Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

D&D as it pertains to Exalted

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

  • God_of_Awesome
    started a topic D&D as it pertains to Exalted

    D&D as it pertains to Exalted

    Alright, there's the conversation prompts. Discuss!

    - I've heard Exalted described as the anti-D&D. Any backing to that? How might you think that's good or bad?
    - D&D often doesn't touch the same myth material that Exalted does, but nor does it completely shy away from it in some supplements. How does the Coastal Wizard's approach to that stuff differ, and how might it be the same, to the Wolves In White?
    - Any crossover material? How well does that work out?
    - How do you like both next to each other? Compare and contrast pros and cons.
    Last edited by God_of_Awesome; 12-22-2015, 08:41 PM.

  • Arian Dynas
    replied
    Originally posted by Morangias View Post
    I agree that the main ideas behind the new engine take a page from AD&D more than any other edition, but fortunately they're also not afraid to take a couple good ideas from 3.x.

    The end result is a really cool system - lightweight, streamlined, easy to understand and use, gracefully blending modern ideas with a retro feel. I've played and ran some pretty cool games on it, and not just the usual dungeon crawl stuff. Worth giving it a try if you ask me.
    I love it. I've had to do a bunch of tweaks, but, unlike my pathfinder houserules, this fits on one sheet of paper.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sanctaphrax
    replied
    Oh, they're after you too?

    I might have to back off, I don't wanna mess with the TVTropes forum. Those guys are just monstrous.

    Leave a comment:


  • God_of_Awesome
    replied
    I always thought it'd be the TVTropes forum that got me killed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sanctaphrax
    replied
    Originally posted by God_of_Awesome View Post
    I had not noticed Sanct's post 5 pages back.
    And I will never forgive you.

    Years from now, I will find you. And I will hunt you down. When you collapse to the ground, exhausted and terrified, you will look up to my face and say,

    "Who the hell are you?"

    and I will say,

    "I'm Philippe. I sometimes go by Sanctaphrax online. And years ago, you accidentally duplicated a post I made on the Onyx Path Exalted forum."

    And then you will die.

    Leave a comment:


  • Morangias
    replied
    Originally posted by Arian Dynas View Post
    Further, I'm sorry Rob. It isn't 3.5. At all. Its what 3.5 should habe been because its based off AD&D more than anything else.
    I agree that the main ideas behind the new engine take a page from AD&D more than any other edition, but fortunately they're also not afraid to take a couple good ideas from 3.x.

    The end result is a really cool system - lightweight, streamlined, easy to understand and use, gracefully blending modern ideas with a retro feel. I've played and ran some pretty cool games on it, and not just the usual dungeon crawl stuff. Worth giving it a try if you ask me.

    Leave a comment:


  • God_of_Awesome
    replied
    Nope, nvm...

    Leave a comment:


  • Arian Dynas
    replied
    Originally posted by The Wizard of Oz View Post

    No idea, I haven't played 5th at all. Do they still support FR?
    FR is their flagship actually, and reading the new setting book is a hilarious flood of "Oh wait! Not Really"s that its just silly. "We rebuilt Myth Drannor! " "We restored Netheril and the Anaroch desert is no more!" except now the Phaeriimm came back and its a desert again and they solved the problem of Myth Drannor and Netheril by making one crash into the other.

    Oops.

    Regardless, D&D 5 is excellent. Simple to grasp, non objective morality, ease of use, and fighters get plenty of powers, like second wind, being eldritch knights or a bucnch of other things.

    Further, I'm sorry Rob. It isn't 3.5. At all. Its what 3.5 should habe been because its based off AD&D more than anything else.

    Also necessary magic items is gone. You can have a +1 sword and use it effectively yoir entire career due to a concept called bonded accuracy. This is why abilities in the game arent just "plus more numbers" and why DCs max out at 30.
    Last edited by Arian Dynas; 01-06-2016, 02:32 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • God_of_Awesome
    replied
    I had not noticed Sanct's post 5 pages back.
    Last edited by God_of_Awesome; 01-08-2016, 03:32 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Morty
    replied
    I'm not inclined to give them credit for slightly alleviating a problem they could have, and should have, got rid of.

    Leave a comment:


  • DrLoveMonkey
    replied
    Originally posted by Morty View Post

    It's not like the battlemaster is anything to write home about, either.

    Bounded accuracy was definitely a good idea, since the third and fourth edition had suffered from horrible numbers bloat. But 5e's take on it takes the first step and forgets the second one. In a game with D&D's power curve, cut numbers need to be replaced with other abilities to represent increase in competence. 5e instead puts HP bloat on a pedestal, gives warriors multiple attacks while trying to make them sound cool, and slows down advancement in skills.
    Hp bloat does occur, but not quite as much, and more importantly it's easier to deal with. When pitted against a single target 4-5 PCs will crush through hundreds of HP in a few rounds.

    The skill advancement...kind of doesn't actually have a progression anymore at all.

    Leave a comment:


  • Morty
    replied
    Originally posted by The Wizard of Oz View Post
    Ah, okay, that's not so bad.
    It does seem that non-casters, with the exception of the battlemaster, have gone back to not having much in the way of options though, compared to 4th ed, where your rogue or ranger had 4 or 5 encounter powers.
    It's not like the battlemaster is anything to write home about, either.

    Bounded accuracy was definitely a good idea, since the third and fourth edition had suffered from horrible numbers bloat. But 5e's take on it takes the first step and forgets the second one. In a game with D&D's power curve, cut numbers need to be replaced with other abilities to represent increase in competence. 5e instead puts HP bloat on a pedestal, gives warriors multiple attacks while trying to make them sound cool, and slows down advancement in skills.

    Leave a comment:


  • TheCountAlucard
    replied
    Originally posted by The Wizard of Oz View Post
    I find running a kingdom to be supported fine: that's the type of thing I don't want to have a simple system, because you interact with it in a lot of different ways.

    In fact, right now, my PCs are running a kingdom (technically, they're advisors to the Ghost-King, but he basically just gets them to do everything other than talking to the Gods for him because he has no idea how to do it and being a ghost, hasn't really learned how). They politic, intrigue, craft and I guess I might get them to do a bureaucracy roll not to do a Mao and make their hunter-gatherers starve to death while they're trying to improve their economy.
    I don't really see how systemising it more would improve the game.
    Kinda reminds me of God-Kings of Lotus.

    Leave a comment:


  • DrLoveMonkey
    replied
    Originally posted by The Wizard of Oz View Post

    Yeah, 4th ed was pretty unforgiving in that way, and did have a lot of "One true builds".
    But I'm sure you could solve that without getting rid of the excellent synergy combat.

    (Actually, you could sort of make a strength rogue, in that there was a sub-class called Brutal Scoundrel that gave you Strength to your sneak attack damage, and a lot of powers that were strength based, but the base attacks were still based on dex)
    Yeah fourth ed is probably the most tactically fun RPG I've ever personally played. The things I really didn't like about it though were how little support there was for non combat stuff, and how similar every class felt. They had different abilities that did completely different things, but they all kind of worked in the same way. Like you didn't have anything like the Arcane Trickster's magical ambush ability, which gives a big penalty on the saving throw to any spell that the rogue uses on surprised opponents. Or the shadow monk's ability to become invisible as an action as long as he's in dim light or lower. You might have an encounter ability that did that, but not a cool new feature that added new functionality to a bunch of other stuff the class had.

    It felt just a little too gamey for me. The magic was treated the same way as fighter abilities or monk techniques, stuff like that. The fifth ed bard ability to take spells from any class list at certain levels wouldn't be a thing in fourth ed. It was really fun and really well balanced, but when we entered combat I felt less like an RPG and more like a tactics board game.



    The worst though is games like Hero or Mutants and Masterminds I find. I still like them sometimes and enjoy them, but it just feels really weird to me that Ranged Attack covers everything from throwing a knife, to shooting a fireball, to making somebody's nose bleed with mind powers, to screaming a sonic wave. I keep feeling like I really want a better way to distinguish them mechanically apart from the tags they get like "one round recharge" or "limited range" or "Plus 2 damage at -1 accuracy" or whatever. In DnD a spells have so many different mechanics than thrown attacks. Same with exalted, casting sorcery is a whole little minigame of mote building. I kind of got that feeling from fourth ed.

    In fifth edition when I use my monk ability to make people check against knockdown it's just something I can do whenever, or if I was a four winds monk I could spend a ki point to kick a searing jet of fire at somebody. Which both feel different from eachother, and from casting a spell out of a spell slot. In fourth edition they'd just be an encounter power that deals 4x weapon damage and root the target for two turns as a daily power, and act just like the wizard fireball.

    It seems like a minor distinction, but fifth ed does a lot with it. The warlock, for example, only starts the game with 1 spell slot, and gets a max of 4 at level 17. BUT unlike other casters, all spell slots are returned on a short rest, and all spell slots are treated as the max level castable by the warlock. Druids and Clerics get to prepare any spells from their spell list, get a few domain spells auto prepared, but the wizard gets to expand spell knowledge through his spellbook and gets to perform any ritual without preparing it. Little distinctions like that help the world feel more real and characters unique, I find.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Wizard of Oz
    replied
    Originally posted by DrLoveMonkey View Post

    Yes, and the synergy definitely isn't as present. In 4th ed you could have your fighter use an ability, then your wizard forces the enemy to move, proccing said fighter to get an AoO, which allows the rogue to use an encounter power to attack as a reaction at the same time as somebody using an AoO, and then on his next turn the warlord instead of attacking allows said rogue to attack again out of turn.

    That kind of thing doesn't really exist in fifth ed. What it does have is, especially with non casters, the ability to create a really well balanced and fairly unique character in about five or six minutes without having to have tons of knowledge of the system. I mean yeah if you make a fighter and put charisma, int and wis as your high stats it's not gonna work out too well. Erm...well maybe as a very specific kind of eldrich knight maybe? Hmmm, gonna have to check that out later.

    But if you want to make a dexterous human sword mage, a burly thuggish half-orc rogue, or a carousing dwarven warlock with a dark secret, it's easy to do and doesn't feel punishing. Obviously if you want to make a high-elf wizard who maxes out int you're going to be better at casting scorching ray than the one who went dex as his high stat and left int as his second or possibly even third highest stat. On the other hand the dexmage has better AC, better dex save, and can do cool stuff like cut at a dude in melee and then as a reaction boost his defense by +5 with a shield spell for the rest of the turn. Math wise dexmage is worse in general, but he's not so much worse that your other players want to kill themselves and situationally he is a lot more versatile.

    It has a lot to do with banded AC and unified attack bonuses. I'll go into greater detail if anybody asks me to. What this lets me do in fifth ed though is make pretty much any cool character concept I like in a really short time and not feel terrible about it. Instead of sitting there trying to figure out how I'm not going to suck in combat I can really focus on who my character is and what he does, and trust that I'll be able to meaningfully contribute.

    In third edition, you couldn't make a dwarf wizard who alternated shooting magic missile and knocking people's domes off with a hammer. Well you could, but either you were using an exploit or you were shitty by level 12. In fourth edition if I wanted to play a rogue who used to be a big burly thug for a crime syndicate, but got sick of their shit and now uses his larcenous skills and bulging muscles to punch demons my abilities are going to suck, since I believe they were all dex based.

    It also offers some rewarding tactical depth if you know the system well, but I've gone on too long already.
    Yeah, 4th ed was pretty unforgiving in that way, and did have a lot of "One true builds".
    But I'm sure you could solve that without getting rid of the excellent synergy combat.

    (Actually, you could sort of make a strength rogue, in that there was a sub-class called Brutal Scoundrel that gave you Strength to your sneak attack damage, and a lot of powers that were strength based, but the base attacks were still based on dex)

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X