Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2e: Biggest problems fix ?

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

  • Cruzwindt
    started a topic 2e: Biggest problems fix ?

    2e: Biggest problems fix ?

    As we all know, the 2e game mechanics is greatly flawed. So I made this post so anyone can share their own favorite fixes for it. In my opinion 2e's biggest flaws are paranoia combat, and social fu. So, can we fix it ?!, well probably not but we can at least make it less bad.
    For paranoia combat I had a kinda complicated fix.
    I introduce an anime-sque system. As far as I've understand it, paranoia combat goes around two axis, mote efficiency and insta death.
    So, to fix insta death I simply multiply the effects of Ox Body technique adding HPs to the game, so a solar OBT gives 9 health levels instead of 3, a Lunar gives 12, and so on.
    And for the mote efficiency part, I made a system where a character has a limit to how much essence it can spend on excellencies and charms in general, and that's about combat mindset.
    A character can either fight lightly, normally, or going all out. This is supposed to emulate anime's characters who don't go all out with every single ant that appears before them. So a character fighting lightly can only spend from 0-35% of it's motes in excellencies and use 1 charm. One fighting normally can use from 35-65% of it's motes and use 3 charms, note that it cannot use less than 35% of it's motes. And one going all out must use from from 65-100% of it's motes and can use all charms it wants. To change it's mindset a character must pay 1WP or use a 2 dice stunt, to change 2 mindset you must either pay 2 WP or use a 3 dice stunt.
    Finally, to use perfect defenses you must also pay 50% of the enemy's motes used to perform the attack you are defending or a WP.

    I admit it's kinda hard to follow, but you can write how much essence a character can spend and it makes it easir.

    For Social combat I had a more simply fix. First off, rolls, ain't representations of separate attempts to convince someone, it's just a single attempt of so in a conversation, you can use multiple attacks to represent insistence in something. Also there is a minimum number of 3 attempts and after that you must wait for another scene. The other combatant doesn't have to take any action and doing so doesn't lower his MDV, neither does yours ( why someone asking for your money should be more eager to accept murder his own wife ?! )
    Also WP is tracked for different things, if you want to convince someone with 7WP from killing someone you must drain that 7 WP, if you after draining that WP want to convince him of something else, you need to drain another 7wp. In other words, every thing you want to convince someone has it's own WP Hit points, so the ask spam is over. Cuz it was seriously dumb to do something like this
    PC Hey give me all your money
    NPC NO!
    PC Let me take your house
    NPC Of course no !
    PC Can I at least bang your wife ?
    NPC N... NO !.
    PC Ok but betray your king for me so I can become the ruler.
    NPC.... ok fine.

    Anyione else has any fix for these or other problems that wants to share ?
    Last edited by Cruzwindt; 08-14-2018, 11:09 AM.

  • Hark
    replied
    Originally posted by HaplessWithDice View Post
    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.
    That is about as far from a fix as you can get. It just results in you using your perfect defense in the first flurry anyway and then as soon as the first hit you take cripples you your opponent uses the rest of the flurry to crush you body into bloody paste. Arguably, it makes the situation worse not better.

    Leave a comment:


  • Saur Ops Specialist
    replied
    Originally posted by HighPriest View Post
    My biggest tip for "fixing" 2e's combat issues is to just make sure people are on the same page regarding combat, especially the ST. For some reason Exalted players seem to think that every combat is going to include an invisible ninja stabbing them five times in the same flurry. This is the same as assuming every D&D session is going to include an ancient red dragon making flyby breath attacks, even if you're level 3.

    We ran out of the box Exalted 2e, then updated to 2.5e, for the duration of most of 2e's life cycle and well into 3e's development cycle. We never had a PC death that hadn't been discussed with the ST beforehand. Because he never sent Abyssals with Grand Goremauls making six attacks per round to murder us in our sleep, or whatever it is that other Exalted games seem to inevitably run into.
    The flurries and grand goremauls, however, are trivial to acquire for most character types, so that's why they kept popping up in games and conversations. If you agree not to use them, that's solving the problem, but also functionally equivalent to writing out flurries and changing allowed damage sums for weapons, but letting everything run unrestricted.

    (Also, a D&D game might well have an ancient red dragon show up at level 3, but it tended to allow circumstances like "the dragon blackmails you into doing their bidding" and other such scenarios of surrendering or failing forward instead of being an assumption of a battle to the death).

    Leave a comment:


  • HighPriest
    replied
    My biggest tip for "fixing" 2e's combat issues is to just make sure people are on the same page regarding combat, especially the ST. For some reason Exalted players seem to think that every combat is going to include an invisible ninja stabbing them five times in the same flurry. This is the same as assuming every D&D session is going to include an ancient red dragon making flyby breath attacks, even if you're level 3.

    We ran out of the box Exalted 2e, then updated to 2.5e, for the duration of most of 2e's life cycle and well into 3e's development cycle. We never had a PC death that hadn't been discussed with the ST beforehand. Because he never sent Abyssals with Grand Goremauls making six attacks per round to murder us in our sleep, or whatever it is that other Exalted games seem to inevitably run into.
    Last edited by HighPriest; 09-09-2018, 12:07 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tenkage
    replied
    I didn't like 3E withering/decisive model at first but reading wuxia/xianxia novels finally got it to click. I've been looking at taking many of certain Eastern Cultivation type aspects and converting it to a Western perspective ie Mana is a type of Dao and mages are also cultivators, etc... anyways.

    In one novel, the MC fights with a spear and it describes how his attacks are still lethal but the true intent is to build up momentum to suppress his opponent and deliver his final blow. Fights are determined by fortune and momentum. In combat arms, we call this violence of action. Don't give the enemy time to react, to counterattack. They will of course, but if your momentum is strong you can steam roll them. So as SLS was saying about the colloquially use of initiative, in this case initiative is the abstract measure of momentum. Withering attacks reduce your enemies' momentum while increasing your own. You're setting the conditions for your attack. Much like moving your pawns on a chess board to make way for your killing move in order to cause a brilliant checkmate. And your decisive attack is where you capitalize on that momentum to strike down your foe. It is the checkmate. Of course that doesn't mean you pull it off. Maybe there was an opening you missed or something similar. They had enough momentum to ward your attack. Maybe you botched your roll and your gun misfires/jams. Maybe their Destiny reinforces their momentum. Who knows.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dorchadas
    replied
    Originally posted by Cruzwindt View Post
    By mortal you mean no excellencies ? Because if so, I can understand why there was little to no lethality. I've read , and come to notice, that D10 systems are pretty hard to get successes unless you exponentially augment your dice base, specially if the dif is >6. So I would have no surprise if you got rid of Excellencies in the lethality department, I suspect that if you had simply increased health levels and nerfed clinches you would have had the same results without the other rules.
    Yeah, no dice adders at all other than those provided by individual martial arts or through sorcery. Some enemies got them, mostly spirits, but only in specific circumstances.

    What it taught me is that the main problem with the Exalted 2.5e ruleset is the presence of the Exalted. It makes for a fantastic gritty sword-and-sorcery game.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cruzwindt
    replied
    Originally posted by Dorchadas View Post
    I ran a two-year-long game of 2.5e in a custom setting that was broadly "mortals with TMA, TCS, and thaumaturgy," and while that meant I didn't have to deal with perfects at all, I still made several changes that helped a lot:
    • Everyone had -0 health levels equal to Stamina.
    • Blocking/Parrying used Strength instead of Dexterity.
    • I rewrote clinches to be loosely based on GURPS Technical Grappling. They were progressive, with successes penalizing the target's Strength- and Dexterity-based rolls (except for opposing the grapple), and if the clincher accumulated more successes than the higher of [Strength/Dexterity] + [Athletics/Brawl], then the target was immobilized.
    • Artifact weapons and armor were just Perfect versions of mundane weapons with the 5MM bonus on top of that.
    • Surprise attacks halved DVs, they didn't completely ignore them.
    • Mundane flurries didn't exist. Or rather, I ruled they could only be used to attack multiple separate targets, rather than multiple attacks on a single target.
    • DVs didn't refresh unless someone took the Guard action, with the goal of encouraging people to be a bit more cautious.
    • Shields had a pseudo-perfect in that anyone using one could ignore all damage from one attack in exchange for the shield breaking, but no PC ever used a shield so it didn't come into play.
    Even with several PCs not wearing armor due to the martial art they picked, I didn't have any fatalities or even anyone who hit Incapacitated. though there were a couple month-long downtimes due to serious injuries. Since this was a mortals game, though, most pools were in the 5-10 range, and the assassin who built his character specifically to murder people caused gasps around the table when he once rolled twenty dice for damage. Those fixes worked great but might not be scalable even up to Dragon-Blooded, nevermind Solars.

    By mortal you mean no excellencies ? Because if so, I can understand why there was little to no lethality. I've read , and come to notice, that D10 systems are pretty hard to get successes unless you exponentially augment your dice base, specially if the dif is >6. So I would have no surprise if you got rid of Excellencies in the lethality department, I suspect that if you had simply increased health levels and nerfed clinches you would have had the same results without the other rules.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dorchadas
    replied
    I ran a two-year-long game of 2.5e in a custom setting that was broadly "mortals with TMA, TCS, and thaumaturgy," and while that meant I didn't have to deal with perfects at all, I still made several changes that helped a lot:
    • Everyone had -0 health levels equal to Stamina.
    • Blocking/Parrying used Strength instead of Dexterity.
    • I rewrote clinches to be loosely based on GURPS Technical Grappling. They were progressive, with successes penalizing the target's Strength- and Dexterity-based rolls (except for opposing the grapple), and if the clincher accumulated more successes than the higher of [Strength/Dexterity] + [Athletics/Brawl], then the target was immobilized.
    • Artifact weapons and armor were just Perfect versions of mundane weapons with the 5MM bonus on top of that.
    • Surprise attacks halved DVs, they didn't completely ignore them.
    • Mundane flurries didn't exist. Or rather, I ruled they could only be used to attack multiple separate targets, rather than multiple attacks on a single target.
    • DVs didn't refresh unless someone took the Guard action, with the goal of encouraging people to be a bit more cautious.
    • Shields had a pseudo-perfect in that anyone using one could ignore all damage from one attack in exchange for the shield breaking, but no PC ever used a shield so it didn't come into play.
    Even with several PCs not wearing armor due to the martial art they picked, I didn't have any fatalities or even anyone who hit Incapacitated. though there were a couple month-long downtimes due to serious injuries. Since this was a mortals game, though, most pools were in the 5-10 range, and the assassin who built his character specifically to murder people caused gasps around the table when he once rolled twenty dice for damage. Those fixes worked great but might not be scalable even up to Dragon-Blooded, nevermind Solars.

    Leave a comment:


  • Measure of Hope
    replied
    For my game, I did a few things:
    • Decoupled mote regen from stunting and used a flat 5m per round like 3rd ed does. This reduces the pressure to keep stunting at all costs even if you're out of inspiration, which actually helps inspiration flow better, leading to better stunts, as well as speeding up the game because no one is dithering with trying to describe their umpteenth sword swing tonight in a unique way just so they can keep using Charms.
    • Adapted battle groups from 3rd ed in place of 2nd ed's "you wear them" rules, which were a lot of bookkeeping. This resulted in surprisingly few Charm tweaks.
    • I don't think I've ever called for Join Debate. We let roleplaying decide when a social check is rolled, and it works fine. Trying to "mirror" a combat system with a social system is something I've never seen done well. On the occasions when I have formally structured a social engagement, I've used my own rules based on the particulars of the event they're attending. For a summit involving several nominally allied factions with their own agendas, I had mechanics for resolving what happened on the debate floor, as well as giving each character a number of "back room" actions per day to approach and engage with other delegates, forge alliances, conduct espionage, etc, which then impacted the main event.
    • We have a gentlefolks' agreement to not use perfect combat defences. At all. I don't throw perfect-spamming foes at them whose mote pool they have to whittle down before most of their Charms become relevant again (and damn, did trying to come up with a cool stunt while knowing in advance the attack was just going to be summarily thwarted suck, right?). They don't use perfects, so I don't need to always use surprise or Shaping etc to challenge them, so they don't feel forced into a specific build to avoid being constantly "punished". Abyssal snipers notwithstanding, lethality hasn't been a huge problem, because ...
      • I buffed their soak. I made sure they found a cache of silken armour early on, which stacks with normal armour in 2e. Now they can easily stack an extra 5L soak under their normal armour.
      • The 2.5 rules made Piercing pretty manageable.
      • I de-emphasised massive two-handed weapons with base damage in the teens. I didn't houserule them out, my antagonists just tend not to use them because in a modern setting they're actually bloody inconvenient.
      • My antagonists tend to fall into a few categories: juggernauts (deal massive damage, but require a lucky hit because their accuracy is low, mostly a threat to allies with lower DVs than the exalts), needlers (hit reliably but don't have high damage, so on all but the luckiest hit they generally roll minimum damage), glass cannons (accurate and hard-hitting but with very poor defences, allowing the PCs to take them out before their side is devastated), and puzzles (cause just enough damage and mayhem to put the pressure on the PCs to defeat them, but mostly just stubbornly hold their own until someone finds the trick to defeating them).
      • Allies to provide support and take the heat off the PCs when it's needed. I prefer to keep allies in the background dealing with other threats, but they're available to step in if you want to rebalance the encounter mid-fight. Also, if your players are emotionally invested in your NPCs, threatening one of them provides all the tension you need without risking a PC death with every swing of your antagonist's weapon.
    What I wish I had changed but it's too late now:
    • Grappling. It should not automatically deny the grappled party their action, just apply a penalty to anything but breaking free. It should not deny them their defence altogether, just penalise it heavily, while still allowing them to use defensive Charms. I've had a PC who knew countermagic use grappling instead to interrupt an enemy sorcerer, because it's cheaper, and almost as reliable if you're good at it.
    • The tiered Intimacy system from 3e, including variable defence modifiers. I like the rest of the 3e social system but this is the part I would port over to 2.5e because it just really helps flesh out a character in a way that having one tier of Intimacies and a motivation doesn't get across. Charms that create Intimacies would need to be houseruled to include the level of Intimacy they create (but I think defaulting to Major for most mind-control effects would be a good rule of thumb). Motivations would be removed in favour of Defining Intimacies and Virtues would no longer effect MDV. I don't think I'd touch Virtues otherwise because they're too baked into the system.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lundgren
    replied
    Originally posted by Cruzwindt View Post
    As we all know, the 2e game mechanics is greatly flawed.
    From my point of view, 2.5 is somewhat flawed, but well within my "I only aproximate the mechanics anyway." Ex3 might or might not be good, but it doing the wrong things for me.

    I'm using the Ex3 map and the "social combat system" (I've not even bothered to do much of an integration, more just tossing out the 2e social combat and just just crudely welding the new one on).

    But then, I'm going with a very different RP paragdim than this:
    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.
    However, I think that if what Elfive wrote sounds right, then there probably isn't much salvageable from the mechanics in second edition.

    For me, getting good use out of 2.5 is more about handling expectations.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lioness
    replied
    Cut the Night Caste...

    Hear me out, we have an entire Solar Caste who specialise in killing from the shadows and are basically why "I want to kill my opponent before they even know what's happening" has to be taken seriously. Of course there's assassins among the other Exalt types but if the Night Caste didn't exist they could probably be given a glorified backstab type ability and told to make do.
    Obviously the Day Caste have the same problem so cut them too.

    Scourges don't have the same conceptual problem so Infernals get rebranded as the Adorjanical Exalted.

    Now we'll see who thinks I'm being serious.

    Leave a comment:


  • Epimetheus
    replied
    And first hit kills so you get the same problem Exalted used to have.

    Leave a comment:


  • HaplessWithDice
    replied
    Originally posted by Isator Levi View Post

    Then why did people spend around a decade complaining about it?
    Because 3e wasn’t around to crib from and create a 2.75e from


    Originally posted by Isator Levi View Post
    That sounds like a scenario that turns every fight into the Black Knight routine from Monty Python.
    Except that you are still out of the fight when you loose. You just aren’t reduced to a fine red mist, giblets, or lumpy marinara.

    Originally posted by Isator Levi View Post
    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.
    inordinate level of calculation? You divide the post roll damage by 2. Honestly how often do you see a single attack generate enough success that it wouldn’t appear on an elementary school flash card?

    Honestly though maybe switching over to Chronicles of Darkness style damage calculation might work, where damage is a set number between 0 and 5 +success on attack. Such a thing may help and would speed up combat.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cruzwindt
    replied
    Originally posted by The Wizard of Oz View Post
    With 2.5, didn't they change piercing to 4? Or was that just in 3rd ed?
    you are right, can't believe I miss that. Then again, I feel kinda flattered that I unknowingly developed a rule of almost official material level lol.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Wizard of Oz
    replied
    With 2.5, didn't they change piercing to 4? Or was that just in 3rd ed?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X