Ask a question, get an answer

[JohnDoe244]

I wasn't aware there was a strike agaisnt them though? Lioness and I kind of went over why it seems fine as it is. They're not really enough so that htey're worth the investment, and if you wanna drag an implosion bow around for its sweet evocations, it is at least a cool sweet artifact rather than a dude lugging a trebuchet everywhere.

But like, good on you for your math lawyering and what the writers hsoudl be doing I guess.

Sorry, I don't think I'm parsing this conversation correctly.
I don't appreciate the ironic "good for you" on your post there. Can we wind this back?

SithHappens wondered why mundane seige weapons do the same amount of damage as personal scale mundane weapons.

You suggested this was to stop damage escalation because of the superior range and tags. (You also made a comparison with warstrider weapons which, I think, was particularly apt.)

I pointed out that this is particularly jarring because the exact same weapons use artifact traits when wielded by a warstrider, and how getting hit by a catapult should be more damaging than being hit by a hammer. Presently, the hammer does more damage.

Lioness suggested that the reason for not upping the damage on seige weapons was to prevent the creation of a new super-heavy weapon group with higher than base damage that players would try to twink into personal scale duels.

I pointed out that the seige weapon rules, as written, ARE a super-heavy weapon group with higher than base damage. My suggestion remains to just treat them like warstrider weapons. This keeps the personal scale damage cap. It removes the weirdness with the same weapon having two profiles in the same book. And it actually works to disincentivize turning up to duels with your (magic) catapult (by putting the catapult on an even keel with every other magic weapon).

I don't see anything in Lioness's post that addresses why it seems fine as it is -- my read is that it's specifically an argument as to why seige weapons shouldn't have higher than normal damage (which, RAW, artifact seige does). But I accept that I may have missed the point there. I'd gladly read an elaboration. It's a "strike" because the RAW does exactly what Lioness says the rules are supposed to disincentivize. It's "another" strike because bringing a catapult to a one-on-one duel wasn't an angle I'd considered before Lioness brought it up -- the first strike being that it's incongruous with the way warstrider weapons work and the fact of a sledgehammer being more dangerous than a ballista. "A strike against (something)" is a pretty common linguistic expression when constructing an argument, but apologies if it came across as overly hostile.

I'm not sure why my suggestion for this houserule causes so much offense. I've not insulted the writers. I also don't think it's math lawyering to point out that 11+4=15 (which is the most complicated piece of math I've posted on this topic).

By all means, if RAW works for you, please have fun. Personally, I'll be using my houserule to treat seige weapons as warstrider weapons in games I ST. If someone wants to lug an implosion bow around for the sweet evocations, I'm on board with that. But I'm shutting down carrying it around for the bonus damage, and I'd like to standardise oversized weapons and buff mundane seige off the RAW baseline. You have every right to disagree with my opinion.

[Ciyfer]

If a character had Mighty Thew 3, could they stack it with another Mighty Thew 3 from Hybrid Body Transformation? If yes, could they stack another Mighty Thew 3 from Terrifying Ogre Alteration?

[Greyman]

If a character had Mighty Thew 3, could they stack it with another Mighty Thew 3 from Hybrid Body Transformation? If yes, could they stack another Mighty Thew 3 from Terrifying Ogre Alteration?

You cannot acquire more than three dots in Mighty Thews.

[Verzio]

where regular merchant ships have carrying capacity equal to the best and singular man-of-wars from the sail era, and cannot coexist with triremes if we don't assume DBs holding a massive idiot ball.

Galleys continued to be used as warships in the sheltered Mediterranean and Baltic as late as the 18th Century. Given the Inner Sea explicitly has sheltered-sea conditions, and the Realm does not generally face peer competitors with fleets (much less peer competitors with cannon broadsides) on the Inner Sea, galleys make perfect sense. The key ability needed to pirate a ship in the Inner Sea with the standard ship-mounted weapons available is the ability to catch the ship for the boarding action. The key ability needed to defeat pirates in the Inner Sea with the standard ship-mounted weapons available is the ability to catch the pirate for the boarding action. Banks of trained oarsmen outperform sails in short-term speed and maneuverability.

[Lioness]

Artifact Seige does do more damage than personal scale artifacts though. Which is just another strike against the RAW and further backing for just treating seige weapons the same as warstrider weapons.

I thought this was a verisimilitude issue, hence my attitude was that the system would never be able to give us satisfying numbers for a battle group getting pancaked by a boulder since this would do strange things to personal scale combat.

Personally, I’d prefer these things not have stats and be resolved as environmental hazards rather than requiring someone firing a cannon to build initiative but the problem there is that most QCs don't have a stat for resisting hazards.

[JohnDoe244]

Personally, I’d prefer these things not have stats and be resolved as environmental hazards rather than requiring someone firing a cannon to build initiative but the problem there is that most QCs don't have a stat for resisting hazards.

Resist poison/disease kinda works as a (Stamina+Resistance) pool and Combat Movement is kinda (Dexterity+Dodge). But apart from that, I generally agree.

[Lioness]

Yeah, I've mostly used Combat Movement when it's come up as a lot of the QCs don't have the former.

[DrLoveMonkey]

Well, everyone has an evasion number, and so if you double that that should be about their dex+dodge. Of course it might not perfectly line up due to things like rounding and heavy armor applying a flat penalty and not a die penalty, but it shouldn't be too far off.

Also it makes way more sense to me to resist a boulder flying at your face with dex+dodge than sta+resist. You need to be SO tough before you can even think about just toughing through a 400 pound chunk of rock falling from the sky that you get into Adamant Skin or Earth Protection Technique anyway.

[JohnDoe244]

Well, everyone has an evasion number, and so if you double that that should be about their dex+dodge. Of course it might not perfectly line up due to things like rounding and heavy armor applying a flat penalty and not a die penalty, but it shouldn't be too far off.

Okay but a Cat has Evasion 1 and Combat Movement 7.

And it's possible that Cats are Dexterity 2, Dodge 0, Athletics 5. But it's more likely that a Cat's Evasion is based on how combat capable a Cat is with concern given to its other Merits (like Tiny Creature).

And a Lintha Reaver is Evasion 3 in Medium Armor. You could remove the -1 penalty (Evasion 4), double the pool (Dexterity + Dodge = 8) then reapply the penalty (7 dice). But that's a lot of math to do on the fly when they have a dice pool labled "Combat Movement: 7 dice".

You could just straight-up double Evasion. But you run into odd dicepool rounding and crippling armor penalties. It's not a bad idea, don't get me wrong. But as easy as doubling a single digit number is, why make math for yourself?

Battleready troops are Evasion 2, Combat Movement 4.
Ahlat is Evasion 5, Combat Movement 10.

It doesn't always line up, I'll grant you there are weird cases (Bonesiders and Zombies immediately come to mind). But usually a QC's Evasion is half their Combat Movement (rounded up).

If a QC has a stat for moving out of the way of trouble, I'd just use that.

[JohnDoe244]

My groups have been going back and forth on this forever, and I want to settle it.

When you make a Withering attack against a battlegroup, do you gain Initiative from the Withering Damage as you would against a single opponent, or do you gain only the 1 initiative for hitting the battlegroup?

This was a massive pain for my group. It is only the 1 initiative from hitting. The dev who wrote the rule has already answered this question:

That's correct. You only get the single point of Init for hitting a battlegroup.

(I'm putting this here and not in ask the devs because Holden is no longer an Exalted dev, and sometimes Vance gives more insight than a simple "yes/no" answer.)

[Altasaire]

What does [PEACH] mean in some thread names here?

[Moss Reynholm]

What does [PEACH] mean in some thread names here?

Please Evaluate And Critique Honestly - basically please take a look at this (generally homebrew) and tell me what you think...

[Altasaire]

Please Evaluate And Critique Honestly - basically please take a look at this (generally homebrew) and tell me what you think...

Thank you.

It has nothing to do with thematics, but with impact on the setting. Artifacts that let an Exalt fly don't warp the setting away from the canonical presentation of the Age of Sorrows, so they don't require First Age artifice, whether they manifest as a winged cloak or as a jetpack. Airships do warp the setting away from the canonical presentation of the Age of Sorrows, so they do require First Age artifice, whether they manifest as a winged trireme or as a sci-fi skycruiser with turbines and arc reactors.

(This is covered in the First Age Artifice sidebar on p. 116 of Arms of the Chosen.)

I struggle with this. Why do Windblades require FAA-tech, while Wings of the Raptor, or a WotR!Jetpack doesn't? One would think that flying on one's sword, taoist immortal style, would be fine.

[webkilla]

Thank you.



I struggle with this. Why do Windblades require FAA-tech, while Wings of the Raptor, or a WotR!Jetpack doesn't? One would think that flying on one's sword, taoist immortal style, would be fine.

ya... that's a bit iffy. but I get the idea of rule. Its theme.

If age of sorrows is - thematically - supposed to be lots of squabling warlords, undead rising, ancient magical superweapons that don't work anymore, bad things going down - then suddenly seeing a super magi-tech flying battleship show up would... clash... with that. But it can be explained away by saying that its first age artifice.

of course, figuring out what fits and what doesn't - that's a whole other can of worms - and I think that will ultimately depend on what your ST and fellow players can agree on

[Altasaire]

ya... that's a bit iffy. but I get the idea of rule. Its theme.

If age of sorrows is - thematically - supposed to be lots of squabling warlords, undead rising, ancient magical superweapons that don't work anymore, bad things going down - then suddenly seeing a super magi-tech flying battleship show up would... clash... with that. But it can be explained away by saying that its first age artifice.

of course, figuring out what fits and what doesn't - that's a whole other can of worms - and I think that will ultimately depend on what your ST and fellow players can agree on

No, I meant the specific thing of Windblades vs jetpacks. Why is an artifact jetpack fine but an artifact (non-FAA) hoverboard isn't? I am generally fine with FAA airships and other mass-conveyances, but this seems personal flight vs personal flight, and it's very weird.