Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What Breaks If......

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

  • Originally posted by DrLoveMonkey View Post
    What breaks if I tie combat more regen to anima levels? Like say at the end of each round an exalt regains a number of motes equal to their current anima level? Or maybe anima+1.
    Players are going to lean towards all-in win now maneuvers like TAP-HSF because it's near impossible to sustain a fight without flaring.
    You also set up a really nasty trap where if somebody ends a fight low on motes but has time to work off their anima, they might enter the next fight low on motes and unable to spend enough to unlock better mote regen in time.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by DrLoveMonkey View Post
      What breaks if I tie combat more regen to anima levels? Like say at the end of each round an exalt regains a number of motes equal to their current anima level? Or maybe anima+1.
      The only unexpected side effect I can think of is that it might punish builds that rely on expending anima levels, such as the sort of shenanigans DBs do to avoid getting locked in their Aspect Aura.

      Comment


      • In regards to the ongoing discussion on the topic E10 Solar Charm (PEACH), I have a question : What breaks if Solars do not have a Supernal ?


        My homebrew (Leave comments if you want to help improve) : A quick recap of all the pools and stats for Quick Exalted 3E characters

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Chausse View Post
          In regards to the ongoing discussion on the topic E10 Solar Charm (PEACH), I have a question : What breaks if Solars do not have a Supernal ?

          I don't think anything breaks, per se. The Solars will definitely look less hyper-competent right out of the gate, but the antagonists in the core book will largely still be defeatable by a prepared group, I think. A hypothetical Third Circle demon or equivalently powerful being might be out of reach of Essence 1 or 2 Solars, though. That might be the most significant "breakage", actually - it probably will no longer be plausible that the Exalted were able to defeat the primordials right out of the gate, and instead would have had to cultivate their Essence for a while before becoming powerful enough to take them on. Whether you find that scenario plausible or not depends on a lot of factors.

          Personally, if you're dissatisfied with how much Supernal allows Solars to "cap break", rather than removing it entirely, I'd suggest that it allows them to take charms 2 Essence levels higher than they otherwise could. That means that they could get Essence 3 charms at character creation, just not Essence 5. Essence 2 and 3 Solar charms are generally focuses on specific tricks and tactics, so Essence +2 would allow those without getting into the "feats of incredible power" that Essence 4-5 charms tend to represent. And allowing some cap-breaking means that Solars will get to experience the heights of their charmset in a bit less time, compared to having to wait until their Essence develops all the way to 5 just based on XP.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Chausse View Post
            In regards to the ongoing discussion on the topic E10 Solar Charm (PEACH), I have a question : What breaks if Solars do not have a Supernal ?
            As I wrote in that thread, we houseruled supernal to allow you only to choose charms one Essence higher than normally. We are 14 sessions into the campaign and it works fine. This means that you reach Essence 3, where the most juicy charms are, after 10 sessions. This was an extremely satisfying moment.

            Possibly, it's not the best idea if you are realistically planning only a short campaign. My current group is extremely commited, but typically it's hard for me to have even a five-session campaign. Then I would think twice whether I want to get rid of the supernal, since that can mean that we won't ever see half of the charms used.

            Comment


            • I wouldn't discard it completely, if only because there are a lot of shticks that really only kick in at Essence 2. A variant I've considered is "your Essence is treated as 1-2 higher for ALL purposes," so that it's more of a trade-off. (And more relevant at higher Essence levels)

              Comment


              • Thank you both, I like your suggestions.

                I think I prefer the idea to allow to take Charm at Essence+1 rather than Essence+2, because I rarely see people taking Essence 4 Charms at creation anyway, people usually stop at Essence 3. I was also thinking that in a game with very few players (1 or 2) it would encourage them to broaden their capabilities and offer more diverse experience from each character.


                My homebrew (Leave comments if you want to help improve) : A quick recap of all the pools and stats for Quick Exalted 3E characters

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Kelly Pedersen View Post
                  it probably will no longer be plausible that the Exalted were able to defeat the primordials right out of the gate...
                  1) I don't think the Exalted did defeat the Primordials "right out of the gate," so their ability to do so is probably moot. My understanding is that the conflict took years or decades, and spanned across Creation in its size and scope.

                  ​2) Even if that weren't true, the Exalted host is made up of far more than just Solars.

                  3) Even if that weren't true, Ghost-Eating Technique is an Essence 1 Charm.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Chausse View Post
                    In regards to the ongoing discussion on the topic E10 Solar Charm (PEACH), I have a question : What breaks if Solars do not have a Supernal ?
                    I've asked a similar question on discord chat myself, but I think the more interesting question would become. "What replaces the Supernal ability?"

                    Because Supernal is a pretty big part of their tool kit in 3rd addition, it'd be like taking out Lunars transformation rules. So I think something then should replace it.

                    Perhaps a few (two) options.

                    -A free excellency and different excellency for each essence level, like essence one would be the normal excellency, but essence 2 would by the 'can apply successes to a completed roll for two motes per success, with either essence 4 or 5 being the spend a willpower for a full excellency.

                    -Greatly enhance the anima powers of the caste abilities or add other powerful abilities?

                    - Something else that I can't think of at the moment.
                    Last edited by Chronos12; 01-10-2020, 09:03 PM.

                    Comment


                    • What breaks if I allow decisive attacks to be made I using less than full Initiative, as opposed to always go all-in, as per the current rules? This one bit of rules always strikes me as rather odd. I understand that we lose some of the usual cinematic feel of current decisive, but it sees to me to automatically increase tactical depth of the combat.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Lanic View Post
                        What breaks if I allow decisive attacks to be made I using less than full Initiative, as opposed to always go all-in, as per the current rules? This one bit of rules always strikes me as rather odd. I understand that we lose some of the usual cinematic feel of current decisive, but it sees to me to automatically increase tactical depth of the combat.
                        It makes combat less dangerous for characters with good withering attacks. Normally they have to make themselves vulnerable to being crashed after a decisive, but if they could just use 15 of their 30 initiative that doesn’t put them in that position.

                        The only thing it kind of breaks is the Initiative Shift balancing farming initiative off one target and using it on another. Normally that’s an incredibly dangerous thing to do because if you crash enemy A and decisive enemy B then enemy A has a great opportunity to shift on you. What you want to do is crash A and then kill A.

                        It’s not really broken but it makes the combats a lot more safe with less ability to swing back one way or another.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Lanic View Post
                          What breaks if I allow decisive attacks to be made I using less than full Initiative, as opposed to always go all-in, as per the current rules? This one bit of rules always strikes me as rather odd. I understand that we lose some of the usual cinematic feel of current decisive, but it sees to me to automatically increase tactical depth of the combat.
                          Why would you want to roll less than full Initiative worth of damage?

                          Or rather, how do you plan on handling "Reset to Base Value" step, where after a successful attack, the attacker's initiative is simply reset to 3.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Greyman View Post
                            Why would you want to roll less than full Initiative worth of damage?

                            Or rather, how do you plan on handling "Reset to Base Value" step, where after a successful attack, the attacker's initiative is simply reset to 3.
                            I probably wasn't clear enough. I meant that upon successful attack, you would loose only the Initiative you actually used (say, +1, to stay coherent with the rules for Gambits). Under the current rules, you essentially have to "pay" with your full Initiative in order to attack, which gets refunded if the attack happens to fail.

                            DrLoveMonkey I mean, the intent was for a high Initiative advantage to be in more stable position. Currently, high Initiative opponents don't quite feel to me as if they has upper hand, but rather like a ticking bomb. But that's a good point that this forces you to pay your attention to all opponents.

                            Let's muse with the idea a bit more. How about making "cautious attacks" more punitive. Say, you loose the invested initiative no matter the outcome of the attack unless you go "all-in" as per current rules? This would give some incentive to actually not play in an overly cautious way.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Chausse View Post
                              In regards to the ongoing discussion on the topic E10 Solar Charm (PEACH), I have a question : What breaks if Solars do not have a Supernal ?
                              Potentially returning to the problems that Dawn Castes had in previous editions, where if their player wasn't a combat monkey it was easy to be overshadowed by concepts such as Night Caste assassins and Zenith Caste warrior priests.


                              success is the ability to go from one failure to the next without any loss of enthusiasm

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Lanic;n1361474[USER="1121"
                                DrLoveMonkey[/USER] I mean, the intent was for a high Initiative advantage to be in more stable position. Currently, high Initiative opponents don't quite feel to me as if they has upper hand, but rather like a ticking bomb. But that's a good point that this forces you to pay your attention to all opponents.

                                Let's muse with the idea a bit more. How about making "cautious attacks" more punitive. Say, you loose the invested initiative no matter the outcome of the attack unless you go "all-in" as per current rules? This would give some incentive to actually not play in an overly cautious way.
                                That could be better. You’ll also have to watch because some powerful enemies already have mechanics in place to mitigate their risk of resetting to base, or allowing them to get around it and that might cause some odd interactions.

                                Fakharu, for example, can decisive attack 3 times before he resets to base and a big AoE poison effect that deals lethal damage. Octavian can make a decisive attack and then follow up immediately with a withering to get back to safe initiative, and has a simple charm that deals decisive damage but doesn’t cost initiative or reset him to base. Alhat has a charm that based on the damage roll adds bonus initiative to his reset. Mahicara has a big AoE charm that deals 6L/round and doesn’t reset to base.

                                Not all of those would interact too badly with cautious attacks, but some like Fakharu or Octavian could skew things a bit, although I don’t think to the point of breaking.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X