|
Crion posted:Here is the full text of Foe-Vaulting Method. You be the judge if this grants an extra attack, as opposed to allowing the player to make a surprise attack (which expends their combat action) instead of making a normal attack (which expends their combat action). To me, that reads like it generates a new attack, separate from any other attacks you have. I doubt that's how it was intended, but that's what it reads like. Transient People posted:EDIT: I also just now realized Foe-Vaulting Method works at any range. I'm not sure whether the ability to vault over a dude who's one kilometer away from you to blindside him is a bug or feature. It has "at close range" at the start of one of the sentences, but it's lovely, awkward wording that only exists like that because the devs are apparently terrible at templating. Like, here's my hamhanded try at better mechanical language: quote:The Exalt may only use this Charm on her turn, and only if she has higher pre-cost Initiative than a target opponent within Close range. She rolls Dexterity + Athletics against that opponent’s Evasion. If successful, she leaps over that target, creating an opening. The Exalt may use this opening to supplement one attack against that target during the same turn, making it a surprise attack (p. XX). Of course, we could trim this kind of stuff down further with some concessions to the mechanics that don't slavishly obey the Ex2e Charm formatting, maybe even stealing some terminology and formatting from D&D 4e, but that'd just be craaaaazy. quote:Requirement: The Exalt must have a higher pre-cost Initiative than her target. Roadie fucked around with this message at 01:06 on Apr 17, 2015 |
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 00:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 16:49 |
|
|
Attorney at Funk posted:You guys, I'm starting to have long suspected that Transient People is an idiot. You shut your mouth, TP bought me this snazzy avatar/redtext and I won't tolerate you besmirching their name. (Seriously though, I actually do like the av TP, I love bad boxart megaman and if I ever do get around to changing it I want to color swap my old av to bad boxart colors to keep the theme.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 01:05
|
|
|
Roadie posted:To me, that reads like it generates a new attack, separate from any other attacks you have. It only reads like that in a vacuum, is the thing, and only if you, the reader, are inclined to be generous rather than restrictive. If you demand confirmation that the attack mentioned by the Charm is one actually generated by the Charm, rather than assuming it is unless you can find an explicit denial, you see that FVM moves your body without independently and additionally moving your weapon. When you compare FVM to the overall combat rules, as well as to other reflexive Charms which grant additional actions versus other reflexive Charms that don't, you can see that it's missing the explicit confirmation things like Peony Blossom Attack have, and realize that it actually works fine as-written if you just take the "may" as a "no, go on, we won't stop you". (Additionally, game balance and chargen would just go smoother if the Charm didn't give you a free turn) These are judgment calls that Exalted forces you to make because the game is simply not rigorous in its templating. If 3E actually had MtG-style clarity, this charm: quote:Peony Blossom Technique ...could instead be written as follows: quote:Peony Blossom Technique And it would work the exact same way. We don't have that, though - we're stuck basically trying to divine the writers' intents, and can depend (mostly) on the fact that when an effect is really powerful or significant, the writers will take extra pains to explain - in plain language - how we're supposed to resolve it. There isn't actually a consistent, keyworded language that a computer could use to run Exalted fights. This is basically okay because Exalted is not a competitive game, and does not expect people to play it for money at tournaments... although there are definitely a number of things hanging around that need more clarification than they got even if you don't assume that Exalted needs to be runnable by an impartial computer rather than a group of friends. Ferrinus fucked around with this message at 02:08 on Apr 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 02:00
|
|
|
axelsoar posted:You shut your mouth, TP bought me this snazzy avatar/redtext and I won't tolerate you besmirching their name. Sorry Axel, I wasn't the one who did it. I had to mooch my own avvy off the FATE thread, I couldn't find the money for someone else's. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 02:20
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:And it would work the exact same way. We don't have that, though - we're stuck basically trying to divine the writers' intents, and can depend (mostly) on the fact that when an effect is really powerful or significant, the writers will take extra pains to explain - in plain language - how we're supposed to resolve it. There isn't actually a consistent, keyworded language that a computer could use to run Exalted fights. This is basically okay because Exalted is not a competitive game, and does not expect people to play it for money at tournaments... although there are definitely a number of things hanging around that need more clarification than they got even if you don't assume that Exalted needs to be runnable by an impartial computer rather than a group of friends. Well, not the exact same way. All that stuff about anima changes and requirements is gone. Needs more templating.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 03:09
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Wise Arrow is supplemental, but if you're talking about Sight Without Eyes, I'd assume you'd have to activate it separately for each attack you wanted to make blind. So, if you wanted to use an extra action Charm in a pitch black room, you'd have to pay down SWE's 1m repeatedly. This seems a bit odd to me, and if I was writing the Charm myself I'd have probably just made SWE give you a buff that lasted all tick or, at most, allow you to pay 2m or 3m to make the buff last all tick or all turn, but here we are. This is actually a specific rule in Awareness - save for Blink and Roused Dragon Detection, all Instantaneous Awareness Charms can have their durations increased to One Turn for a 2m surcharge. For some reason, this exceedingly-important information is buried in the middle of the cascade in a sidebar, rather than appearing in gigantic boldface letters at the start. This seems relevant to me within the context of the discussion of White Wolf games needing clearer rules text.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 04:40
|
|
|
Thesaurasaurus posted:This is actually a specific rule in Awareness - save for Blink and Roused Dragon Detection, all Instantaneous Awareness Charms can have their durations increased to One Turn for a 2m surcharge. For some reason, this exceedingly-important information is buried in the middle of the cascade in a sidebar, rather than appearing in gigantic boldface letters at the start. This seems relevant to me within the context of the discussion of White Wolf games needing clearer rules text. What's really epic is that this sidebar that pops up halfway through the Charm list is titled "Space-Saving Concession (Developer 5, Essence 3)".
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 04:48
|
|
|
Possibly the sidebar will appear somewhere different in the book once it's actually laid out?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 04:55
|
|
|
I want more Developer Charms. Naj.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 04:56
|
|
|
Transient People posted:Sorry Axel, I wasn't the one who did it. I had to mooch my own avvy off the FATE thread, I couldn't find the money for someone else's. Woah, seriously? I thought it was you since I got it after we had a tiff earlier on, who gave me this?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 05:21
|
|
|
axelsoar posted:Woah, seriously? I thought it was you since I got it after we had a tiff earlier on, who gave me this? I think I know who it was but I don't know if I should say it. They should probably be the ones to decide whether or not to do it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 05:35
|
|
|
axelsoar posted:Woah, seriously? I thought it was you since I got it after we had a tiff earlier on, who gave me this?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 07:01
|
|
|
Ronwayne posted:The rest of them are redeemed abyssals. I swear that poo poo is like a revolving door. I made a redeemed Abyssal NPC but after he decided to be a good person he did absolutely nothing significant so he wouldn't accidentally serve death. He didn't become a solar or anything though, he just chills out being a three-dot mentor.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 07:37
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Someone who's down on hentai, apparently! I don't buy redtexts to people.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 10:47
|
|
|
I like the quote but don't really dig the idea of having an Abraham Lincoln quote and hope that they do away with it between the 3E leak and final product, an in-universe quote would feel so much less cheap.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 05:13
|
|
|
Old Doggy Bastard posted:I like the quote but don't really dig the idea of having an Abraham Lincoln quote and hope that they do away with it between the 3E leak and final product, an in-universe quote would feel so much less cheap. I think it's just a White Wolf thing to use IRL quotes for all their splatbooks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 06:09
|
|
|
Would quoting a Kanye West's be better? It would  .
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 07:00
|
|
|
ErichZahn posted:Would quoting a Kanye West's be better? "I ain’t no muthafuckin celebrity. I ain’t runnin’ for office. I ain’t kissin’ nobody’s muthafuckin babies. I drop your baby and you muthafuckin sue me and poo poo." "I hate when I'm on a flight and I wake up with a water bottle next to me like oh great now I gotta be responsible for this water bottle" Kanye is Exalt as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 07:24
|
|
|
Old Doggy Bastard posted:Kanye is Exalt as gently caress. No kidding: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L53gjP-TtGE
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 13:25
|
|
|
the simplifying charm stuff you guys have been posting just makes me realize I'd kill for someone to go through all the charms in the book and turn them into actual TL;DR versions for easier reference.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
Stallion Cabana posted:the simplifying charm stuff you guys have been posting just makes me realize I'd kill for someone to go through all the charms in the book and turn them into actual TL;DR versions for easier reference. Clearing out a lot of the descriptive fluff would also free up players to do a lot more of their own describing/fluffing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
PurpleXVI posted:Clearing out a lot of the descriptive fluff would also free up players to do a lot more of their own describing/fluffing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
Put me on the list of people who want EZ Charms. I really hate Exalted Charm fluff. I think it's supposed to inspire you to want to take the Charm or give you some idea of how the Charm manifests but frankly I just find it very blowhard-y. Even when it's easy to refluff or generally short. Tell me exactly what the Charm is supposed to do as precisely as you can afford to and get the hell out of the way. If you can't tell a story with just the mechanics e.g. I can't tell it's a Solar Charm without you rambling about the glint of sunlight, than you should re-examine the mechanics.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
I would kill for charm cards or some other easily referrable resource. As far as the actual charms chapter goes though my main beef is with the templating rather than the prose. It doesn't need to be a technical document but for a game that asks us to trust our common sense it's not giving us as much to work with as it could be.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
I don't even understand what Charm-prose is for. I'm sure a couple of them have very inspired descriptions, and sometimes you need it to get a feel for what it is the Charm is actually doing, but 3/4 of Charms in 2nd Ed were samey. "The power of the Unconquered blah blah" or "The Lawgiver takes a pose of authority that blah blah" or "Sunlight shines from behind a million ficus plants and you get +2 to hit things." Kill it, reduce it to a couple of sentences, rejoice as you get back like 150 pages of space. (I haven't really read the leak. Is 3e better in this regard?)
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:(I haven't really read the leak. Is 3e better in this regard?)
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:I don't even understand what Charm-prose is for. I'm sure a couple of them have very inspired descriptions, and sometimes you need it to get a feel for what it is the Charm is actually doing, but 3/4 of Charms in 2nd Ed were samey. "The power of the Unconquered blah blah" or "The Lawgiver takes a pose of authority that blah blah" or "Sunlight shines from behind a million ficus plants and you get +2 to hit things." Kill it, reduce it to a couple of sentences, rejoice as you get back like 150 pages of space. I'm literally going to quote myself from the distant past: Guess what these are. quote:The Solar capitalizes on her own genius. Her hands and Essence flow in tune with the spirit of her craft, turning even the shoddiest materials into sublime masterworks. I'll tell you: these are the collected first lines of every Craft charm in the "Power" cascade. All of them, in roundabout ways, do nothing or almost nothing but give you more successes on your Attribute + Crafts roll to progress on or finish a project. Like, one doubles your 9s, one rerolls your 5s, one gives you an extra roll before you have to stop, etcetera. You could probably replace each and every one's rules text with "gain one stacking non-Charm success". There are separate "Efficiency" and "Momentum" cascades of comparable length.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
Stallion Cabana posted:the simplifying charm stuff you guys have been posting just makes me realize I'd kill for someone to go through all the charms in the book and turn them into actual TL;DR versions for easier reference. Mendrian posted:Put me on the list of people who want EZ Charms. Attorney at Funk posted:I would kill for charm cards or some other easily referrable resource. As far as the actual charms chapter goes though my main beef is with the templating rather than the prose. It doesn't need to be a technical document but for a game that asks us to trust our common sense it's not giving us as much to work with as it could be. I'm probably going to end up taking a while to do this when the book comes out, at least for the Abilities I'm interested in, using a pseudo-D&D 4e formatting style like that one I already posted. I'll also probably try to rewrite them in the process to eliminate any blatant ambiguities, but expect a list like a million items long of "I don't know for sure if it's actually supposed to work like A or like B". Roadie fucked around with this message at 23:43 on Apr 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
We basically need the game to come out and the writers to be questionable before we can possibly put something like that together, because there are too many ambiguities that can make serious game balance/conflict resolution differences. Like, I'm still not sure whether someone you kill with Solar Counterattack gets to deal damage to you or not.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 01:16
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:We basically need the game to come out and the writers to be questionable before we can possibly put something like that together, because there are too many ambiguities that can make serious game balance/conflict resolution differences. Like, I'm still not sure whether someone you kill with Solar Counterattack gets to deal damage to you or not. Rulings, not rules! 
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 01:43
|
|
|
Say what else you will about the 3E team, but its heads aren't too chickenshit to tell us how they think the game should be.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 01:47
|
|
|
Whether it's what anyone ELSE wants, now, that's a different question entirely.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 03:43
|
|
|
Nihnoz posted:I made a redeemed Abyssal NPC but after he decided to be a good person he did absolutely nothing significant so he wouldn't accidentally serve death. So basically by becoming an even more useless piece of poo poo he emulated the Deathlords further. Eye-and-seven we knew ye way way too well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 07:37
|
|
|
So, pursuant to a discussion in the World of Darkness thread, I decided to actually look up the authors of the "Changing Breeds" book and see how much they overlapped with those for the rest of the WoD line. Authors: Jess Hartley, John Morke, Leath Sheales, Holden Shearer, John Snead, Mark Stone
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:So, pursuant to a discussion in the World of Darkness thread, I decided to actually look up the authors of the "Changing Breeds" book and see how much they overlapped with those for the rest of the WoD line. That sounds like the writing team for Changing Breeds W20. Are you sure that's the one you mean?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
Yeah, uh, Blue Book Changeling Breeds is: Phil Brucato, Jackie Cassada, Alexa Duncan and Elizabeth Jordan Leggett with Jeremy Duncan and Nathan Ballingrude Who are a lot of old school White Wolf authors but I don't think they've any of them done much with NWOD.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
My god, I was lied to by my own friends.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
Digging a little further, it looks like other than Brucato, of the NWOD Changing Breeds crew, only Cassada had worked on White Wolf stuff before. (And not since 2000, and not anything after.) Everyone else is apparently new to that book and have no other credits that I'm finding, though I think some of them had done Deliria stuff?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
Yeah, that's what prompted the initial question. I learned something much more important, though: to never trust anyone, no matter how long you've known them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 16:49 |
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Yeah, that's what prompted the initial question. I learned something much more important, though: to never trust anyone, no matter how long you've known them. It was your own wishful thinking that led you astray.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 20:34
|
|