|
There are no situations in Exalted where you need a computer to "help you do math." The only math involved in tracking initiative is basic addition and subtraction. What an initiative tracker helps you do is track a sequence for ease of reference. I've been in a couple 3E combats with an IRC group and we got by just fine with the ST posting the updated init list in our OOC channel as it changed. One imagines a whiteboard would be sufficient for a tabletop group.
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 05:22 |
|
|
Transient People posted:...No? Or rather, yes, but what I mean is, Exalted is a roleplaying game. Game mastery is always a part of it. It's totally fine to not care for that half of it, but that doesn't mean there's no feeling of accomplishment to it, especially with a system so detailed. If you think people don't enjoy playing the game well I don't know what to tell you. I mean yeah, that's fair, some folks like Ivory Tower design in games but I am not one of those people. I also think that there is a difference in designing for complexity and for depth. If you build a system right, there can be a lot of room for mastery without having to be dense in rules. Conversely, you can have a system that is super dense in rules and hard to wrap your head around but when you manage to understand it all it boils down to a really basic solution. For example, 2e was an absolute clusterfuck of rules, but once you really got down to it the best way to approach combat was a 2/7 filter where you ground your opponents down through the most boring battle of attrition possible. It was certainly complex, but it was not really deep.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
Crion posted:There are no situations in Exalted where you need a computer to "help you do math." The only math involved in tracking initiative is basic addition and subtraction. What an initiative tracker helps you do is track a sequence for ease of reference. I've been in a couple 3E combats with an IRC group and we got by just fine with the ST posting the updated init list in our OOC channel as it changed. One imagines a whiteboard would be sufficient for a tabletop group. Yeah, this is much closer to the reality than what I posted earlier. The math itself is very simple and I imagine that you quickly get used to tracking the fluid initiative. I only wrote the script because "Write a script to track it for me" is my first-choice fallback whenever something is fiddly, it's absolutely possible for people to just do it themselves. Didn't mean to say/imply "you must have computer or everything will end in disaster"
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 17:09
|
|
|
Yeah, fluid initiative is just about tracking two things for each party in the fight: current score, and whether they've acted this round. It's really not that much worse than any iteration of D&D, and it gives lots of room for things like hurling yourself at someone who's about to act and paste your ally, or boss moves with big windup that are vulnerable to being hitstunned out of their 'animation'. It does a lot for pacing and tension.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 17:18
|
|
|
Transient People posted:...No? Or rather, yes, but what I mean is, Exalted is a roleplaying game. Game mastery is always a part of it. It's totally fine to not care for that half of it, but that doesn't mean there's no feeling of accomplishment to it, especially with a system so detailed. If you think people don't enjoy playing the game well I don't know what to tell you. I like how you're still trying to argue that systems which require ~game mastery~ are somehow not inherently poo poo because of it. A good system is one I can pick up and just go: "Hm, this seems cool, I'll give this a shot" when making a character and it won't make me useless in mechanical terms. Games that require me to "master" their functionality by either making mechanics non-obvious, or by making some concepts and roles less mechanically useful than others, have hosed up. If your feeling of accomplishment is from somehow "beating" the game by being superior at the mechanics, then, well, poo poo, I won't say you can't find a group that won't share your views, but I'd certainly never want to play any sort of RPG with you. Please just tell me you're a very persistent troll.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
theironjef posted:Is system mastery an excuse for a game to be willfully obtuse? Like is "This game is super complex and requires a ton of regularly updated tracking so that the few players that can finally grok it will feel awesome?" a good model for design? If it's actually tight, yes. Some people enjoy it. How would you keep the combat momentum of 3e with fixed initiative, for example? Not a rhetorical question - it's very important to the mechanics and if you know of a way I'd be interesting of hearing about the hack. Games CAN have irreducible complexity and there's nothing wrong about them. It's the stuff that could still be simplified further (like Craft) that is a problem. axelsoar posted:I mean yeah, that's fair, some folks like Ivory Tower design in games but I am not one of those people. Yes, and I'm saying that 3e is a system that is mostly built right, aside from Crafting and the *too shallow* Bureaucracy/Leadership system. I've been doing a bunch of homebrewing for 3e, and I feel like there's a lot of good learning attached to making things for it. Like yeah, there's a SHITTON of stuff to learn, but the more I learn about why this effect has a four mote cost instead of three, or what the value of a willpower is, the more I realize how much they carefully planned it. Maybe it's just not your game system, Axel. And that's OK.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
Actually fluid initiative isn't hard to keep track of. Four first time players and a first time GM were easily able to do so in our first major combat, with no electronic help.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 17:30
|
|
|
It seems like you could track it pretty easily with a numbered grid (like Feng Shui's Shot Counter) and double-sided tokens - just place your token on the correct initiative, and flip it once you've acted. This momentum-based system doesn't seem much more complicated than a simple rolled initiative order while adding quite a bit of tactical depth - the only thing I'm uncertain about at the moment is how high Initiative is likely to go for the purpose of putting the grid together.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
It's also really funny that PurpleXVI insists on talking about the game authoritatively when he, by his own admission, has only ever skimmed over it. e: pretend I emptyquoted this VVV fool of sound fucked around with this message at 17:41 on Apr 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
PurpleXVI posted:I like how you're still trying to argue that systems which require ~game mastery~ are somehow not inherently poo poo because of it. Nah, I think you're just kind of terrible at elfgames.  But seriously, look at this post. It's elitist, condescending, inherently dismissive of a viewpoint that isn't yours and arguing from false and dishonest premises. It is, pure and simply, a poo poo post. You've seen me post enough to know just how highly I value transparent mechanics (just as I've seen you post enough to realize you care immensely about presentation and feel and that you go with your gut checks instead of delving deep into mechanics and sitting down to break down math over a whole day or a week because such things do not interest you, which is why you're not enthused by 3rd Edition Exalted), that I like the idea of alternative paths to power and that newbie traps sicken me. But you're still trying to make me look bad for...I don't even loving know what your reasons are. To look good on the internet? We get it. The wording of Foe-Vaulting Method and how it secretly grants an extra attack instead of just boosting your next one doesn't interest you. That doesn't mean my glee at discovering that it works this way and not that way is any less legitimate than your own enjoyment. If this is a problem for you, maybe you should practice not being so insecure about your own mindset that you can't tolerate the existence of someone else's.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 17:36
|
|
|
Transient People posted:Like yeah, there's a SHITTON of stuff to learn. I suppose that is what I take issue with more than anything, I am of the opinion the game could be just as deep and fun to play without the absurd number of charms. But some folks like that I guess, and all the more power to them  .
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
axelsoar posted:I suppose that is what I take issue with more than anything, I am of the opinion the game could be just as deep and fun to play without the absurd number of charms. Totally. I think you could simplify things to...hmm...say, fifteen abilities, nine attributes, seven charms for each of them? Those numbers seem about right to me. It'd be an entirely different system though, probably much more similar to something like FATE than classical Exalted. I'd be interested in seeing a variant EZalted game. Could be interesting as hell.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:Actually fluid initiative isn't hard to keep track of. Four first time players and a first time GM were easily able to do so in our first major combat, with no electronic help. +1 I had already fights with up to eight participating PC and NPC, and it is quite easy to keep track, not much worse than hitpoints in D&D. No software needed just a pen and a paper.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
Incidentally, if anybody feels a burning need for software to go with Exalted, I think I've got two different google spreadsheets lying around I could share. I've honestly never found a need for more than that, really.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 17:42
|
|
|
axelsoar posted:I suppose that is what I take issue with more than anything, I am of the opinion the game could be just as deep and fun to play without the absurd number of charms. No, I actually do agree with you here. A disappointingly large number of charms don't actually let your character do anything new, they just modify your dice (this is one of the reasons I like the martial arts was better than I like the melee and brawl trees). It's a black mark against the game, but it isn't disruptive enough to be anything but an annoyance. It's dramatically, overwhelmingly better than 2e ever was.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 17:46
|
|
|
theironjef posted:Is system mastery an excuse for a game to be willfully obtuse? Like is "This game is super complex and requires a ton of regularly updated tracking so that the few players that can finally grok it will feel awesome?" a good model for design? Willfully obtuse? No. But intricate (to a certain extent) for its own sake? I'd argue yes. There are people who like lots small bits of crunch and how they all interact together, and they'll be attracted towards systems that have those features just as much as people flock towards rule-light stuff such as FATE. That said, there are probably far fewer people on that end of the spectrum because A) computer RPGs have probably peeled many of them away, and B) sophisticated computer-aided gaming (which is an ENORMOUS boon to this kind of playstyle) hasn't been cracked yet so you have to suffer a lot for the sake of your fun.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
Transient People posted:Totally. I think you could simplify things to...hmm...say, fifteen abilities, nine attributes, seven charms for each of them? Those numbers seem about right to me. It'd be an entirely different system though, probably much more similar to something like FATE than classical Exalted. I'd be interested in seeing a variant EZalted game. Could be interesting as hell. For sure, I would play the hell out of that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
I'd certainly prefer an Exalted that had less paperwork to it, but (speaking from the ST perspective) I've found it tolerable, and I have a very low tolerance for these sorts of work.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
From what I've experienced, tracking initiative is no easier or harder in any way than tracking HP in D&D, Strain in Edge of the Empire, motes in Exalted, or absolutely any other character resource that can fluctuate overt the course of a fight. Your mileage may vary, but from where I'm standing, it's incredibly simple and I genuinely don't get where people complaining about it are coming from.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
jagadaishio posted:From what I've experienced, tracking initiative is no easier or harder in any way than tracking HP in D&D, Strain in Edge of the Empire, motes in Exalted, or absolutely any other character resource that can fluctuate overt the course of a fight. Your mileage may vary, but from where I'm standing, it's incredibly simple and I genuinely don't get where people complaining about it are coming from. it's just in D&D, your hp does not determine turn order, and if it goes up and down the only thing anyone at the table really cares about is if it hits 0. as a DM/ST, I really don't need to know player's exact HP turn to turn, and other than poo poo like "are you bloodied? this attack does +3 if you are bloodied" hp value is just tracked/cared about by the individual players. Also, keeping track of motes was a pain, especialy when you had upwards of 3 different pools, you also had your health levels, which had different values, your willpower, and god knows what else. Comparing what you have to keep track of in Exalted to D&D isn't really fair. edit: also your motes in your anima, your DV penalty, your onslaught penalty for everyone, your current wound penalty... Ash Rose fucked around with this message at 18:25 on Apr 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
Exalted would still work if turn order was fixed, but it'd be missing out on a few interesting things that happen because turn order isn't fixed, and keeping track of changing turn order is actually incredibly easy. So, I'd leave that part of the system alone.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
Transient People posted:You've seen me post enough to know just how highly I value transparent mechanics that I like the idea of alternative paths to power and that newbie traps sicken me. But you're still trying to make me look bad for...I don't even loving know what your reasons are. No, not really, I've seen you post about how players wanting to have fun makes them poo poo and lazy players if they're not interested in being "good" at the game, as though it's a contest to somehow win, with a big prize at the end. You also say you don't like newbie traps, but isn't a newbie trap pretty much the same as having mechanics that it takes "days or weeks" to break down the maths of? Is that also not the exact opposite of transparent mechanics? Or do we have vastly different definitions of what a transparent and accessible mechanic is? Transient People posted:The wording of Foe-Vaulting Method and how it secretly grants an extra attack instead of just boosting your next one doesn't interest you And isn't an ability or mechanic with an effect that can be described as "secret" the same thing as a "newbie trap"? Obtuse stuff that's going to hamper new players for no good reason, when clearer wording or a sidebar could easily have sorted it out?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 18:45
|
|
|
Foe-Vaulting Method doesn't grant an extra attack, and if you """discover""" that it does you should be angry at the newbie traps that have been created by poor templating, not pleased that you've found a present.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Exalted would still work if turn order was fixed, but it'd be missing out on a few interesting things that happen because turn order isn't fixed, and keeping track of changing turn order is actually incredibly easy. So, I'd leave that part of the system alone. I'm still a bit skeptical of this, but in our game we haven't put it through its fullest paces yet (which would be, a full circle of exalted pcs vs a full circle's worth of similarly complex opponents). In the games we've run so far it actually has been much easier than I expected it would (though I worry, separately as an ST, about the cognitive load of playing that many complicated NPCs in a fight at once).
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Exalted would still work if turn order was fixed, but it'd be missing out on a few interesting things that happen because turn order isn't fixed, and keeping track of changing turn order is actually incredibly easy. So, I'd leave that part of the system alone. Notably, Clashes would need to be either removed or reworked.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
Technically, they could still happen as the result of certain charms or deliberate use of the Delay action, but yeah, that's one big part of it. It'd be pretty silly if two people got the same Join Battle roll and then had to Clash each and every time they attacked each other.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Technically, they could still happen as the result of certain charms or deliberate use of the Delay action, but yeah, that's one big part of it. It'd be pretty silly if two people got the same Join Battle roll and then had to Clash each and every time they attacked each other. Silly? Or... epic...?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
Attorney at Funk posted:Silly? Or... epic...? This poster gets it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Foe-Vaulting Method doesn't grant an extra attack, and if you """discover""" that it does you should be angry at the newbie traps that have been created by poor templating, not pleased that you've found a present. I'm not gonna debate authorial intent when the wording is beyond clear, really. 'The user may make an attack' is a far cry from 'the user's next attack benefits from...' and the fact that it's a once per scene charm with two prerequisites and a mandatory roll-off that isn't in your favor checks out under those circumstances. It's much the same as the fact that Hail-Shattering Practice can be used on Clashes. If it is a good, there's no way to actually tell and we'll have to wait for the new mechanics pass to release or for errata to happen. PurpleXVI posted:No, not really, I've seen you post about how players wanting to have fun makes them poo poo and lazy players if they're not interested in being "good" at the game, as though it's a contest to somehow win, with a big prize at the end. No, not exactly, possibly and hell no. It takes a lot of research and mechanics analysis to understand what an orbwalk or stutterstep is in a moba, but you don't need it to play the game properly. You similarly don't need to understand lane control or the value of lasthits, though this becomes a requirement once you stop wanting to simply play the game within its rules and start wanting to play well. Complicated games all have optimization cases, and this is both mandatory (even a game that has really easily solved math like FATE has optimizations you can do to it, this time aimed at maximizing player interest instead of numbers) and desirable. Mechanical nuances and decisions based on them are what separates a complex game from a simple game, since the latter are pretty much pure metagame. As to whether it is transparent mechanics or not, that's entirely on whether they're pointed out or not - dice mechanics are obtuse to a lot of people but become clear if you do like Greg Stolze and explain probabilities. Exalted has nontransparent mechanics because of this lack of documentation, more than anything else. And lastly, 'secret' effects aren't bad. They're something that rewards you for experimenting with the mechanics. Hail-Shattering Practice giving you a major edge in Clashes is a good example. It's not the first use that comes to mind, but it's one that's perfectly reasonable. You're perfectly entitled to not liking it, but in that case a complicated system just isn't for you because they're built on poo poo like that. It's the exact same thing as guaranteed or likely unblockables in fighting games or eight-way resets, just lacking an execution barrier since this is pen and paper.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
Transient People posted:I'm not gonna debate authorial intent when the wording is beyond clear, really. 'The user may make an attack' is a far cry from 'the user's next attack benefits from...' and the fact that it's a once per scene charm with two prerequisites and a mandatory roll-off that isn't in your favor checks out under those circumstances. It's much the same as the fact that Hail-Shattering Practice can be used on Clashes. If it is a good, there's no way to actually tell and we'll have to wait for the new mechanics pass to release or for errata to happen. The wording is clear. It says you may make an attack. It does not allow you to make a surprise attack without spending a combat action to do so. Charms which do give you extra attacks are extremely clear about it. The game doesn't play coy with extra actions - if something lets you break the action economy, it says so clearly. This doesn't. Deep down, you know this is bullshit - that's why you used the word "discover" instead of, I don't know, "read". Also, this is an Essence 1 Athletics charm with two prereqs, and causing an attack you make to be classed as a "surprise attack" normally takes not only a rolloff but an entire action on the surprise attacker's part. Even if you ignored the fact that simply being a surprise attack gives you a bunch of keywordy interaction advantages (it interacts nicely with Ebon Shadow Style martial arts, it pierces the defense normally offered by Dipping Swallow Defense, etc) you're paying 3i for +2 non-charm successes on any kind of attack roll. As an aside, I don't understand why you think using Hail-Shattering Practice is some kind of next level secret tech. Gosh, I can use the charm that weakens enemy attacks... when an enemy attacks me?! This is CRAZY!
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
Holy poo poo, guys! Game-changing discovery here!quote:Sight Without Eyes With a single Archery charm, you can make 47 attacks in a single turn! This is emergent gameplay at its finest.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
Transient People posted:And lastly, 'secret' effects aren't bad. They're something that rewards you for experimenting with the mechanics. Hail-Shattering Practice giving you a major edge in Clashes is a good example. It's not the first use that comes to mind, but it's one that's perfectly reasonable. You're perfectly entitled to not liking it, but in that case a complicated system just isn't for you because they're built on poo poo like that. It's the exact same thing as guaranteed or likely unblockables in fighting games or eight-way resets, just lacking an execution barrier since this is pen and paper. Note how all your other examples are competitive games. Busting out SECRET TECH in a tabletop rpg is a really unpleasant situation for the relationship between you and your GM - discovering hidden combos while you're, you know, playing the game is pretty sweet, but tabletop rpg optimisation is something that happens outside the game and leads to a: blindsiding your GM and b: increasing the gulf in character effectiveness between optimised PCs and the other players at your table who aren't Keeping Up With The Forums. I mean I'm not saying DON'T DO IT but I think TTRPG design should try and avoid this kind of rule situation, not encourage it, and it's not great for your social contract. In a MOBA anything goes if you win, but in a tabletop game using any interpretation of ambiguous wording you can to win is something that isn't universally acceptable. If that's what you want to do in your game, sure, but it hurts other people's games.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:With a single Archery charm, you can make 47 attacks in a single turn! This is emergent gameplay at its finest. Actually, by the wording of the Charm, that sounds entirely legit. ...which is yet another indicator of why the "natural language!" policy of the writers is dumb as hell. It's also yet another strike against the whole "Reflexive as stealth Supplemental" model that only exists because they wanted to keep the clunky extra requirements on Supplementals for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
The effect this has on cooperative games like tabletop games is insidiously ruinous even if, as I assume Transient People does, you only try to bust out SECRET TECH in an egalitarian, team-enhancing way that all the players and the Storyteller are informed of and equally able to use, etc etc. You end up raising the bar on power, both in terms of maximum available and minimum necessary, and PCs and NPCs both just end up driving themselves to exhaustion trying to keep their individual hamster wheels spinning in synchrony. Like, let's pretend that TP is right about Foe-Vaulting Method. What's that mean? Well, there's an early Athletics charm with enough offensive potency that vastly more combative characters are going to feel compelled to take it. Solars, and Solar-class opponents, and even near Solar-class opponents (this is just Essence 1 Athletics 2, after all), are pretty much all going to be expected to be packing one more per-encounter extra attack than they used to be. Combat in general contains more bursty alpha strikes and longer individual turns. And for what? Nothing!Roadie posted:Actually, by the wording of the Charm, that sounds entirely legit. It doesn't, though. The effect of the Charm is not "the character makes an attack". It's "the character may make an attack." But it's pretty much always true that a character may make an attack, so no big. The only difference is that now, she can make one without penalty for visual conditions... but that doesn't mean she could make one without the penalty for lacking both her arms or existing in linear time or whatever else. We're playing a roleplaying game, not a computer game. We're smart enough to handle these things, although we sometimes lack the will to make an honest attempt to. Ferrinus fucked around with this message at 22:04 on Apr 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
xiw posted:Note how all your other examples are competitive games. Busting out SECRET TECH in a tabletop rpg is a really unpleasant situation for the relationship between you and your GM - discovering hidden combos while you're, you know, playing the game is pretty sweet, but tabletop rpg optimisation is something that happens outside the game and leads to a: blindsiding your GM and b: increasing the gulf in character effectiveness between optimised PCs and the other players at your table who aren't Keeping Up With The Forums. While I agree that using underhanded interpretations is something not worth doing, tabletops are just as much competitive games as they are collaborative, though. Or at least, they can be. My experience is that when the players are willing to take actions at cross-purposes with each other, and the GM is willing to challenge them at every level (not just with interesting encounters, but also with moral dilemmas, by attacking the basic tenets of the PCs' mindsets, by presenting problems with no premade solution and being perfectly willing to let a failure happen if a reasonable solution isn't found), the game benefits from it. Competition pushes people to apply themselves harder. Some people don't like competing at all and this doesn't work for them, but it does for me. And it doesn't mean you have to be dicks to each other, either - if somebody in the group likes optimizing, he should share his knowledge with the others, or show them the game's inner workings. A homebrewer should shoulder the responsibility not just for his own Cool New Stuf but that of other players who lack his knack for mechanics. And so on and so forth with everything else. Do you think this is a mistaken viewpoint to take, particularly in a game where the characters have no obligation to share goals with each other? Roadie posted:Actually, by the wording of the Charm, that sounds entirely legit. Pretty much, yeah. The argument that just because a charm is E1 and has only two prereqs means it can't grant extra attacks was also intensely silly as well. One Weapon Two Blows only requires one prereq charm, doesn't it? If Foe-Vaulting Method is meant to just apply Surprise, then it should have a different wording. There'll be a chance to ring up the devs and ask them to clarify when we get the backer PDF, at least.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
Roadie posted:Actually, by the wording of the Charm, that sounds entirely legit. It really doesn't. The meaning of the charm is obvious, and it requires wilful if not outright malicious misinterpretation to get Transient People's "secret rules tech" out of it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
Yeah, part and parcel of making an attack in Exalted 3E is taking a combat action. You get one combat action per turn. Specifying that making an attack consumes your turn's combat action is already an explicit part of the rules, and exceptions to this are similarly explicit (for instance, flurries). There is no explicit exception here, nor even really an implicit one. This isn't tough stuff, unless you want it to be in order to theorycraft. edit: The only thing that requires a clarification here is why in the world we're supposed to take anything TP says about rules interactions seriously. Crion fucked around with this message at 22:14 on Apr 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
Transient People posted:Pretty much, yeah. The argument that just because a charm is E1 and has only two prereqs means it can't grant extra attacks was also intensely silly as well. One Weapon Two Blows only requires one prereq charm, doesn't it? If Foe-Vaulting Method is meant to just apply Surprise, then it should have a different wording. There'll be a chance to ring up the devs and ask them to clarify when we get the backer PDF, at least. Who made the argument that an E1 charm with two prereqs can't grant extra attacks?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
You guys, I'm starting to have long suspected that Transient People is an idiot.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 05:22 |
|
|
Dammit Who? posted:It really doesn't. The meaning of the charm is obvious, and it requires wilful if not outright malicious misinterpretation to get Transient People's "secret rules tech" out of it. I may be jaded by too many years of playing D&D 4e, maybe. It's a game of similar (greater, even) rules rigor than Exalted 3e where this language cropped up often and in a fashion that wasn't always consistent. After a while, you start looking at charms like these and assessing them against the rest of the game to determine what's appropriate because the wording is ambiguous as hell. Compared to the penalty negators we've seen so far, a charm that's 1/scene (resettable admittedly) and requires you to roll a pool that may be as many as -2 sux down between average result and target number for a +2 bonus on your next action strikes me as less than appropriate. Even dragonblooded get good enough penalty negators to ignore that poo poo (looking at the Immaculate of Air right now for example, he gets a -3 penalty negator that doesn't even count unexpected attacks against the cap, which would include this charm I believe). Ferrinus posted:Who made the argument that an E1 charm with two prereqs can't grant extra attacks? Apparently the number of prereqs is a big deal to you. Why you chose to bring this up, I'll never know.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 22:19
|
|