Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2e: Biggest problems fix ?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Cruzwindt
    replied
    I think Soak is just fine, specially after Errata, the real problem is with Piercing weapons which divide your soak by half. A fix could it be that Pierce weapons reduce soak a total amount equal to your Strength score ? ( makes sense cuz no matter how sharp and piercing a weapon if you have noodle arms it will not penetrate a breastplate )

    Leave a comment:


  • Ghosthead
    replied
    Originally posted by Accelerator View Post
    I think someone should lower the damage dealt by the weapons. Too much. And increase the soak. And add more health levels.
    Bit late to the thread but, re; health levels and soak, you can do that (and OP kind of does I think?), but then seems like the Exalted end up being much more meatshields who absorb enormous amounts of damage, rather than ultra dodgers and parriers... It's a different image of how the Exalted fight.

    So you can introduce abstract hit points, or separate dodge and parry points, instead of extra health levels, to counteract this. (You can call them motes instead of points if you prefer).

    That's basically what 3e does through initiative, giving players a stack of what are functionally quite like hit points to be ablated before physical attacks can become serious, though in a more dynamic, tactical way that incentivizes offense, allows one shots to happen in some circumstances, and is integrated through the Charm system. With the cost that this imposes a fair bit more resource management complexity, and can have some counter-intuitive incentives.

    The serious problem with just introducing some kind of hit points to 2e, other than immersion and feel that OP has talked about, seems like that this is not gonna be integrated with the Charm system. So if the Charm system is mostly not working as intended, then you have all this extra complexity and overhead for no real purpose... then why use 2e and not just hack a simpler third party system? Developer (Holden) suggested PBtA.

    Leave a comment:


  • Isator Levi
    replied
    Originally posted by HaplessWithDice View Post
    Fixing perfects is simple.
    Then why did people spend around a decade complaining about it?

    Originally posted by HaplessWithDice
    That can be fixed by offering the player a chance to have their character take a permanent wound (ie loose a hand/arm/eye/ear/nasty scar) in that way a character doesn’t die as often.
    That sounds like a scenario that turns every fight into the Black Knight routine from Monty Python.

    Originally posted by HaplessWithDice
    Second the ability to “walk it off” Spend a willpower to halve damage from the rest of the activation.
    And that sounds like an inordinate level of additional calculations, something that places even more weight on Willpower, and overall a kind of crude patch on the degree to which the dice engine will be producing lethal results.

    I'm no expert, but what I've absorbed through osmosis in the years of discussion around the subject has me feeling like it's not the best response to lethality to just say that the inordinately deadly numbers can be intermittently declared to not count (in a manner that has less consistency and reliability, and probably worse costs, than the actual perfect defence method of declaring that the inordinately deadly numbers don't count).

    Leave a comment:


  • Elfive
    replied
    Yeah, once per scene, maybe with some condition that lets you use them again if fulfilled.

    And give dawns an anima power that lets them reset them all once a... oh hang on.

    Leave a comment:


  • HaplessWithDice
    replied
    Fixing perfects is simple. Limit perfect attacks and defense to once per scene. Their use becomes a lot more reasonable.

    But what about lethality. That can be fixed by offering the player a chance to have their character take a permanent wound (ie loose a hand/arm/eye/ear/nasty scar) in that way a character doesn’t die as often.
    Second the ability to “walk it off” Spend a willpower to halve damage from the rest of the activation.

    Leave a comment:


  • emeraldstreak
    replied
    Originally posted by Cruzwindt View Post
    So I made this post so anyone can share their own favorite fixes for it.
    We had a successful run of 2.0, lots of cool builds, no undue lethality problem. The two main things we had to address were:

    - standard for stunt mote/wp rewards. Initially rewards were too over the place, some STs awarding them at every swing of a flurry and some never.

    - limiting mote/wp restoration of any kind during perfect defenses. This rule took care of protracted fights without damaging the value of initial mote/wp pools.


    Full lists of fixes and clarifications were longer (and always varied some between games). See under "Hourserules and Clarifications" for an example from an actual campaign.



    Leave a comment:


  • Simon Darkstep
    replied
    Originally posted by Stephen Lea Sheppard View Post
    I would say part of the problem is that withering is a bad word to have used and we should have thought up a better one, because I can use "initiative" colloquially to refer to the ebb and flow of advantage during a fight and you know what i mean, and I can use "decisive attack" to refer to the blow dealt to end the fight after one side has fully seized the initiative and is now in a position to end things and you know what I mean, but withering means nothing and sounds like bullshit game-y nonsense. Holden did spend a long time trying to come up with a better term than that and never could, though. Sometimes that's how creativity works.
    Playtesting through Ex3, my group had to make the same kind of logical leap. Unfamiliarity with Charms really didn't help.

    I think that Initiative in the core system is way overloaded in a way that adds a lot of calculation steps and brings you out of the game. That was my main motivation for coming up with Momentum Exalted, which is what we'll be continuing to use and improve on.

    I also think that I would have used the plain term "attack" where we have "withering" , because that's what's really happening. Then a Decisive attack would be strictly a Gambit. Maybe call it a "Finisher" or have that available as a synonym or use that term in the description.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stephen Lea Sheppard
    replied
    The core of the withering/decisive split was the video game Dissidia Final Fantasy (original PSP version) and the phrase "Initiative isn't rolled, it's seized." Beyond that it was an attempt to create a system where "Miss miss miss miss miss miss miss hit and now someone is grievously injured" is fun during the first part when it's still just miss miss miss miss miss. Because during a fight scene in a story, or even a real sports fight, that first half where each side is trying to put the other down and failing? Isn't boring. It's most of the fight. And you can see the initiative (in the colliquial, not RPG sense) shifting, with one side gaining advantage and moving the other side into peril, and the other side trying to defend themselves and turn the situation around. An interesting fight is a series of reversals -- someone has the upper hand! No, now the other side has the upper hand! Etc., until one side finally manages to create a situation where they have enough of an advantage that they can end it, conclusively, or perhaps one might say decisively.

    This is also a hell of a lot more "realistic" than a fight system where each side repeatedly lands hits and there's some arbitrary threshold beyond which one side can't take any more and dies (because when fighting with real lethal weapons, the first blow that lands solidly is often the, er, decisive one), like takes on D&D where every point of HP damage taken is e.g. a stab wound, and it's even more "realistic" than a system where every miss means the state of advantage during the conflict hasn't shifted at all one way or another.

    I would say part of the problem is that withering is a bad word to have used and we should have thought up a better one, because I can use "initiative" colloquially to refer to the ebb and flow of advantage during a fight and you know what i mean, and I can use "decisive attack" to refer to the blow dealt to end the fight after one side has fully seized the initiative and is now in a position to end things and you know what I mean, but withering means nothing and sounds like bullshit game-y nonsense. Holden did spend a long time trying to come up with a better term than that and never could, though. Sometimes that's how creativity works.
    Last edited by Stephen Lea Sheppard; 08-14-2018, 10:14 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cruzwindt
    replied
    Originally posted by Elfive View Post
    Here's what you have to remember about withering. Exalted isn't just a game, it's a story. And in a story, powerful characters never go down in one hit.

    You're not just trying to simulate your dude trying to murder another dude. You're choreographing a fight scene.

    Not saying they should die in one hit. Just saying the solution to dying in one hit doesn't appeal to my sense of immersion. There are many other RPGs systems that allow you to have an interesting combat with direct damage and more immersion without 2e's lethality, but without 3e's loose of combat realism.
    The question I make myself about it, is it due to d10's limitations, or is it due to the creators not thinking of another fix and just going for that one ? I like to think that the answer is the second and exalted can be both immersive and balanced.

    Leave a comment:


  • Simon Darkstep
    replied
    Originally posted by Elfive View Post
    You're not just trying to simulate your dude trying to murder another dude. You're choreographing a fight scene.
    I'd like to get that printed on stickers to give to people to put in the margins of their core books, in the combat section.

    Leave a comment:


  • BjornTheFellhanded
    replied
    Originally posted by Elfive View Post
    A withering attack isn't a feint. Common misconception.

    It's an entirely serious attack that out-of-universe has be preordained to be non lethal for the purposes of cinematography.
    Not even just out-of-universe. There is a difference in-character between swiping at an enemy without surrendering footing and committing to an all-out lunge that will leave you open.

    Leave a comment:


  • HaplessWithDice
    replied
    Originally posted by Elfive View Post
    Here's what you have to remember about withering. Exalted isn't just a game, it's a story. And in a story, powerful characters never go down in one hit.

    You're not just trying to simulate your dude trying to murder another dude. You're choreographing a fight scene.
    This is pretty much it. I had someone at my table who did not understand withering and decisive attacks. Then they watched AMC's into the Badlands and when the two barons fought each other in the first season they suddenly said "Oh wait, this is just like Exalted 3E combat! I get it now."

    Leave a comment:


  • Elfive
    replied
    Here's what you have to remember about withering. Exalted isn't just a game, it's a story. And in a story, powerful characters never go down in one hit.

    You're not just trying to simulate your dude trying to murder another dude. You're choreographing a fight scene.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stephen Lea Sheppard
    replied
    People spent the entire run of 2e looking for fixes for the lethality/perfect problem, though. By the latter half of 2e, "Don't nerf perfects before addressing lethality" wasn't an admonition, it was a catchphrase.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cruzwindt
    replied
    Originally posted by Elfive View Post
    A withering attack isn't a feint. Common misconception.

    It's an entirely serious attack that out-of-universe has be preordained to be non lethal for the purposes of cinematography.
    I know, and that's exactly my problem with it, I know beforehand that attack I'm rolling will make no damage, yet I have to describe my character believing he will make damage, It gnaws away my realism and immersion of the rol.
    It's pretty similar to the same thing social fu did wrong , in it's own way, it did the same with the realism of the conversation by making turns on a debate or stating that every form of conversation was a debate, it took away realism and immersion on the role, that's pretty much why I throw it all away on my games.

    Originally posted by Meianno Yuurei View Post
    ^ This, yes. 2e's theory of combat was "Everyone makes attacks and 99% of them are gonna miss anyway because they're just to deplete the mote pool of the target so that the final 1% can instantly splatter them". This resulted in the most boring game of pattycake ever.

    3e's theory of combat is kind of leaning into this; most attacks exist to shift the flow of combat mechanically. Even though you know just the same that the attack isn't going to "hit" in the sense of "it is not going to deal physical damage to their health levels" just the same as 90% of attacks in 2e, the fact that you don't HAVE to worry about "was it a hit or not" means stunts can be more dramatic. The strike that glances off armor and sends them skidding backwards or overhead hammer blow that shatters the ground as they barely escape the blow.

    The attacks are, in-character, fully intended to harm the enemy. We just accept, as an out-of-character conceit, that they aren't going to cause Health Level Harm. They corner the opponent, force them into a disadvantageous position, exhaust them by making them dodge away. They cause harm in the sense that the opponent has to spend motes and potentially loses initiative, maybe gets crashed which puts them into a precarious position for a Final Blow, but not having to go "I'm gonna write this big stunt even thouhg he's just gonna 4m (8m in 2.5) perfect it" means combat stays engaging.
    True, then again, in my table we do our best to not go insta death and paranoia combat, so combats tend to be pretty stable and fun. Not as realist as we would like but still a little better than what I've read others do. But yes, paranoia combat is bad for 2e.
    But as I've said, the fix made for 3e doesn't convince. I agree that 2e paranoia combat needed a cure, but I don't like the one they found, I'm also aware that a lot of people loves it, just not me. -_O_-
    Last edited by Cruzwindt; 08-14-2018, 08:14 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X