So, I goofed when translating the Second Edition rules for thrown retraint weapons into Third Edition.

Grappling an opponent in Third Edition requires you to succeed at three different rolls. The Decisive attack roll against the target's Defense, the Initiative roll against the gambit's difficulty, and then an opposed roll. (Well, you can at least get in one good Savaging or Throw/Slamming action even if you fail the opposed roll, but you can't Restrain/Drag them and they're immediately free on their next action.)

Rather than counting extra successes on the Decisive attack roll, or even the Initiative roll, the grappler should only be able to inflict an Escape Restraint penalty equal to the number of successes scored on the third, opposed roll.

So, here's the revision, along with a number of smaller touch-ups.


THROWN RESTRAINING WEAPONRY
As the label suggests, these weapons are designed for two things: To be thrown at targets, and primarily to restrain those targets rather than harm them; only the bola actually deals damage upon impact.

For a character to use a thrown restraining weapon, her player makes a grappling gambit with a dice pool of (Dexterity + Thrown). If both the attack and Initiative roll succeed, the target is captured, but does not suffer the usual penalties for being caught in a grapple. Further, the following opposed grapple control roll is the attacker's (Dexterity + Thrown) versus the target's (Dexterity + Dodge or Brawl / Martial Arts), and any extra successes on the attacker's part become the Escape Restraint penalty.

The grapple lasts as long as bindings remain intact, or until the target wriggles free—usually not long, since the attacker cannot usually exert her Strength to keep the target held. However, the attacker can use the rounds in which the target is restrained to attack with another weapon, or to execute a normal Grappling gambit. It is easier to clinch someone who is already bound.

On his next turn, the target's player may take a Miscellaneous combat action (page 196) to try to escape from the restraint. He must succeed at a ([Strength or Dexterity] + [Brawl or Dodge]) dice roll, which suffers from the Escape Restraint penalty. If he is embattled (page 197), the difficulty of the roll rises to 2. Failure means he's bound for another action, but the Escape Restraint penalty drops by one after each attempt. So, for instance, if you catch someone in a net and score two successes above the target's Defense, the player of the target suffers a -2 penalty on his first roll, -1 on the second and no Escape Restraint penalties on subsequent attempts. If a restrained target wants to flurry his attempt to free himself with an attack, his attack suffers the Escape Restraint penalty as well; this does not apply to attacking the restraint itself in lieu of a miscellaneous escape action, which some forms of binding permit.

Any further penalties or restrictions imposed by the restraints are detailed under the appropriate weapons.

Alternatively, one of the victim's allies can try freeing him. They must also take a Miscellaneous combat action, with a dice pool deemed appropriate by the storyteller given the method (Melee for a held knife, Thrown for a hurled knife, etc), though they suffer none of the victim's penalties for being restrained. They still find that being embattled raises the difficulty to 2.


I've also made edits to the weapons.

Net (Light or Medium or Heavy, Thrown)
Throwing a net over someone is a good way to restrain him for a short time, and in mortal combat, a short time is all an attacker needs. Nets restrain the target's entire body, but loosely. The target can still try to fight, but he must use a flurry and he suffers further penalties for the restraint. Some nets are specially made with hooks or barbs to injure targets as they struggle to free themselves.

Using a net is a Grapple gambit (difficulty 3). If the net is heavy or the target is small, he is knocked prone from the weight. While the target is bound, he cannot flurry actions, cannot take movement actions except to Rise From Prone, and suffers a -2 penalty to Defense and -1 penalty to attacks.

If the net is hooked, then all turns spent bound drain the victim's Initiative at the end of his turn; 1 point for light nets, 2 points for medium nets, and 3 points for heavy nets.

Light Net Tags: Grappling, Reach, Flexible, Thrown (Short), Special

Medium Net Tags: Grappling, Reach, Flexible, Two-Handed, Thrown (Close), Special

Heavy Net Tags: Grappling, Flexible, Two-Handed, Thrown (Close), Special

Bolas (Light, Thrown)
A bola consists of two to four weights connected by lengths of cord. You hold the bola where the cords join, swing the weights like a sling to build up momentum and then throw the whole contraption at a target. With a good throw, the weighted cords wrap around the target's limbs to restrain him. Tribal people sometimes use bolas to hunt animals and flightless birds.

Used as a normal projectile attack rather than a grappling gambit, the bola deals a small amount of Withering or Bashing damage when it hits, and then wraps harmlessly around only one limb or the target's torso, restraining him not at all. This attack may be Smashing, representing the target being stunned and unbalanced by a strike to the head, or tripped up by a strike to the ankles.

But when used with a successful projectile Grappling Gambit (difficulty 4), the victim immediately suffers a Withering Savaging action on the turn it strikes, and a special Restraining effect for each of his turns as long as he remains bound.

If his legs are bound together, he is knocked prone. Until he frees himself, he suffers a -2 penalty to his Evade and is forced to treat all terrain as difficult terrain. If he wishes to flurry the action to free himself with a Rise From Prone action, he must roll for both actions and suffers the typical flurrying penalty to both rolls.

If instead both of his arms are pinned to his body, he suffers a -3 penalty to any attacks or other actions reliant upon his arms, including the action to free himself (on top of the Escape Restraint penalty), cannot use a weapon with the Two-Handed tag at all without a stunt, and suffers a -2 penalty to his Parry.

Reducing the gambit's difficulty to 3 will bind only one of the victim's arms to his body, for which he suffers a -1 penalty to any attacks or other actions reliant upon his arms, including the action to free himself (on top of the Escape Restraint penalty), and a -3 penalty to use a weapon with the Two-Handed without a stunt.

The victim's weapon may be targeted as well, but by using a Disarming Gambit (difficulty 4).

Tags: Bashing, Grapple, Disarming, Flexible, Thrown (Short), Smashing, Special

Lasso (Light, Thrown)
A rope with a slip-knotted loop at the end makes a difficult weapon to use against people, but ranchers and pastoral nomads find it an indispensable tool. Constant practice on their herds leads such people to great skill with a lasso.

Unlike other thrown restraining weapons, such as bolas or nets, a lasso gives its wielder a way to retrieve a weapon ensnared with a Disarm gambit (which requires a Draw/Ready Weapon action to reel it in)... or to maintain an active hold on a grappled target.

If the attacker can maintain tension on the rope, a grappled target cannot attempt to increase the distance between them. However, if the victim is outside of the attacker's range band, he is free to move closer to the attacker. This forces the attacker to either move an equal distance away from the target, or else take a Draw/Ready Weapon action (page 196) on his turn to reel in the slack and thereby maintain tension. Until the attacker does either, the victim suffers none of lasso's Escape Restraint penalty, as the lack of tension loosens the lasso's loop; the penalty returns if the attacker creates tension again, but the penalty is reduced by one for each turn in which the attacker failed to maintain tension. Further, without tension, the victim may move freely into any range band allowed by the range of the rope, within a radius of the attacker.

Cutting the lasso's tether with an attack effectively destroys all possible tension, but does not automatically free the victim.

As with the bola, a lasso can only partially restrain a target, such as by pinning his arms to his body or binding his legs together, with effects identical to the bola's. However, the lasso may also effectively snare two other locations.

By reducing the gambit's difficulty to 3, the attacker may bind only one of the victim's legs. This inflicts no restrictions or penalties, save for the Escape Restraint penalty. However, as long as the rope remains intact and tense, the attacker may take a Miscellaneous action on his turn to pull the target off their feet, rendering them prone.

By increasing the gambit's difficulty to 5, the attacker will bind the target's neck. This leaves the victim as free to act as binding one leg. However, as long as the rope remains intact and tense, the attacker may inflict a Withering or Decisive Savaging action against the victim on his turn. This is normally the only method by which the lasso can inflict damage as a Light weapon, and the Decisive damage is Lethal, since the rope is crushing a delicate part of the victim's anatomy. A victim in Initiative Crash may only be subjected to Decisive Savaging attacks in this fashion.

The most effective strategy is to use a lasso from a steed and then to ride away, dragging the target along behind. In that case, the captured target faces a resisted roll of his ([Strength or Dexterity] + Athletics) against the (steed's Strength + attacker's Ride) to free himself, and still takes the dice penalty for the attacker's extra successes. Attackers with superhuman strength like unto a horse may employ this tactic on foot, opposing the target's resisted roll with their own (Strength + Athletics) instead.

Though lassos should always require two hands for throwing, at the storyteller's discretion or with a stunt, an attacker may need only one hand to continue using a lasso after snaring a target, freeing his other hand to perform other actions or attacks.

Tags: Grappling, Disarming, Flexible, Two-Handed, Tethered, Thrown (Short), Special


Here's the old Swinging tag updated into the leaner Tethered tag, thanks to Revlid.

Tethered: This tag indicates a weapon with at least one weighted end attached to a Reaching, Flexible length, which can be hurled at any enemy before being tugged back to hand -- examples include chain-sickles and grappling hooks. A Tethered attack may be used up to short range as a Thrown or projectile Martial Arts weapon, using the Thrown Range Accuracy bonus. Such attacks made beyond close range cannot benefit from the Grapple, Disarming, or Flexible tags. Once thrown in this manner, the weapon's weighted end must be retrieved -- this is done reflexively if the wielder and weight are in the same range band, but otherwise requires a Ready Weapon action (pp. 196). Should the martial artist move away without retrieving or dropping the weapon, it obviously follows after him, one range band behind -- this is important for lassos.


Finally, something new.

Grappling Someone Who Is Already Grappled (or Grappling)
A third party looking to get in on a pre-existing clinch can take advantage of the -2 Defense penalty that both parties suffer, which assists the Decisive attack roll. It doesn't do anything for the Initiative roll, but it seems like the target's opposition to the control roll should be penalized in some way. Possibly by treating it as a flurry, and thus subtracting three dice.

The rules as written also actually allow someone caught in a clinch to execute a grappling gambit against their own attacker! There's no explicit restriction against it, only a -1 penalty to any attack (or a -3 penalty if the victim wants to use a two-handed grappling weapon, such as a rope, chain, or garrote). Granted, if the victim only wants to escape, regular attacks are more reliable than savaging attacks, but the victim himself may be a grappling specialist who wants to wrestle with his attacker and merely moved slower. If the victim can establish his own clinch and maintain the hold longer than his opponent's control rounds, it will now be he who is in control of the grapple.

Neither a third party nor a counter-clinching target should be capable of throwing or slamming anyone else in the clinch; not without the cooperation of the one currently in control, anyway.

Someone caught in a clinch can also themselves clinch a third party, and being in sole control of that clinch, they may freely slam or throw their victim.
 
Last edited:
Personally, I have no problem with the idea that some Exalted types have discrete Charms known to the Exalted, while others don't.

I am of the opinion that Excellencies should be an out-of-universe term, though.
And even for the ones that don't think of their charms that way, if they've got a splat culture I assume they're coming up with nicknames for some of the more common tricks just out of convenience. Like, Lookshy DBs may not think in terms of discrete charms so much as general ways of doing shit with essence, but they're gonna have some way to refer to those ways of doing shit with essence that we call Wind-Carried Words and Elemental Bolt Attack, since everyone's required to learn them.

And the Sids probably have some term for their own Excellencies, since every other use of their essence can be defined as some specific thing and they've got the astrology focus as a reason to think of stuff in terms of 25 abilities. I doubt many of them consider any other Exalts to be doing the same thing, though, and I expect the other Exalts would agree.
 
Pretty much, yeah (also, Alchemical Exalted shouldn't actually have to install the dice-adder Excellencies, it should just be a basic use of Essence they can do).
 
That is the only way to reconcile that segment in the core with literally the whole rest of the gameline.

You are arguing that because motes in the mechanics are a real thing in-setting (lolwut), this leads to obvious effects on the setting as a whole.

However, these effects are simply not present. Therefore, your interpretation of that segment in the core is clearly false. Now, maybe mine is not correct, but at least it actually meshes with, you know, the setting as presented.

This amuses me, actually greatly amuses as you are the one who keeps arguing 'well the setting says this, why are you ignoring the setting,' and yet here you are... flagrantly ignoring the setting.
Okay, revisiting this:
The technology of calcifying Mote into a Hard Mote, then temporarily inserting said Hard Mote into devices that normally require a commitment of a Mote in order to activate (escalators, presumably elevators, public vehicles etc.). That seems like a very strong indication that what the Exalts call a Mote is equal to what Players call a Mote. That's about as concrete as Alchemicals pointing to their charm slot and saying This Is My Excellency. Definitely more concrete than even the Eclipse coming to a Lunar Mate asking to teach an Attribute Excellency.

Honestly the greatest obstacle to Exalt getting new blood isn't the mechanical complexity, it's the community and their baggage, see the discussion in this thread for a major example.

That's not to say I hold it explicitly at fault, but to a newcomer it would be pretty annoying to have to read 2 editions of books, learn what part of what book will be absolutely ignored, and learn the community consensus that is only really written in each person's head and differs a fair amount for the smallest idea to actually be addressed.

For a more byzantine system of time wasters to exist it would need to be engineered.
It's sad that there is no way to simultaneously rate a post Liked, Informative, Insightful and Hug it. Because that very precisely describes the impression that replies in those discussions tend to make.

Some more observations on this topic that I consider interesting, and wonder if they're accepted or denied:
It seems that this community over here has undergone something like a 'this specific form of nonconformism is the new conformism', or 'herecy to dogma' cycle. That is, it started out as heretical, in the sense that the prominent people here were the nonconformists who had their ideas - strong ideas - that disagreed with the mainline Exalted canon. I see a sign of this in the occasional comments that seem to implicitly accuse the OPP/RPGnet Exalted people of being conformists, blindly parroting teh Hamster & Co. However, I see that the people who walked away from the mainstream community have become more dogmatic too, and are rather poised rather negatively towards those who do not share their views. And so we now have things like people equating non-changing of the setting to getting feces over everything.

That is indeed not the sort of community that is welcoming for new blood. Though personally I'm already 'in' as far as playing Exalted goes, but I joined the game before joniing the community. I'm guessing the mainstream Exalted community at OPP has its own share of unniceness, right?

As I understand it, Gamism is more concerned with balance and making sure different options are equally viable. Simulationism is what gives us paranoia combat and Solaroids being the best splats and Dragonblooded getting their charms gutted so that some of them just automagically fail against Solars, even though they can't in order for the Usurpation to happen. Gamism would take one look at paranoia combat and regard that as a failure state, because there is now One True Build.
Dunno, Chess are very gamist (again, using the natural-language definition; I'm not a technical GNS expert), yet many strategies aren't viable. So people just don't use them.
Meanwhile, paranoia combat is an unintended result in all senses, it seems.
If paranoia combat is simulation, then what would a hypothetical errata that makes jumping heights/distances more realistic for humans be? Because that seems like a reality-simulator ideal. (Something that authors very explicitly said is not an ideal in the Exalted project.)
 
Dunno, Chess are very gamist (again, using the natural-language definition; I'm not a technical GNS expert),

Don't. Stop using GNS terminology if you don't know what it means. The terms are not synonymous with their meanings in natural language and just parroting them is just confusing things.

For example, Exalted is very un-Narrativist. There are few narrative metamechanics (the Virtues and the capacity to carry out minor dramatic editing with stunts subject to GM veto are the major ones) and you are playing a character making decisions by in-universe logic under default assumptions, rather than making a story. There is a classical GM and player narrative control is largely contained to their character and their magic powers (hence the whole nature of perfect defences - in a Narrativist system, you could set it up so you'd just spend an Agency point to declare that no, your character doesn't die by falling over a cliff, but miraculously manages to grab a branch and survive the fall, because heroes don't die like that. In Exalted, you need to use your in-universe magic nuclear reactor soul to perfect soak the fall.

Mechanically it combines Simulationism and Gamism - the CCG-like design of powers and the way they interact is very traditionally gamist, while the overall mechanics and system inherit from the Simulationist modified Storyteller system. Storyteller is not Narrativist despite the name - FATE is an example of a Narrativist system.
 
Don't. Stop using GNS terminology if you don't know what it means. The terms are not synonymous with their meanings in natural language and just parroting them is just confusing things.

For example, Exalted is very un-Narrativist. There are few narrative metamechanics (the Virtues and the capacity to carry out minor dramatic editing with stunts subject to GM veto are the major ones) and you are playing a character making decisions by in-universe logic under default assumptions, rather than making a story. There is a classical GM and player narrative control is largely contained to their character and their magic powers (hence the whole nature of perfect defences - in a Narrativist system, you could set it up so you'd just spend an Agency point to declare that no, your character doesn't die by falling over a cliff, but miraculously manages to grab a branch and survive the fall, because heroes don't die like that. In Exalted, you need to use your in-universe magic nuclear reactor soul to perfect soak the fall.

Mechanically it combines Simulationism and Gamism - the CCG-like design of powers and the way they interact is very traditionally gamist, while the overall mechanics and system inherit from the Simulationist modified Storyteller system. Storyteller is not Narrativist despite the name - FATE is an example of a Narrativist system.
Since mentioning one of the three words in a post invites a GNS expert to say that they're used improperly (when I first heard of this observation, I found it dubious, but now I'm seeing it in action), I'll just rephrase the balance of impressions about Exalted.

Exalted seems to place story-tropes above realism and above being a game:
Stunts add dramatic editing. Stunts provide a game-mechanical bonus because they'd look cool onscreen, not because they're fair nor because they're realistic. Triremes are 'in' because the authors think they're cool, even though they're not exactly fitting in a reality-simulation interpretation of the setting. The Usurpation happened even though people say it's not possible to game out the Usurpation happening and/or that it would not realistically be possible, because Usurpation is a theme/story in Exalted.

Exalted seems to place game-mechanics above realism:
The jumping rules are meant to be easy to play and fast to calculate and linear in their calculation. No regard was taken for attempts to make Exalted mortals physically similar to human mortals when it comes to jumping heights and distances.

Exalted character powers also seem to carry a very heavy metagame component: Reflexive abilities activated with a spent cost even though the character could never know she needs to activate it (Awareness Excellencies, Dodge Reflex Sidestep Technique, Awareness Surprise Anticipation Method, Resistance Body-Mending Meditation etc.).

And from now one I will try to remember never to capitalise these three words for emphasis, because it can make an impression that I'm using them in the GNS sense.
 
Last edited:
Exalted seems to place game-mechanics above realism:
The jumping rules are meant to be easy to play and fast to calculate and linear in their calculation. No regard was taken for attempts to make Exalted mortals physically similar to human mortals when it comes to jumping heights and distances.
... but... enormous regard was taken for attempts to make Exalted mortals similar to human mortals when it comes to diseases. When it comes to bleeding out from sword wounds. When it comes to travel, with long travel times that it explicitly says you can't sidestep by instant teleportation, because Creation is supposed to be a big place in which most people don't ever go more than a hundred miles away from their birthplace. Enormous effort was put into rules that dealt with mortals dying from infection or growing weak from hunger or becoming fatigued from wearing heavy armour for too long. You're saying that game mechanics and story tropes are placed above realism based on a single example of super-jumping mechanics, the two or three disassociated mechanics in the entire game and a handful of things like triremes which made sense when they were originally envisioned and then got retroactively made stupid when the map was changed, while blithely ignoring entire chapters of rules that make Creation a gritty horrible bronze-age game where you're at considerable risk in every fight of being badly gashed in the leg, bleeding halfway out before you can tie a tourniquet off at your thigh, and then the wound getting infected and killing you. And where the diseases mortals need to worry about aren't things like Spontaneous Combustion or Exploding Blood Boils, but rather things like cholera and smallpox.
 
By definition no system is Gamist, Simulationist, or Narrativist according to Ron Edwards the creator of the theory, in his essay on it. GNS are answers to the question of: What makes a game fun? With Narrativism being "•Narrativism is expressed by the creation, via role-playing, of a story with a recognizable theme. The characters are formal protagonists in the classic Lit 101 sense, and the players are often considered co-authors. The listed elements provide the material for narrative conflict (again, in the specialized sense of literary analysis)." The Forge :: GNS and Other Matters of Role-Playing Theory, Chapter 2

By definition Exalted and other storyteller games highly encourage a narrative style of play.
 
By definition Exalted and other storyteller games highly encourage a narrative style of play.
Mechanically, however, almost every mechanic in Exalted is an associated one - stunts and Virtues are I think the only exceptions to this. Compare with FATE, which makes incredibly heavy use of disassociated mechanics, and lends itself to a very different style of play.
 
Mechanically, however, almost every mechanic in Exalted is an associated one - stunts and Virtues are I think the only exceptions to this. Compare with FATE, which makes incredibly heavy use of disassociated mechanics, and lends itself to a very different style of play.
Narrativism isn't predicated on disassociated mechanics. So Exalted's use of them is besides the point. However, I would add most of the story merits to that list.
 
... but... enormous regard was taken for attempts to make Exalted mortals similar to human mortals when it comes to diseases. When it comes to bleeding out from sword wounds. When it comes to travel, with long travel times that it explicitly says you can't sidestep by instant teleportation, because Creation is supposed to be a big place in which most people don't ever go more than a hundred miles away from their birthplace. Enormous effort was put into rules that dealt with mortals dying from infection or growing weak from hunger or becoming fatigued from wearing heavy armour for too long. You're saying that game mechanics and story tropes are placed above realism based on a single example of super-jumping mechanics and a handful of things like triremes which made sense when they were originally envisions and then got retroactively made stupid when the map was changed, while blithely ignoring entire chapters of rules that make Creation a gritty horrible bronze-age game where you're at considerable risk in every fight of being gashed in the leg, bleeding halfway out before you can tie a tourniquet off at your thigh, and then the wound getting infected and killing you. And where the diseases mortals need to worry about aren't things like Spontaneous Combustion or Exploding Blood Boils, but rather things like cholera and pneumonia.
Gritty is not always the same as realistic. There are bits where rules are meant to simulate reality, and bits where they either fail or were never meant to. I see many people argue that the whole social system either fails or was never made to simulate reality. The crafting systems. The system for learning by spending time studying. The (effective lack of a) system for targeting various parts of the body in combat so as to affect the rest of the combat.

I do agree that Exalted pays significant attention to make a 'life is tough' statement, and is probably rather successful at that goal.

Relative dearth of quick-travel methods available to mortals is more of a worldbuilding statement than a realism statement. It says what kind of setting this is, but doesn't necessarily say much about how realistic events are within the framework of said setting.

I actually think that the Dying Health Boxes are an example of something that is unrealistically gritty:
humans are rather unpredictable creatures, capable of both being easily killed, and of surviving through enormous trauma; but the Dying healthboxes are essentially a one-way trip, barring implausible medical intervention (i.e. the sort that won't come up in a million situations), and so the Incapacitated health box is the only health box at which an e.g. cutting attack can incapacitate but not kill, which is a bit too narrow.
OTOH, Bashing damage is incredibly mild in Exalted, requiring rather high numbers of hits in order to become long-lasting (by the Lethal overwrap). Even though when someone falls from a two-yard height, it's quite possible to cripple one's arm for a month through Bashing damage alone.

The latter example also brings up the issue that Exalted is a rather abstract system (which is not always the same as unrealistic, note).
 
I actually think that the Dying Health Boxes are an example of something that is unrealistically gritty:
humans are rather unpredictable creatures, capable of both being easily killed, and of surviving through enormous trauma; but the Dying healthboxes are essentially a one-way trip, barring implausible medical intervention (i.e. the sort that won't come up in a million situations), and so the Incapacitated health box is the only health box at which an e.g. cutting attack can incapacitate but not kill, which is a bit too narrow.
OTOH, Bashing damage is incredibly mild in Exalted, requiring rather high numbers of hits in order to become long-lasting (by the Lethal overwrap). Even though when someone falls from a two-yard height, it's quite possible to cripple one's arm for a month through Bashing damage alone.

The latter example also brings up the issue that Exalted is a rather abstract system (which is not always the same as unrealistic, note).

No, that brings up "at heart, a lot of Exalted's system was designed in 1991 for the purposes of playing vampires and the design assumptions were not challenged".

The Bashing/Lethal/Aggravated must be viewed in a Vampire context, where bashing damage is "stuff that doesn't threaten vampires much" (like blunt instruments and bullets), lethal damage is "stuff that threatens vampires" (like people armed with katanas), and aggravated damage is "THE DAYSTAR IT BURNS OUR CURSED FLESH". Vampires all have innate healing just by spending blood points, and the cost to heal a health level is based on the type of damage in question.

As @MJ12 Commando has mentioned before, the Exalted system must be viewed in context of previous White Wolf products (both previous Exalted and non-Exalted things), because it's riddled with legacy code and things which were implemented to fix previous defects but introduced regression and unexpected behaviour.
 
No, that brings up "at heart, a lot of Exalted's system was designed in 1991 for the purposes of playing vampires and the design assumptions were not challenged".

The Bashing/Lethal/Aggravated must be viewed in a Vampire context, where bashing damage is "stuff that doesn't threaten vampires much" (like blunt instruments and bullets), lethal damage is "stuff that threatens vampires" (like people armed with katanas), and aggravated damage is "THE DAYSTAR IT BURNS OUR CURSED FLESH". Vampires all have innate healing just by spending blood points, and the cost to heal a health level is based on the type of damage in question.

As @MJ12 Commando has mentioned before, the Exalted system must be viewed in context of previous White Wolf products (both previous Exalted and non-Exalted things), because it's riddled with legacy code and things which were implemented to fix previous defects but introduced regression and unexpected behaviour.
IIRC in the original WoD-Storyteller system (roughly 2e and 2eRev era, not so sure about 1e), Bashing damage was not halved for vampires, and in fact the difference only mattered to Mortals (who could soak Bashing, and healed it faster). I certainly don't remember blood healing working differntly on Bashing vs. Lethal damage back in 2e'ish; now, Aggravated Damage is another matter, and you seem pretty spot-on about it.
I also don't remember there being Dying healthboxes in oWoD2e either. So they're almost surely added in Exalted, and their implementation is very lethal. (But then again in WoD mortals went from Incapacitated directly to Dead . . . which means the new boxes mostly just make no difference despite looking like they're meant to make one.)

Plus let us not forget that WoD was not only Vampire, but also Mage, and the latter is very mortal-centric in terms of damage, because not everybody has (or even can have) a damage-mitigation spell up at all times.

Bullets doing Bashing damage . . . that also seems like a late addition, no earlier than 2e Revised. (Edit: see below - Revised is the full proper name of said edition, with no '2e' attached.)
 
Last edited:
Bullets doing bashing damage to Vampires was around in classic Old World of Darkness before it was the Old World of Darkness.
 
Last edited:
This one time, in band camp, I actually considered drinking a cup of tea!


Anyway, tonights usual everyone vs @vicky_molokh aside, lets get some other discussion going! 3e Sorcerous initiations are cool, anyone got some cool ideas for necromantic themed ones? Or more unusual initiations based around singing, dancing or getting shitfaced drunk? (Otherwise known as the Drunkle Qrow special?)
 
@Sucal

Necromantic Sorcery... Hm. Blood Magic of Dragon Age comes to mind. Sacrifice HP to gain sorcerous motes. You don't need to sacrifice your own HP.

Singing? Take inspiration from Ar Tonelico and Surge Concerto. Probably rolling Performance instead of Occult to gain sorcerous motes.

Getting Drunk probably means you gain sorcerous motes depending on the quality of booze you imbibe. And something about penalties while being sloshed instead gives bonuses while casting.
 
Bullets doing bashing damage to Vampires was around in classic Old World of Darkness before it was the Old World of Darkness.
(Also @EarthScorpion.)

Vampire Second Edition (1992, ISBN 1-56504-029-5, but sometimes written as 1992-1997) does not seem to differentiate between Bashing and Lethal damage; it also happens to mark Aggravated damage with an X instead of an *; mortal healing times are the same regardless of damage type.
Vampire Revised Edition (1998, ISBN 1-56504-249-2, which is confusingly sometimes referenced as 'Second Revised' or 'Third' and/or 'Revised') does indeed state that vampires take Bashing damage from firearms (and halve it), unless the head is targeted.

So it seems that the claim that the differentiation between Bashing and Lethal damage dates back to the old VtM of early 1990s is not the case. It seems to date to the late 1990s at the earliest. For comparison, Exalted 1st edition dates back to, what, August 2001? (ISBN 1-56504-623-4)
Edit: I kinda assumed that work on Exalted started perhaps at least a half-decade before its publication. But you're right, that's a baseless preconception on my part. Touché.
 
Last edited:
(Also @EarthScorpion.)

Vampire Second Edition (1992, ISBN 1-56504-029-5, but sometimes written as 1992-1997) does not seem to differentiate between Bashing and Lethal damage; it also happens to mark Aggravated damage with an X instead of an *; mortal healing times are the same regardless of damage type.
Vampire Revised Edition (1998, ISBN 1-56504-249-2, which is confusingly sometimes referenced as 'Second Revised' or 'Third' and/or 'Revised') does indeed state that vampires take Bashing damage from firearms (and halve it), unless the head is targeted.

So it seems that the claim that the differentiation between Bashing and Lethal damage dates back to the old VtM of early 1990s is not the case. It seems to date to the late 1990s at the earliest. For comparison, Exalted 1st edition dates back to, what, August 2001? (ISBN 1-56504-623-4)

And your point is? You seem to be quibbling endlessly because you've decided that you can win on the details, ignoring that an argument is more than the sum of its parts, and your quibbles, if anything, actually prove @EarthScorpion's point.

In oWoD 2e, mortals could soak damage with Stamina. All forms of damage, including bullets and knives. The Bashing/Lethal divide was introduced, incidentally, because before it existed, The Man Your Man Could Kill Like (a normal mortal with all attributes and abilities maxed out) would be able to, bare-chested, tank an entire magazine of handgun fire.

As @MJ12 Commando has mentioned before, the Exalted system must be viewed in context of previous White Wolf products (both previous Exalted and non-Exalted things), because it's riddled with legacy code and things which were implemented to fix previous defects but introduced regression and unexpected behaviour.

As said, this was a defect which the Bashing/Lethal divide fixed, by making humans significantly less durable. Which incidentally made Stamina a lot less valuable for people.
 
If you summon and bind a Second Circle Demon, could you order it to begin making new races of First Circle Demons for your use?

Are there any Second or Third Circle Demons that bring other Demons with them when Summoned, in the same way Octavian does with his Wasp?
 
If you summon and bind a Second Circle Demon, could you order it to begin making new races of First Circle Demons for your use?

Theoretically?

Sure, you could do it with a task binding.

Whether or not it's a good idea though...

Are there any Second or Third Circle Demons that bring other Demons with them when Summoned, in the same way Octavian does with his Wasp?

Not that I know of.
 
If you summon and bind a Second Circle Demon, could you order it to begin making new races of First Circle Demons for your use?
You could probably task-bind them to make a new breed for you, yes. Of course, they'd do it their way, and you might not be entirely happy with the result.
Are there any Second or Third Circle Demons that bring other Demons with them when Summoned, in the same way Octavian does with his Wasp?
Stanewald brings her horse with her. Madelrada brings her army, if you count that as a separate thing from Madelrada herself.
 
And your point is? You seem to be quibbling endlessly because you've decided that you can win on the details, ignoring that an argument is more than the sum of its parts, and your quibbles, if anything, actually prove @EarthScorpion's point.

My point is that people are quick to claim that the grand assembly of examples support their view of the setting. And quick to make conclusions based on those examples. Even though they seem to have already decided what sort of conclusion they want to make. Even when those examples are that something that doesn't exist (or exists despite being claimed not to), or doesn't apply, or has a counterexample.

Such as claiming that a Mote is not equal to the Mote that scholars talk about. Even though it's the only definition of a mote. Even though there is a monologue of a character talking about spending a Mote in order to get a Hard Mote that can be used in place of Committing a Mote.
Such as claiming that Charms are not something that exists in the setting and/or isn't realised by characters. Even though there is a character saying that medical care is cheaper than the payment for a Solar using a Charm to heal someone, and that Eclipses explicitly need to seek out a tutor knowing Charm X in order to learn (non-Solar) Charm X.
Such as claiming that Triremes are in the setting by mistake, because nobody told the authors that they don't fit in. Even though by now authors definitely have been told, but they don't care (and likely never did), because
Such as claiming that all the game mechanics need to be seen as invented in 1991 in VtM. Even though some of the bits were not developed until VtM Revised, in 1998.
Such as claiming that some things as a 'stupid 2e addition' (not exact words). Even though those things turn out to date back to 1e.

All of this looks like a memory of some perfect unified mold that was never actually true. Anything that contradicts this imaginary vision is struck from memory, and quoting evidence contradicting this imaginary vision is grounds for being dismissed as not conforming to this imaginary vision.

----
I came into Exalted without much of a preconception, and what I found is a rich kitchen-sink mosaic of a fantasy setting that is built with a typical White-Wolf'ish 'if this would look cool, add it' and 'throw stuff at the wall, see what sticks' and 'we did it for the sake of the awesome plot and tropes, even if realism suffers from that' and 'warning: fantasy - suspension of disbelief required'. It's the same company that gaves us thousands of people involved in millenia-old conspiracies that never, ever screwed up enough for the secret to become a worldwide public knowledge, despite stuff like clan elders making city-wide invasions while sitting in the stomach of a giant rampaging pig-ghoul.

So what I did was accept the imperfections, stopped worrying, and jumped into the setting, taking the good with the bad and accepting it as-is. Which is actually atypical for me. Being criticised for it is surreal for me specifically because of the latter.
 
Back
Top