|
Essence levels are bullshit.
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 23:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 21:57 |
|
|
So here's my first pass at making a more distilled and more readable equivalent of the scrambled mess that is pp. 185-189 in the book.   Notable changes: - "Pips" instead of "successes". - No stunting included for now, because of all the horror stories I've heard from GMs of forced stunting every round slowing things down too much. - Defined terminology for opposed rolls. - Changing "meet or exceed" in extended rolls to "exceed" because it's stupid as hell to have a threshold successes mechanic and then not use it a couple paragraphs later. - Automatic success at Difficulty 0 actions with 0 dice. - The return of "dramatic action" as an umbrella term. - "Movement action" as a distinct type. - A multisided dice for dongeon and dragons. Roadie fucked around with this message at 01:23 on Oct 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 01:14
|
|
|
To be honest I'd be perfectly happy with the first paragraph totally as is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 01:39
|
|
|
dafuq is a pip.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 01:43
|
|
|
It's the dots on a d6. Like, when you roll a five, there are five pips showing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 01:44
|
|
|
TheLovablePlutonis posted:dafuq is a pip. It's what you need to count up to beat the difficulty on a roll. Prison Warden posted:It's the dots on a d6. Like, when you roll a five, there are five pips showing. Also, yes, this is the actual definition.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 01:44
|
|
|
TheLovablePlutonis posted:dafuq is a pip. quote:Pip I think the bolded line is the one being used here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 01:45
|
|
|
What I'd probably do, given that certain rare charms reference stunt mechanics directly, is this: Minor Stunt: Offers no mechanical benefit, but is treated as a phantom +2 dice or +1 to a static value in case anything cares about your stunt bonus. Every character, PC or NPC, can assume to have a minor stunt on any action should it matter. Major Stunt: Restores 1wp, is treated as a phantom +2dice/1success or +2 to a static value in case a charm needs to read the bonus for some reason. Up to two different players can claim a major stunt per scene, but not if they already claimed one last scene. Defining Stunt: Restores 2wp, treated as a phantom +2 dice/2successes or +3 to a value in case anything cares. One player can claim a defining stunt per session, but not if they already did last session.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 01:46
|
|
|
I figure Charms existed but were either what various splats naturally figured out when trying to use Essence to help Do A Thing, or in the case of esoteric or martial-arts things, were specific skills/routines you got drilled on. Appearance probably varied wildly, outside of Tiger Style or the Wu-tang Sword Techniques, which were probably pretty uniform (if with an individual seasoning).
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 01:47
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:What I'd probably do, given that certain rare charms reference stunt mechanics directly, is this: I am basically already assuming a minor stunt included all the time in terms of mechanical likeness, with hopefully some general fiddling with dice, excellencies, etc to roll into the math the effect of both that and of the many dice-widget Charms I'd want to remove.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 01:51
|
|
|
Certain "native" Charms absolutely exist as known-to-characters setting elements because they're distinctive, observable tricks that Exalts of a certain type are given to do. Like, you can actually see someone materialize a Glorious Solar Saber or start emanating the Eye of the Unconquered Sun from their face. Those are clearly superpowers that Solars "commonly", insofar as any Solar is common, exhibit. The same goes for the ability to fly so long as you're pursuing an enemy, unleash the Demon-Wracking Shout, whatever. Beneath all that, almost all the stuff that just makes your actions really effective or really fast or really far-reaching or whatever, that's understood to be - and probably feels to the Solar themselves - like it's just you trying really hard and being really good. I don't think people know about Excellent Strike or Fists of Iron Technique or stuff like that. Meanwhile, Snake Form and Demon of the First Circle and such are obviously properly named and categorized by various savants.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 01:52
|
|
|
Roadie posted:I am basically already assuming a minor stunt included all the time in terms of mechanical likeness, with hopefully some general fiddling with dice, excellencies, etc to roll into the math the effect of both that and of the many dice-widget Charms I'd want to remove. The annoying thing is accounting for the actual mathematical differences stunt-enhancing charms make. For instance, if a charm said it converted your stunt dice to automatic successes, then properly speaking what it actually does in "everyone does a minor stunt at all times" world is add 1 success to an action, not 2.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 01:53
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:The annoying thing is accounting for the actual mathematical differences stunt-enhancing charms make. For instance, if a charm said it converted your stunt dice to automatic successes, then properly speaking what it actually does in "everyone does a minor stunt at all times" world is add 1 success to an action, not 2. Good point. I'm pondering including major stunts in (just as "stunts" or whatever other term), but I need to do some looking through GMC and other sources for more mechanical ideas. Edit: Also, I welcome ideas for "we resemble but are legally distinct from the Lollipop Guild" names for mechanics and effects. Roadie fucked around with this message at 02:29 on Oct 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 01:55
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Certain "native" Charms absolutely exist as known-to-characters setting elements because they're distinctive, observable tricks that Exalts of a certain type are given to do. Like, you can actually see someone materialize a Glorious Solar Saber or start emanating the Eye of the Unconquered Sun from their face. Those are clearly superpowers that Solars "commonly", insofar as any Solar is common, exhibit. The same goes for the ability to fly so long as you're pursuing an enemy, unleash the Demon-Wracking Shout, whatever. This is indeed probably the way it operates but I'd prefer those things as rules-friendly codifications of what a Solar can do rather than uniform magic tricks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 02:28
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:This is indeed probably the way it operates but I'd prefer those things as rules-friendly codifications of what a Solar can do rather than uniform magic tricks. This is part of why I liked the Merged/Martial stuff in 2.5 - it kept the Ability vibe while making it a little less "here is your Nihnoz posted:I am insane. Here's something I cooked up for my players (but mostly for myself) because I was sick of insane situations where 12 people go on the same tick and wanted a way to resolve them. It also includes expanded resolution for decisive attacks to account for counterattack and clash charms. Nihnoz, do you mind if I incorporate parts of this into the mechanics rewrite stuff I'm fiddling with? Roadie fucked around with this message at 04:43 on Oct 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 04:19
|
|
|
Roadie posted:Nihnoz, do you mind if I incorporate parts of this into the mechanics rewrite stuff I'm fiddling with? Go ahead, but I can't guarantee that it functions entirely until I've played with it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 04:52
|
|
|
Nihnoz posted:Go ahead, but I can't guarantee that it functions entirely until I've played with it. One complication I've already noticed: by the book, I don't think you're supposed to be able to flurry a combat action and a movement action. The flurry description on page 183 says "two combat actions" specifically, and Move on page 197 is distinct from Rush on the same page in that the former is listed as "Reflexive" and the latter is listed as "Combat". Goddamn is this organization poo poo, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 05:53
|
|
|
Roadie posted:One complication I've already noticed: by the book, I don't think you're supposed to be able to flurry a combat action and a movement action. The flurry description on page 183 says "two combat actions" specifically, and Move on page 197 is distinct from Rush on the same page in that the former is listed as "Reflexive" and the latter is listed as "Combat". a good number of move actions are also combat actions, the "Move" action isn't a combat action, but it is a move action. I just wrote it poorly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 06:20
|
|
|
drat, I made up a cool sword with neat Evocations and then I don't even get into the game. Ah well, I'll save it for another time. Anyway, what Artifacts have you guys made up?
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 06:48
|
|
|
Which of these three looks do you like best?   Edit: Also, for more LaTeX magic, that "on the following page" in the first one automatically changes to a "p. XX" reference if you move what it's cross-referencing to more than one page away. Roadie fucked around with this message at 07:38 on Oct 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 07:30
|
|
|
I prefer the first one. It's clean and immediately divides separate chunks of rules.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 07:34
|
|
|
I know it's been mentioned before, but seriously? The weapon stat chart starts in the middle of a sentence! Breaking headers in endless streams of charms is one thing, but... I would also say that Artifact Weapons should start on a new page instead of beginning 2/3rds down the page from the end of mortal armor. I thought the bookmarks were wrong at first. This is hideous.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 08:22
|
|
|
Seriously, the formatting bothers me way more than the lovely art. I mean, I was kind of expecting it to be various shades of not great, but come on. The book went through something like nine passes of layout.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 15:03
|
|
|
So I just realized while rewriting combat section stuff that I literally have to invent rules for what happens in regards to your stealth status when you make a sneak attack, since there aren't any. What do y'all think of this? In the Attack action: quote:If you're concealed against your target, then this is a surprise attack, and your target gets -2 to their Defense against it. Unless you incapacitate or kill the target with this attack, you're revealed to the target and their allies. And then in the Establish Surprise action (which is noted as a combat action in the book but isn't given any actual writeup): quote:Make a (Dexterity + Stealth) opposed roll, with a -3d penalty, against the (Perception + Awareness) of any opponents who are aware of your presence. If you win, then you've concealed yourself against those enemies. I think this works pretty good for being Batman in the Arkham games, but I'm not so sure about it in regards to ranged attacks, since for sniping it'd mean alternate rounds of attacking and then establishing surprise again. What do you think?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
Roadie posted:I think this works pretty good for being Batman in the Arkham games, but I'm not so sure about it in regards to ranged attacks, since for sniping it'd mean alternate rounds of attacking and then establishing surprise again. What do you think? Sounds right to me. Once you've made your first shot, they might not know exactly where you are (what with distance or environmental penalties), but they'll drat well know there's a sniper shooting at them. Having to move and re-establish concealment between shots seems reasonable, if only to avoid Bethesda Stealth.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
I'd just mention that it requires the person to be out of line-of-sight. Reestablishing stealth in the middle of a brawl is more of a charm thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
Orabilis posted:I'd just mention that it requires the person to be out of line-of-sight. Reestablishing stealth in the middle of a brawl is more of a charm thing. I'd rather leave that one open, since range bands are broad enough that stuff like "duck into crowd" or "hide behind wall" or Batman jumping into a vent or whatever can all fit into the same one. Plus, elite stealthguys in the real world can literally hide in plain sight with some basic prep with a ghillie suit or whatever, so I'm not sure if I'd want to write that into the rules. Edit: Another complaint: the book literally describes withering and decisive attacks like three times over in different sections on the same page on 190. What? Edit Edit: Is there any actual purpose to the Miscellaneous Action and Draw/Ready Weapon action both giving you -1 Defense for a turn when none of the other actions, including attacks and whatever, give an automatic Defense penalty? It feels like another pointless appendix of the 2e mechanics. Roadie fucked around with this message at 18:27 on Oct 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
Roadie posted:Edit Edit: Is there any actual purpose to the Miscellaneous Action and Draw/Ready Weapon action both giving you -1 Defense for a turn when none of the other actions, including attacks and whatever, give an automatic Defense penalty? It feels like another pointless appendix of the 2e mechanics. Seriously, I'd think having to spend a turn drawing your weapon (and thereby missing out on its Defense bonus, if any, or a big chunk of your Parry pool if you're not spec'd for unarmed) is punishment enough for being caught off-guard.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
The penalty is fine but it should be a reflexive action. It's extremely punishing for character that want to use a combination of melee and ranged attacks which the system already discourages by other mechanics.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
The book isn't very clear about this but I'm pretty sure it's at least possible to hold a light or medium weapon in one hand, and ready a brace of throwing knives or something such that it's available to your other hand, and then alternate between those without any penalty... except of course for the "using your offhand penalty" which I'm pretty sure is only mentioned by the merit that removes it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
See, you're all missing the point of making Ready/Draw Weapon have unusually punitive penalties. If it didn't have the penalties then nobody would purchase the new merit Quick Draw.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:The penalty is fine but it should be a reflexive action. It's extremely punishing for character that want to use a combination of melee and ranged attacks which the system already discourages by other mechanics. I have to wonder if they originally planned to include that 2.5 "juggle around any weapons you feel like reflexively for 1m" War Charm I can't remember the name of and then forgot about it whenever they decided to drop the Martial thing. Ferrinus posted:The book isn't very clear about this but I'm pretty sure it's at least possible to hold a light or medium weapon in one hand, and ready a brace of throwing knives or something such that it's available to your other hand, and then alternate between those without any penalty... except of course for the "using your offhand penalty" which I'm pretty sure is only mentioned by the merit that removes it. A mechanic I'm thinking of substituting here is something like "you can have any number of weapons ready, but you get -1 for each one after the first" (with some higher penalty for two-handed weapons or whatever). Then instead of having that merit be specifically about being ambidextrous, it's just being really good at using a bunch of weapons at once and you can be a combat juggler or whatever. Edit: Why are crippling injuries limited to once per story? Is there a real balance reason or is it just to keep dumb players from doing the Hackmaster-style clown car of everyone having two peg legs? Also, the mechanic is written really obtusely. Negate damage and then add damage and then negate that damage again if it would cause incapacitation or death? Why not just subtract 2 from the given values and have "prevents incapacitation or death" as part of the effect? Roadie fucked around with this message at 19:30 on Oct 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
So here's my first try at rewriting the whole combat section into something at least a little sane and organized, along with some noodling with names and stuff. Plz to feedback.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
Finally Tim Buckley describes the Exalted bollyhock
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 00:22
|
|
|
Man gently caress Buckley. Too bad he couldn't have died in the womb.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 00:40
|
|
|
Excelsiortothemax posted:Man gently caress Buckley. Too bad he couldn't have died in the womb. Seriously. I didn't realize that waste of space was still a thing. I don't understand how his art has actually gotten worse.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 00:43
|
|
|
slut chan posted:Seriously. I didn't realize that waste of space was still a thing. I don't understand how his art has actually gotten worse. It's his style, man, no one can criticize his style. He's just gotten better at it. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 01:25
|
|
|
Excelsiortothemax posted:Man gently caress Buckley. Too bad he couldn't have died in the womb.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 01:29
|
|
|
TheLovablePlutonis posted:What the hell dude Loss.jpg reference?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 01:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 21:57 |
|
|
Roadie posted:So here's my first try at rewriting the whole combat section into something at least a little sane and organized, along with some noodling with names and stuff. Plz to feedback. I like it better than the much more flowery and poorly organized 3e text.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 05:19
|
|
