. At best she took a pair of posts by Fenrir made in the heat of the moment, and then applied it to pretty much everyone who disagreed with her, (and I quote "as Fenrir and Deations and others seem to want them to") in a way that seemed, at best, a quick and easy way to poison the well for anyone who might disagree with her and/or you. As has been done before, as was stated.

It seems funny to me that you're going far out of your way to read her words in the best possible light, after you repeatedly accused me of doing the exact same thing, multiple times in previous arguments.

 

[Fortuna]

Hmmm...

I wonder - does anyone else think that each ability might be able to be boiled down to ten or a dozen charms? I've been fiddling a bit with Craft (as one of the more oversized ones) and I think it can be condensed quite a bit.

Click to shrink...

Having thought about it some, I think that from a purely structural perspective I would like each core Charm tree to be composed of two to three subtrees, with a subtree-crossing capstone optional, that altogether makes up somewhere between eight and sixteen Charms. 3e War is structured nicely, in my view, whatever the merits of the Charms (which I didn't actually read) may be.

 

[Shyft]

Hmmm...

I wonder - does anyone else think that each ability might be able to be boiled down to ten or a dozen charms? I've been fiddling a bit with Craft (as one of the more oversized ones) and I think it can be condensed quite a bit.

Click to shrink...

My 2 cents real quick- Charm bloat is a problem largely in terms of advancement. The real issue you'll probably have to contend with, is mechanics bloat. Craft is full of fiddly dice mechanics, so finding a way to condense them into a single charm or series of repurchases will save you a LOT of effort.
Let's put it this way:

in Exalted First Edition, we didn't have Excellencies. Instead we had tons of random dice adders that basically were like psuedo-infinite Masteries for a very niche thing or other. Increasing-Strength Exercise happens to be one that got grandfathered into 2e, if you want an example!

Now here's an interesting bit: Alchemicals 1e had Augmentations, (and hugely different anima powers compared to 2e), and Augmentations were quite litereally the prototypes of the in-development Excellencies for 2nd edition, so the tail end of First Edition saw the advent of what we now know as the 'Generalist' Charms of 2nd Edition.

So, in 2e, we saw for at least a while, a fairly restrained system with regard to dice inflation- bonus dice were used of course, dice that didn't count for die caps, but they grew slowly, added in drips and drops.

Now come 3e, where we return to the 1e model if dozens of individual charms as niche mechanical boosts, instead of space-saving generalist charms.

 

[Sergarr]

Hello ladies and gentlemen.

As the post with the charm trees for third edition was incredibly useful, I decided to try and make something that might be helpful for those who tend to go the munchkin way.

It's a list of the essence 5, ability 5 charms on the book, and how many charms you need to take in order to get them. There are quite a few abilities that don't have essence 5 charms. When those have essence 4 charms I have included them (with the due note), and when their highest required essence is 3 I have written "nothing".

Surprisingly, it seems that -excepting Solar Circle Sorcery-, there are no essence 5 charms that are out of the reach of a sufficiently determined character, especially if you try to go for the socialize or craft ones, especially "At your service": 17 charms. 15 from Character Creation, plus 2 with bonus points. Ouch.

I should clarify that the amounts were taken using the charm trees provided in this thread, not by going through the book.

I hope this can spark some fruitful exchange of ideas.

Regards



Archery:

Whispered prayer of judgment, 7.

Athletics:

Living Wind Approach, 7; Nine Aeons Thew, 6.

Awareness:

Eye of the Unconquered Sun (Essence 4), 5; dedicated unerring ear (essence 4), 4.

Brawl:

Apocalypse Flare attack, 5; Ascendant Battle Visage, 8.

Bureaucracy:

Order-Conferring Action, 5.

Craft:

Exegesis of the Distilled Form, 12. Spirit-Stoking Elevation, +1.

Sun-Heart Tenacity, 12 (14 if you take Exegesis). Wonder-Forging Genius, 15; Dual Magnus Prana, 16 (requires terrestrial sorcery).

Dodge:

Refinement of Flowing Shadows, 5.

Integrity:

Nothing

Investigation:

Mind Manse Meditation, 10.

Larceny:

Unbroken Darkness Approach, 12.

Linguistics:

Perfect Celestial Author (essence 4), 6.

Lore:

God-King's Shrike, 6; Incalculable Flowing Mind, 8; Unstoppable Magnus Approach, +3.

Savant of Nine Glories, 9.

Medicine:

Immaculate Solar Physician, 6; Perfect Celestial Chirurgeon, +1.

Melee:

Protection of Celestial Bliss, 5; Circle of Bright Reaving, 7.

Occult:

Note: Solar Circle Sorcery can't be taken with the effect of a Supernal Ability.

Ephemeral Induction Technique, 11; Spirit-Drawing Occulus, 5.

Performance:

Soul Voice, 5; Pivotal Encore Performance, +1.

Presence:

Countenance of Vast Wrath (essence 4), 4.

Resistance:

Aegis of invincible might, 7.

Ride:

Nothing

Sail:

Nothing

Socialize:

Fugue-Empowered Other, 10; Soul Reprisal +1.

At your service, 17.

Stealth:

False Image Feint (essence 4), 7

Fivefold Shadow Burial (essence 4), 8.

Survival:

Nothing

Thrown:

Cutting Circle of Destruction, 5.

War:

Nothing.

Click to shrink...

So, what does "At your service" do?

It better be something super-good to explain its extremely high cost (higher than the Doombot Charm!)

 

[Fallen One]

At Your Service. Cost 10m, 1wp.
Duration: Instant
"Upon gazing into her subject's heart's desires, the Solar may reflexively transform into an all
new persona. The Solar becomes a new character, shaped by the ambitions of her subject. If he
needed a pirate captain, she might imbue herself with Sail, Larceny and relevant Intimacies
toward anarchy and a love of plunder. The Solar creates this new persona by taking from the
traits and Charms of personas created by Heart-Eclipsing Shroud. The persona she devises must
have an equal number of traits and Charms as her strongest persona—one which has been
enhanced by Draw the Curtain—but may borrow aspects from her true character sheet. If the
Solar uses any Larceny Charms to change her appearance at the moment she activates this
Charm, her subject is completely incapable of perceiving this change. He may wonder vaguely
why that person vanished so suddenly, but will be more concerned with the new figure standing
before him, as if they were cut from his dreams to make his wishes come true."

 

[Jon Chung]

Sweetie, have you read the long obnoxious argument I've had over God King's Shrike? Because not once did I appeal to Rule 0 to say 'uhm, homebrew would fix it!' No matter how red in the face people would get over my reading of it, I never brought in any outside authority but that which was written in the text.

Click to shrink...

You do realize that rule 0 has nothing whatsoever to do with outside authority, right? I'd certainly hope so.

 

[Sergarr]

At Your Service. Cost 10m, 1wp.
Duration: Instant
"Upon gazing into her subject's heart's desires, the Solar may reflexively transform into an all
new persona. The Solar becomes a new character, shaped by the ambitions of her subject. If he
needed a pirate captain, she might imbue herself with Sail, Larceny and relevant Intimacies
toward anarchy and a love of plunder. The Solar creates this new persona by taking from the
traits and Charms of personas created by Heart-Eclipsing Shroud. The persona she devises must
have an equal number of traits and Charms as her strongest persona—one which has been
enhanced by Draw the Curtain—but may borrow aspects from her true character sheet. If the
Solar uses any Larceny Charms to change her appearance at the moment she activates this
Charm, her subject is completely incapable of perceiving this change. He may wonder vaguely
why that person vanished so suddenly, but will be more concerned with the new figure standing
before him, as if they were cut from his dreams to make his wishes come true."

Click to shrink...

What are these "personas" and can they get Dual Magnus Prana?

Because if they can, then this Charm is like a Swiss Army Knife in it's potential usability.

 

[Deations]

You do realize that rule 0 has nothing whatsoever to do with outside authority, right? I'd certainly hope so.

Click to shrink...

Iunno, stuff like the devs clearly INTENDED it this way without relying on what's in the book sounds like grounds for criticism.

 

[Jon Chung]

Iunno, stuff like the devs clearly INTENDED it this way without relying on what's in the book sounds like grounds for criticism.

Click to shrink...

That has nothing whatsoever to do with rule zero, or the related fallacy. Rule zero is the absolute authority of the GM to alter the rules of the game he is running in whatever way he sees fit. The traditional rule zero fallacy reads: "If you can fix it, it isn't broken". This is a fallacy because if I had to fix it, it certainly was broken, and whether or not I can fix it has nothing to do with anything.

e: FYI, what you were doing earlier with God-King's Shrike is related to the classic rule zero fallacy, though not an exact invocation. Here's a demonstration. We'll summarize your argument like so: "If you add a bunch of caveats and assumptions regarding the operation of this Charm that are core parts of my game style to the plain text of the effect, it's fine".

Note the similarity to "If you can fix it, it isn't broken".

 

[Deations]

That has nothing whatsoever to do with rule zero, or the related fallacy. Rule zero is the absolute authority of the GM to alter the rules of the game he is running in whatever way he sees fit. The classical Rule Zero fallacy reads: "If you can fix it with rule zero, it isn't broken". This is a fallacy because if I had to fix it, it certainly was broken.

e: FYI, what you were doing earlier with God-King's Shrike is related to the classic Rule Zero Fallacy, though not an exact invocation. Here's a demonstration. We'll summarize your argument like so: "If you add a bunch of caveats and assumptions regarding the operation of this Charm that are core parts of my game style to the plain text of the effect, it's fine".

Note the similarity to "If you can fix it, it isn't broken".

Click to shrink...

do u really wanna do this again?

I don't mind, I think if nothing else I've realized there are worse people to argue with. But the difference is: you're making the worst possible assumption of the mechanics, and I am making a more good-faith assumption.

Because like RAW the text doesn't outright say if either of us are right.

 

[Jon Chung]

do u really wanna do this again?

Click to shrink...

You realize who you're talking to, right?

I don't mind, I think if nothing else I've realized there are worse people to argue with. But the difference is: you're making the worst possible interpretation of the mechanics, and I am making a more good-faith assumption.

Because like RAW the text doesn't outright say if either of us are right.

Click to shrink...

I see my last couple posts miraculously didn't get through.

Let's try a thought experiment. We'll take someone who isn't you, or part of your gaming group, or someone who shares your particular game style, assumptions about how to run a game or how to interpret game rules. Let's call this guy Bob, playing Solar Bob the Twilight. Just some random guy with random preferences. We sit Bob down in front of the rules text, he reads the Charm, and let's say he randomly makes the exact same conclusion I, MJ12 and probably a half-dozen other people in this thread did: it's a risk-free stealthy strategic nuclear weapon.

This bit here, where Bob reads the Charm and ends up with "weeee stealth nukes!"? The fact that this can happen is the "it's broken" bit. If it wasn't broken, Bob couldn't read the Charm and end up with that, it would be impossible.

Now, if your argument in defense of the Charm is "because he can read it my way, the charm isn't broken", you're invoking the dread ghost of the rule zero fallacy. See how that works?

 

[Dark Lord Bob]

It would be impossible.

Click to shrink...

Are you saying that if an effect in a game isn't literally impossible to misinterpret it is broken? Because I'd love to see a non-broken game by that metric.

 

[Deations]

You realize who you're talking to, right?

Click to shrink...

I know that you most likely won't quote another poster and say that argument is also mine, so I am down either way.

I see my last couple posts miraculously didn't get through.

Let's try a thought experiment. We'll take someone who isn't you, or part of your gaming group, or someone who shares your particular game style, assumptions about how to run a game or how to interpret game rules. Let's call this guy Bob, playing Solar Bob the Twilight. We sit Bob down in front of the rules text, he reads the Charm, and he makes the exact same conclusion I, MJ12 and probably a half-dozen other people in this thread did: it's a risk-free stealthy strategic nuclear weapon.

This bit here, where Bob reads the Charm and ends up with "weeee stealth nukes!"? The fact that this can happen is the "it's broken" bit.

If your argument is "because he can read it my way, the charm isn't broken", you're invoking the dread ghost of the rule zero fallacy. See how that works?

Click to shrink...

Except Rule 0 fallacy is 'because the rules can be changed or ignored, the problem isn't a problem.' My reading is a reasonable one, and doesn't require changing what's already written down on paper to come to that conclusion. So, maybe because he could read it a different way, it's a problem for some people, but it sure as hell isn't Rule 0 Fallacy.

 

[Jon Chung]

Are you saying that if an effect in a game isn't literally impossible to misinterpret it is broken? Because I'd love to see a non-broken game by that metric.

Click to shrink...

No. I'm saying that if it's reasonably likely some player will read an effect as broken (in this case, risk-free stealthy strategic nukes outta nowhere...), the effect is broken and should be fixed.