Quote from: Nexus;785860I imagine so but that could be seen as damning with faint praise.

Believe me, I know. I still really enjoy the ideas behind the combat system though, even if it were completely divorced from Exalted.

Quote from: Nexus;785860And some effects can increase a character's Initiative score so if its pushed up to a higher number than the current Tick, they get to act immediately at that point. Then there's stuff like Clash Attacks and Gambits.

That's true, and you can also act to push back an opponent in the initiative order if they haven't acted already. I like the idea of initiative order as a turn resource, and I think it hits the point of complexity where you get a lot of tactical options to exploit, but not to where you can't possibly keep track of it.

In my sessions, for example, we had a player decide to delay their action in a turn (sacrificing initiative) to force a Clash with a very deadly opponent, to hopefully nullify their attack and get some initiative back in the process. In another fight, I had an Eclipse caste not quite able to capitalize on a decisive attack and was hit by a cheap-shot from a villain that pushed her into a crash. And then we had one player use Defend Other to make sure she wasn't badly injured while she was vulnerable, while the other guy tried to drive down the villain's initiative as far down as he could before the baddie's turn came up again.

it seems like it would play a bit easier if Initiative changes didn't change order of action in the same round, but that's just spit-balling.

Gambits are some thing new to the system. A Gambit is  a combat action with intent to drastically change the tactical balance. The examples included are Unhorsing a mounted opponent, disarming a weapon user or creating a Distraction for a team can take a shot with a better chance of connecting. Additional Gambits may be introduced in later supplemental including situational ones tied to specific situations. Gms are advised that if they can't think of another way to resolve a combat action to consider making it a Gambit

Gambits are resolved as Decisive attacks but instead of rolling Initiative as damage to the target's health track, the successes are compared to the Gambit difficulty. If the total successes is greater the Gambit succeeds. Successful or not, Gambits cause Initiative equal to their difficulty +1 and characters cannot perform a Gambit that would send them into Initiative Crash.

Opinions?

Being outnumbered even by lesser opponents seems like it could create a nasty situation where you Action is continuously pushed to the bottom of round and/or you Crash. Unless you're so above them they're Withering Attacks don't connect very often...

I'm just not sure. I really have to see it in action. I see where some could find the system very appealing. This one of my all time favorite fight scenes. How I like to envision most Exalt vs Exalt fights going down. And I see HOW you could play it out with similar results under these mechanics but I'm not sure it wouldn't be big headache.

Quote from: Nexus;786253Being outnumbered even by lesser opponents seems like it could create a nasty situation where you Action is continuously pushed to the bottom of round and/or you Crash. Unless you're so above them they're Withering Attacks don't connect very often...

I'm just not sure. I really have to see it in action. I see where some could find the system very appealing. This one of my all time favorite fight scenes. How I like to envision most Exalt vs Exalt fights going down. And I see HOW you could play it out with similar results under these mechanics but I'm not sure it wouldn't be big headache.

From my experience, being heavily outnumbered is pretty painful unless you get something like a melee charm or a dodge charm to keep your DV from degenerating. Your DV goes down by one every time you're attacked, whether it's a success or a failure, and fighting outnumbered is asking for trouble. Funnily enough, battle groups full of hundreds to even thousands of nobodies are much less deadly a prospect, as they count as one big individual doing AoE attacks and mostly act to weaken or wear down PCs through attrition.

I guess it's the difference between Rama fighting a thousand peasants versus Rama fighting Achilles, King Arthur, and Gilgamesh.

Quote from: Paper Monkey;786257From my experience, being heavily outnumbered is pretty painful unless you get something like a melee charm or a dodge charm to keep your DV from degenerating. Your DV goes down by one every time you're attacked, whether it's a success or a failure, and fighting outnumbered is asking for trouble. Funnily enough, battle groups full of hundreds to even thousands of nobodies are much less deadly a prospect, as they count as one big individual doing AoE attacks and mostly act to weaken or wear down PCs through attrition.

That's what I've been assuming and something I'm personally not looking for in Exalted.

QuoteI guess it's the difference between Rama fighting a thousand peasants versus Rama fighting Achilles, King Arthur, and Gilgamesh.

That's the kind of "narrative" mechanical shenanigans I generally don't go for. If my Dawn can defeat 100 soldiers I want them to be able to do it without the soldiers being mechanically gimped. And fighting other Exalted to be dangerous because they're actually near your equal and have magical powers and superhuman skills of their own just because of numbers.

Quote from: Warboss Squee;785840Another thing to consider is that your DV doesn't reduce, as far as I have read, so it's one less fiddly thing to track. You only track your initiative.

Apparently, your DV reduces per attack (hit or miss).

Quote from: Skywalker;785784The idea of momentum is a good one and it is used for good effect in other RPGs as a way of providing a dramatic buffer in lethal combat. However, from you have posted here, the idea seems to have gone through the, now predictable, Ink Monkey over-engineering and does seem difficult to follow unless you are a mechanics gearhead.

That is a good way to describe the mechanics so far: very "Ink Monkey". Lots of fiddly bits and moving parts. If you liked their previous fixes you'll probably find these rules attractive or at least get them.

Quote from: Nexus;787501That is a good way to describe the mechanics so far: very "Ink Monkey". Lots of fiddly bits and moving parts. If you liked their previous fixes you'll probably find these rules attractive or at least get them.

Though I think that the fixes IM come up with work, most of my players tend to favour a casual play style. They can handle WFRP2e but tend to baulk at WH40K. They can handle D&D 4e and 5e but not 3e. They liked Exalted 1e and managed 2e only by ignoring chunks of the rules. We also ignored all of the 2e errata as just being too much of pain despite recognising that some of it was quite good.

From what I have seen 3e does fix mechanical issues, but I don't think my players will be willing to learn and use the resulting involved system, especially on a regular basis. I expect that we may drift back 1e as being what seems to be the most forgiving of the three editions.

I got distracted by RL and the thread fell silent. Is anyone else still interested in the discussion?

I enjoy talking about Exalted. It remains my favourite RPG even with the state of 2e and soon to be 3e. It would be good to evolve the discussion beyond rolling eyes at the current 3e development team though.

Quote from: Skywalker;787510I expect that we may drift back 1e as being what seems to be the most forgiving of the three editions.

So how complex is 1e... compared to say, Pathfinder?
What ultra-cool stuff would staying strictly with 1e leave out... or could 2e stuff be retro-fitted to work with 1e?
I continue to be drawn to Exalted, the setting... the names of thigns... and then scared away by the horror stories of how complex the mechanics are.

Quote from: Simlasa;788234So how complex is 1e... compared to say, Pathfinder?
What ultra-cool stuff would staying strictly with 1e leave out... or could 2e stuff be retro-fitted to work with 1e?
I continue to be drawn to Exalted, the setting... the names of thigns... and then scared away by the horror stories of how complex the mechanics are.

I would say easier than Pathfinder. 1e operates much more strongly off of the Storyteller core mechanic as seen in Trinity, though there are just larger lists of special powers. It doesn't add many of the extra mechanical concepts that were added in 2e that give rise to much of the complexity (ticks, weapon speeds, social combat, mass combat, charm tags). So, if you have played an oWoD game or Trinity it's not far from that.

1e didn't get around to statting Infernals. Not much of an issue there IMO A lot of people complain about Lunars in 1e and prefer 2e, but I don't agree. Lunars as barbaric shapeshifters is a better schtick than social engineers IMO. Finally, 2e has more of everything, though I can't think of any of the "more" adding much in quality.

1e's main mechanical issue IME is the number of dice that can be rolled. That's not really a complexity issue as much as a general ease of use issue. I found that it was easily removed by simply turning all NPC dice rolls into difficulties at a 2:1 ratio. As a GM in 1e, I never rolled any dice other than damage

The other advantage of 1e is that it didn't split the support down like 2e, so you can get by with much less books. I use a "core set" of Exalted, Dragonblooded, Scavenger Sons, Games of Divinity and Book of Three Circles and that covers 99% of material that all Exalted games use. Add in the Storytellers Companion if you want a little more other Exalted types without needing another hardcover.

Quote from: Skywalker;7882351e didn't get around to statting Infernals. Not much of an issue there IMO

Yep, they were better as individualized antagonists for GMs to develop instead of a playable group.

I think I'm possibly the only person that didn't mind the presentation in the first chapters of MOEP: The Infernals. They were sick, twisted freaks. The perfect product of insane Gods that had been stewing in their own spite for millennia and were incredibly alien to human experience to begin with. Never got the urge to make them playable or "sympathetic".

Infernals basically agree to let C'thullu and Azazoth inject a litle of their essence into their souls then hang out with them for awhile to learn how to use it That's gonna mess you up a bit and I think those chapters did a damn good job of showing how and why. The mechanics were more of the overly complicated "clever" things seen before though.  

QuoteA lot of people complain about Lunars in 1e and prefer 2e, but I don't agree. Lunars as barbaric shapeshifters is a better schtick than social engineers IMO.

Good,, I thought I was alone in this. I loved the Lunars are savage beast gods and lords of the Wyld, bestial shapeshifters and trickers like Anansi and Crow that acted as a counterpoint to the Solars  more refined nature.

I've never quite gotten all the complaints about them and how they don't fit into the setting.

QuoteFinally, 2e has more of everything, though I can't think of any of the "more" adding much in quality.

Yeah, less is definitely more sometimes. 2ed got around to filling in a lot of the white space on the map but in ways that weren't always a major improvement. And the fan base seemed to become more obsessed  with "canon" where originally it was kind of a wild and wooly setting with discussion full of people coming up with their own ideas and cool things now it more bickering over minutia and interpreting the vague utterances of the developers.

2e also started to well,, vanish up its own ass in a sense. The urge to add more and more to become more "sophisticated" and clever just go to be to much until it seemed like things were added to be strange just strangeness' sake and just to be obscure and sound more pretentious.

IMO, that started more in late 1ed with the Sidereals hardcover but 2ed took the ball and ran with it. Right out of the stadium until you ended up with things like the sun being a giant monorail in the sky and the Wyld being something like an MMO driven by story logic.

2ed also got really hung up with the goal of making everything a Player Character Race which just lead to crowding and strained them systems as more and more was layered to to keep things distinct.

Quote1e's main mechanical issue IME is the number of dice that can be rolled. That's not really a complexity issue as much as a general ease of use issue. I found that it was easily removed by simply turning all NPC dice rolls into difficulties at a 2:1 ratio. As a GM in 1e, I never rolled any dice other than damage

Interesting I never thought of handling it that way but that's pretty clever. I mostly play online so dice rollers can help mitigate the Buckets o' dice issue.

I'm planning on running a short combat (extremely lopsided) to see how this version of the system plays. I'll try to put up a little something when its done.