|
Transient People posted:You forgot stunt dice. Your pool should be 14 dice for a Heavy, 16 for a Medium, 18 for a Light. 67.95% chance to hit a stunted Parry of 8. It stinks! If you're curious, it jumps to 80.5% on a 16-die stunted excellently struck medium weapon. That's an ENORMOUS accuracy gulf in exchange for like... a die of extra damage, maybe, if we pretend for a second that Melee charms don't reward having lots of attack dice more than they reward having lots of raw damage.
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2015 01:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 00:02 |
|
|
Ferrinus posted:67.95% chance to hit a stunted Parry of 8. It stinks! What percentage of the time are you okay missing?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2015 01:09
|
|
|
Covok posted:One thing that concerns me is the long, long, long list of charms. To those who've played it, was such a list really necessary? If your favorite part of D&D is the giant list of mostly meaningless feats and spells, then Exalted is definitely the game for you. quote:What percentage of the time are you okay missing? Rule of thumb for game design is 70-75%, so 68% is close enough, but as a player missing sucks and there's such a heavy incentive to reduce it rather than waste turns. Especially when doing so is so trivial. RPZip fucked around with this message at 01:16 on Sep 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2015 01:13
|
|
|
Attorney at Funk posted:What percentage of the time are you okay missing? Zero, of course, so we just have to weigh the hypothetical turns lost to dealing no damage against the hypothetical turns lost to never getting the chance to deal damage. Given that accuracy translates to damage anyway, and the to-hit chance against the same well-defended opponent is 80.5 for a medium weapon and 88.5 for a light weapon (each of which do a single die less damage, on average, than the category before them - less than a die, really, given that excellent strike means that each accuracy die is worth slightly more than half a damage die), it just seems to me that someone who wants to maximize their attempted attacks to useful attacks ratio wants to avoid heavy weapons.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2015 01:14
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:67.95% chance to hit a stunted Parry of 8. It stinks! This assumes your enemies get stunt bonus. Last time I asked Holden he said they don't. Remind me to ask again once the backer PDF drops so I can post the quote here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2015 01:31
|
|
|
Are stunts on passive defense values still a thing?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2015 02:01
|
|
|
Transient People posted:This assumes your enemies get stunt bonus. Last time I asked Holden he said they don't. Remind me to ask again once the backer PDF drops so I can post the quote here. It seems strange to assume that you always get a stunt bonus while your enemy does not, but the thing is that if you can do that I'm pretty sure that leaves medium (and light) weapons looking even better because they'll have even more net successes, and the kind of base accuracy that frees you from having to use an offensive excellency even if your victim's using a non-maximized defensive excellency.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2015 02:09
|
|
|
xiw posted:Are stunts on passive defense values still a thing? Yeah. In the game I ran, one of the Solars survived what would've likely been a fatal decisive attack by stunting their defense juuuuuuust high enough that it whiffed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2015 02:32
|
|
|
Don't suppose the game figured out how to deal with stunting attacks and defences before you know if they succeeded or not? That always made stunting very inelegant for me. I do something really cool-looking! *roll* uh I botched
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2015 03:00
|
|
|
Describe the action such that the description doesn't say whether you succeed or not? "I brace my feet against the ground and swing my sword at him with a swooshing noise" is a valid 2-dice stunt in 1st edition, for example.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2015 03:18
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:It seems strange to assume that you always get a stunt bonus while your enemy does not, but the thing is that if you can do that I'm pretty sure that leaves medium (and light) weapons looking even better because they'll have even more net successes, and the kind of base accuracy that frees you from having to use an offensive excellency even if your victim's using a non-maximized defensive excellency. Sure, but if you're already forcing excellency bleed from your opponent you're getting ahead regardless and without spending overmuch, which is what I was arguing for. You really don't want to full ex unless you're in a fight you're gonna lose unless you go all-out, and those are rare.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2015 03:38
|
|
|
You'll force more defensive excellencies if you're accurate enough to merit them. Heavy weapons: they're bad.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2015 05:52
|
|
|
xiw posted:Don't suppose the game figured out how to deal with stunting attacks and defences before you know if they succeeded or not? It's simple. The bad guy's stunt trumps the PC's stunt.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2015 06:38
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:You'll force more defensive excellencies if you're accurate enough to merit them. Heavy weapons: they're bad. Honestly wonder if maybe accuracy values should be absolutely uniform, since they're so insanely important. Find a different tradeoff - it seems really weird that heavy, two-handed weapons are bad on defense, since IRL the sturdier blade or long haft or what have you are actually very good for blocking. At the very least the acc/damage tradeoff should not be one-to-one, I mean  Maybe a tag exclusive to heavy weapons that makes threshold sux worth more, a la Hungry Tiger Technique? Bedlamdan posted:It's simple. The bad guy's stunt trumps the PC's stunt. I always went with a failure at least as cool and memorable as the stunt they described. Like, do a falling windmill slam with your grand goremaul to turn your enemy into paste, but whiff? The impact pulverizes the entire goddamn battlefield, dropping everyone to a lower floor of the building, or such.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2015 06:58
|
|
|
Thesaurasaurus posted:Honestly wonder if maybe accuracy values should be absolutely uniform, since they're so insanely important. Find a different tradeoff - it seems really weird that heavy, two-handed weapons are bad on defense, since IRL the sturdier blade or long haft or what have you are actually very good for blocking. At the very least the acc/damage tradeoff should not be one-to-one, I mean Offhand, I'd probably try something like: Light: +3 accuracy, +7 damage Medium: +2 accuracy, +9 damage, +1 parry, lose 1 initiative on a miss Heavy: +2 accuracy, +11 damage, +1 parry, lose 2 initiative on a miss Or maybe like, a medium weapon is +10 or 11 damage but costs 1 init to swing, while a heavy weapon is +13 to +15 damage and costs 2 init to swing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2015 07:08
|
|
|
Universalizing the gear like that actually makes sense to me, since presumably this is independent of things like magical material bonuses, evocations and so on. So you're just losing another bullshit thing to keep track of, and even with flexy weapons you can be like "you can use this as a Light or a Medium weapon, but you have to give up some init if you're shifting your grip partway through a scene, though you can also use that as stunt fodder."
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2015 07:13
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Offhand, I'd probably try something like: These numbers are all bad because they are flat out worthless. If you used these you could just go back to 2.5e-isms and look at the number marked with an O because the only thing that would matter is ping damage. (Hell, ping damage kind of IS the only thing that matters against heavy armor if we're being honest, but there are some high-strength builds that can go up against their matching high-stamina counterparts and break the overwhelming ceiling. This is, incidentally, probably the strongest point by far in favor of heavy weapons - their Overwhelming damage is almost double that of Lights, which really does make them pulverize tanky fuckers much, much faster, especially those that can lower postsoak damage like Armored Terrors.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2015 07:23
|
|
|
Those are numbers for mortal weapons - 7/9/11 are the already-existing damage values on fists, straight swords, etc. On artifacts I assume you'd increase the accuracies by 1 and the damages by 3 or whatever the gulf is. I'm not sure if I'd make artifact armor outpace artifact weapon damage the way it does already. Like I said, Overwhelming looks a lot better than it is when you realize what the accuracy gulf actually does to both your to-hit chances and your threshold damage. If I deal a minimum of 4 damage when I hit, and you deal a minimum of 5, but I hit literally half again as many times as you do, then, like, I'm gonna take the 4.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2015 07:30
|
|
|
Transient People posted:You forgot stunt dice. Your pool should be 14 dice for a Heavy, 16 for a Medium, 18 for a Light. I am not sure what these characters are supposed to be. If you attack a shikari with 14 dice and excellent strike, the shikari can muster 10-11 parry, giving you 24-37% chance to hit which is abysmally awful. If you defend only with your 6 base parry and HSP, the shikari will hit you with 20 dice, giving him a 80-90% chance to hit on an E1-2 Solar. I am quite sure that a shikari that goes all-out will win almost every time against a Solar that spend <6 motes per turn.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2015 16:33
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:I am not sure what these characters are supposed to be. If you attack a shikari with 14 dice and excellent strike, the shikari can muster 10-11 parry, giving you 24-37% chance to hit which is abysmally awful. If you defend only with your 6 base parry and HSP, the shikari will hit you with 20 dice, giving him a 80-90% chance to hit on an E1-2 Solar. I am quite sure that a shikari that goes all-out will win almost every time against a Solar that spend <6 motes per turn. Rather than speaking abstractly, why don't I do a breakdown here? Air Mac: Tops off at 8 Evasion. Statistically likely to get tagged even if burning full motes every round. Earth Mac: Tops off at 9 Parry. Also pretty likely to get tagged (you may have to add one die for 'safety' here but that's about it). Fire Mac: Tops off at 9 Parry. See the Earth Mac. Overwhelming Fire Majesty inflates his defensive pool, but also costs a ton of motes, making it infeasible to keep it going forever. Water Mac: Finally someone who tops off at 10 Parry, plus has an attack roll penalty. Going higher with the excellency is justified here...but mostly if you want to induce mote bleed. Wood Mac: Also tops off at 10 Parry, but no attack roll penalty. You want to go big against the wood mac, but mostly in the form of hitting with one major Decisive strike that can't be blocked after farming someone else for initiative, to get around the regeneration gimmick. So no, not a single one of the immaculates can hit 11 parry, only two of them hit Parry 10, and one of them tops off at Evasion 8. You vastly overestimate their defensive dicepools. There is also the matter that the shikari has a smaller mote pool than you do, individually - their statblocks are off and their peripheral pools should generally be some 10 motes lower than they are (I only noticed this just now - for some reason they don't have attunement costs applied to them). Assuming you use the statblocks in the book, they can keep going full blast three turns and a half. Correct the statblocks and it's more like two and a half or three quarters. Pit them against a small group of Solars with basic competence charms and they will get crushed every time if they spend motes so negligently. pit them against a single solar and the battle will be determined more by use of the environment to mitigate action advantage than anything else - that, or whether the Solar has Ready In Eight Directions Stance in case of a whiteroom to absolutely ruin the macs' day, but I'm assuming we're not actually whiterooming because it's pointless.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:I am not sure what these characters are supposed to be. If you attack a shikari with 14 dice and excellent strike, the shikari can muster 10-11 parry, giving you 24-37% chance to hit which is abysmally awful. If you defend only with your 6 base parry and HSP, the shikari will hit you with 20 dice, giving him a 80-90% chance to hit on an E1-2 Solar. I am quite sure that a shikari that goes all-out will win almost every time against a Solar that spend <6 motes per turn. 10 is the absolute maximum for a deeb unless they have a source of non-charm defensive boosts - they can't raise any static value by more than one-half (Ability + Applicable Specialty). This is one big improvement over 2e and 2.5e, in which successes or static value buffs only respected dice caps with Excellencies.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
I'd be prepared to swear that 2/2.5E DVs respected the dice cap whether or not an Excellency was pushing you towards it (unless a Charm explicitly said otherwise)
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
Holden has mentioned that it's intentional that Terrestrials (or possibly just these Terrestrials) are significantly better at threatening you than they are at defending themselves.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:I'd be prepared to swear that 2/2.5E DVs respected the dice cap whether or not an Excellency was pushing you towards it (unless a Charm explicitly said otherwise) I've seen charms that give more of a DV boost than even a non-Elder Solar's dicecaps could accommodate. But then, these were in Scroll of the Monk, soooooo...
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
Yeah. Anyway, specific doesn't always beat general, in Exalted - at some point in 2E, someone tried to write a soulbreaker orb that would pierce 2E perfect defenses, and failed. Like, regardless of what the artifact's description said, a couple sidebars in the corebook trumped it. I forget if getting, on-paper, a +20 bonus to your DV was better for an E1-5 Solar than a +5 bonus - like, if your DV was suffering penalties, could the oversized bonus buy off those penalties before it started increasing you over your normal value and therefore approaching the cap? I'm pretty sure no - the cap was on how much you could add to your DV, not how much higher you could bring it than its baseline. (Sidereals specifically had a cap on maximum value, not total added value, so they could buy off an arbitrarily high penalty before adding on their teeny little bonus)
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
Thesaurasaurus posted:10 is the absolute maximum for a deeb unless they have a source of non-charm defensive boosts - they can't raise any static value by more than one-half (Ability + Applicable Specialty). This is one big improvement over 2e and 2.5e, in which successes or static value buffs only respected dice caps with Excellencies. They can spend a WP to raise it to 11, and some of the DBs have fairly respectable WP pools.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
I'm not sure how this is meant to contradict what I said, the DB will pound the Solar into initiative crash every time because he's holding one hand behind his back and build up a massive init bank which the Solar will have to start full excellency-ing against to avoid being killed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:I'm not sure how this is meant to contradict what I said, the DB will pound the Solar into initiative crash every time because he's holding one hand behind his back and build up a massive init bank which the Solar will have to start full excellency-ing against to avoid being killed. It contradicts what you said because if the DB is going full blast 1v1, the Solar can just *let him* spend himself out and then cancel his Decisive attack and crush him (because he no longer has sufficient motes to defend himself with). Why would you bother overspending when one timely expenditure is all you need to clinch the fight?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2015 22:15
|
|
|
Transient People posted:It contradicts what you said because if the DB is going full blast 1v1, the Solar can just *let him* spend himself out and then cancel his Decisive attack and crush him (because he no longer has sufficient motes to defend himself with). Why would you bother overspending when one timely expenditure is all you need to clinch the fight? I'm not sure you're understanding how this actually plays out, try running a test combat. Assuming no other charms, the DB can pound on you, hitting every attack while you usually miss, for 7 whole rounds. It's true that he may miss his decisive attacks - but with 7 rounds to play with, there's a good chance of him landing a fairly devastating one. That aside, while I assume it is at least marginally viable to run a rope-a-dope strategy where you let the shikaris beat you up for 7 rounds while retaining your mote pools to unleash a frenzy once they've depleted theirs, this is a) way different from the original scenario you were talking about and b) a completely ludicrous and massively tedious inversion of how Exalted combat was designed to be run.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:I'm not sure you're understanding how this actually plays out, try running a test combat. Assuming no other charms, the DB can pound on you, hitting every attack while you usually miss, for 7 whole rounds. It's true that he may miss his decisive attacks - but with 7 rounds to play with, there's a good chance of him landing a fairly devastating one. That aside, while I assume it is at least marginally viable to run a rope-a-dope strategy where you let the shikaris beat you up for 7 rounds while retaining your mote pools to unleash a frenzy once they've depleted theirs, this is a) way different from the original scenario you were talking about and b) a completely ludicrous and massively tedious inversion of how Exalted combat was designed to be run. Out of curiosity, what 'other charms' are you discounting here? Because this post just makes no sense to me at all - I already gave you the math for how long a DB can last at full blast and it's not 7 rounds by any stretch. Is the DB now not using a full excellency on defense or something?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
Oh, it's actually 6 rounds. An E2 DB has 44 motes, so if they spend 12 motes (full excellencies on attack and defense) per round and regen 5, they come into round 6 with 9 motes which is enough to launch their final attack with a few motes left over.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
I'd include artifact subtractions as well, but that's kinda beside the point. I just don't agree with combat specialists ever overspending because it's so unnecessary. Going off the top of my head with the characters I've played... -Melee Dawn, multiattacker: Invincible Fury of the Dawn + Fire and Stones Strike either ends the fight in turn one or forces the DB to bleed something like ten motes JUST on canceling Onslaught penalties (and more in some cases, IIRC). No need to even excellency. -Brawl Dawn, traditional: Fivefold Fury Onslaught plus Falling Hammer Strike may as well be an instant win so there really is no reason to bother with spending a ton. Wind and Stones Defense offers a very economical full ex if the target survives as well. -Melee Dawn, Heavy Weaponeer (using Evocations + Relentless fix): Land hit using ex strike, wait for some maroon to attack, Solar Counterattack him into a pile of goo. If he keeps using full excellencies, maintain pressure with the same combo until a big crash is scored or the target takes wound penalties (and consequently does jack poo poo). Inflate defense with Hail-Shattering Practice. -Martial Arts Dawn, Steel Devil (plus a borderline mandatory Evocation to maintain Onslaught): Permanent Parry 10 and counterattacks on failed strikes, plus Crossblade Catch for making people using Melee worthless. Basically worked like the heavy weaponeer, except in this case the mote expenditure on counterattacks was a one-time thing, plus if the fight went long enough (three rounds?) the mote bleed on canceling Onslaught twice or thrice a round got absurdly severe. None of these characters really benefitted from spending on excellencies more than strictly necessary. Stacking Onslaught or saving up motes for counters just paid off better. It was more valuable to play the odds than overkill results too heavily.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
Monday morning meeting notes posted:Ex 3 core book – RichT here: Page XX page numbers from the Devs sent to Maria. No idea how long it will take for her to input these into an almost 700 pg book. It took me three 12 hours days to do the ones for V20, and we didn’t have as many. After she’s done we submit the whole corrected PDF to CCP again to show we hit their needed correx. And then the backer PDF gets sent out… There are, according to Holden's twitter, 342 instances of XX in the semi-final manuscript. If there were, say, 300 in V20, and Rich took 36 hours to incorporate them, that would be an average of over seven minutes per instance of replacing XX with a number. I do not understand layout at all, because I visualize the process as involving something like a search-and-replace interface in a word processor, where replacing XX with a number from a list I've been given 342 times would take maybe five seconds per instance.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
I feel like modern technology should be able to do that automatically.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
So it'll release next month if they don't gently caress everything up. That's good.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
Zereth posted:I feel like modern technology should be able to do that automatically.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
SunAndSpring posted:So it'll release next month if they don't gently caress everything up. That's good. Next month implies a full month and not two weeks. It's finally coming out but man was this a loving disaster.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
Looking forward to every argument the internet's already had happening again.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 20:16
|
|
NutritiousSnack posted:Next month implies a full month and not two weeks. That's what I meant. It's gonna be out in early October.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 00:02 |
|
|
Nessus posted:Modern technology costs money, which seems, despite the $600k kickstarter, to be in short supply on this project. Besides which while I don't know all the ins and outs, I can see how Holden or someone is basically having to go "Uh... that rule's over in Chapter 4 somewhere, isn't it" and then has to hunt for the exact paragraph. This would get faster as time goes on and he probably remembers where (or has bookmarked here) the really common stuff is. Hunting for the right paragraph / page number is a step that's already been completed; it's what Holden tweeted about having finished doing. As I understand it, he compiled a list of 342 page numbers which will (for some reason) take a week of work to copy into the draft document. Moving the numbers that have already been compiled into the document and replacing the XXs that are there now as placeholders: this is the step they say they are on.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 21:19
|
|