I'm also thinking about HouseRulesForSecondEdition

Actual House Rules

Hacking on Potential House Rules

Rules Clarifications Without Changes

===== Troupe Play =====
In response to the imbalance of having Terrestrials and Celestials in the same party, I'm starting to think about switching to a TroupePlay model.
Posted by BrianSniffen at Sat, 19 Feb 2005 21:54:33 -0500 X
===== Mooks are too tough =====
I want to make mooks less of an issue.  They take too much time to fight, and their only purpose is to look cool.  I'd like to experiment with a simple roll to take out a mook, like any other skill use.  Figure any given mooks will have flat difficulty numbers.  Weapons add their Artifact level.  Mundane weapons don't help.
Posted by BrianSniffen at Sat, 26 Feb 2005 18:34:19 -0500 X
I also want to increase ability to act as generalists without putting schtick protection at risk.  That will be quite hard, and I'm not sure it's doable in these mechanics.  I welcome suggestions.
Posted by BrianSniffen at Sat, 26 Feb 2005 18:36:06 -0500 X
===== Bureaucracy =====
I wonder if the party would go along with effects like "The Sidereals tie you up for nine hours in lawyerese." without feeling like they were being railroaded.
Posted by BrianSniffen at Tue, 10 May 2005 21:16:15 -0400 X
===== For next game... =====
I've started looking into an idea I'm calling ThornsShui.
Posted by BrianSniffen at Fri, 13 May 2005 00:52:38 -0400 X
===== Social "Combat" =====
N/T
Posted by Anonymous at Sun, 29 May 2005 16:32:26 -0400 X
===== Social "Combat" =====
I'm thinking about how to apply CombatIdeasToSocialSkills
Posted by Anonymous at Sun, 29 May 2005 16:32:42 -0400 X
===== A neat idea for... =====
Revaluing physical attributes is at [http://forum.rpg.net/showpost.php?p=4036011&postcount=13]
The basic idea is that you get an extra HL per dot of Stamina (from a base of -0, -1, -2, -4, Inc), and Ping damage
is Strength, not Essence.
Posted by BrianSniffen at Fri, 03 Jun 2005 18:36:01 -0400 X
===== Phys att =====
I like.   One of the few character choices I've regretted was STA 4 instead of MAN 4; since I've never been at a point where soak was near enough to the damage value to matter.
Posted by AndyEllis at Fri, 03 Jun 2005 21:52:04 -0400 X
===== Two dangers =====
Two dangers with that approach: first, retrofitting it into an existing game will annoy some players---mostly those who bought Dex and ignored other attributes, so I'm only slightly concerned.  But second, it's unclear to me how to deal with Str 10 Lunars and Str 30 Behemoths, then.  It may just be that a Str 10 Lunar is not really much more dangerous than a Dex 10 Lunar, and the Str 30 Behemoth should be implemented as a Str 8 Behemoth with +22L claws.
Posted by BrianSniffen at Sat, 04 Jun 2005 10:21:34 -0400 X
===== Mortals vs. Exalts =====
What does the Stamina system do to the health-level difference between Mortals, heroic mortals, and Exalts  Even an ordinary mortal with a Stamina of 3 or 4 becomes really hard to take down.  One possible modification would be for the setup as described at the URL to be for exalts.  Normal mortals instead start with health-levels of only -0, -4, Inc before Stamina is applied.  Thus an Extra becomes effectively a Mortal with Stamina of 0, and Mortals remain easier to kill than Exalts.  Heroic Mortals probably get the same start-point as Exalts.
Posted by AndyTwyman at Sun, 05 Jun 2005 02:41:02 -0400 X
===== Str Ping =====
I like the theory of Str-based Ping.  Makes it at least require a character to think about focusing on combat in order to get massive ping damage.  But I think it's likely to increase some of the problems I currently have with Essence-based ping.  Admittedly it'll solve some of the problems: spirits and gods frequently have much higher Essence than Exalts for the same power-level, so Essence-based ping seems out of proportion for them, while their Strength probably isn't so huge.  However as Brian points out there are plenty of creatures/Charms which cause Strength to increase well above Essence, so maybe it just shifts the problem to a different set of combatants.

Personally I think that the scalability of ping damage in general devalues Soak more than is appropriate.  I think it needs to be re-thought or re-scaled, but I don't really have a well-thought-out alternative.
Posted by AndyTwyman at Sun, 05 Jun 2005 02:45:24 -0400 X
===== ["HLs"] for mortals =====
I'm not sure that I consider the -0, -1, -1, -1, -2, -2, -2, -4, Inc of a Stamina 4 Mortal to be "really hard to take down".  It's harder, sure, but two extra health levels is only an extra 6L, which is at most two hits at your Ping, and often you'll get that out of overkill.

Mooks would still only have their three ["HLs"].  I do like your system, but it adds a new category of non-Heroic non-Extra Mortal.
Posted by Anonymous at Sun, 05 Jun 2005 21:55:17 -0400 X
===== Soak Value =====
I've been trying to think about the real source of my problems with ping, and I'm ending up with the conclusion that it does ''not'' devalue Soak.  Soak was already devalued by the multiple-attack mechanic.  In pre-PowerCombat Exalted, a character with Gaias' or Mical's level of competence could spam out 7 or 8 attacks a round, pinging for 1 die each.  So somebody standing near the pair of them could be receiving 15L in ping damage alone.  Now there's Rate, so each of them can only make 3 or 4 attacks per round for 4 or 5L ping each, and it works out to---very roughly---similar damage.

(Oh: and there are Extra DBs, because I'll want them for the Wyld Hunt.  I kinda doubt there are Extra Solars, but it's possible: the Paragon's Guard or something.  But Exalts who want to buy extra ["HLs"] have easy access to Ox-Body Technique.  In fact, the benefit of a dot of Stamina above is exactly that of a level of Terrestrial Ox-Body.)
Posted by Anonymous at Sun, 05 Jun 2005 22:02:22 -0400 X
===== Soak Value =====
Ah, I've never played pre-power-combat Exalted, so I didn't see those two things as being related.  Still, I think that if you have Rate and a 1d ping then it would be a lot less gross.  Not that I don't think ping has some useful aspects which maybe could be dealt with by an alternative.  And not that I don't think that the attack-splitting mechanic is somewhat broken. :)
Posted by AndyTwyman at Sun, 05 Jun 2005 22:17:22 -0400 X
===== Attack splitting =====
I don't understand why called shots are below the abstraction barrier, but the number of attacks against a target is above it.  I know they're trying to make it possible to play a tactical resource-exhaustion game.  It just seems more reasonable to say, for example, that Peony Blossom Attack costs 3m per attack, and lets you divide your successes ''from one roll'' among the attacks.  Similarly, Shadow Over Water and Dipping Swallow Defense cost 2m per defense, and let you divide your successes ''from one roll'' among the incoming attacks.
Posted by BrianSniffen at Mon, 06 Jun 2005 11:05:53 -0400 X
===== Weird math =====
Brian, how does (7+8) '' 1L come out to be "very roughly similar" to (3+4) '' 4L in your universe?
Posted by AndyEllis at Mon, 06 Jun 2005 12:49:01 -0400 X
===== Weird math =====
In both cases, the average character is dead.
Posted by BrianSniffen at Mon, 06 Jun 2005 14:30:36 -0400 X
===== Weird math =====
To expand on this idea: in one case you're taking 15L bypassing soak,
and in another 28L with a bit more variance (since it comes in 4L
chunks).

Either is enough to melt a mook no matter what armor he's wearing.  So
the only point of armoring a mook is to ensure he'll take five or six
hits to kill instead of just one---and that only happens at the very
highest end.  Normal mortal armors in the 7L range are useless.
Even 14L Jade armor isn't much use.  But that means that 7L armor and
14L armor have exactly the same effect on these attacks!  So against
the most common attack strategy, Artifact 4 armor is of no more worth
than high-quality mortal armor.  But artifact weapons, because of
their acc and rate bonuses, have huge advantages over mortal weapons.
Their damage isn't actually much help.
Posted by BrianSniffen at Mon, 06 Jun 2005 16:01:50 -0400 X
===== Random Ping Thought =====
One thing I was playing around with in my head as an extra incentive to not split dice pools down to marginal levels quite as much, was to set ping as Min(Essence, net Successes on attack roll). Have not done much analysis yet -jss
Posted by justin at Tue, 07 Jun 2005 01:20:24 -0400 X
===== Random Ping Thought =====
I like it.  It seems like it will make combats take very slightly
longer---but then, that's the point of armor.  It does add a bit more
math.  You have a changing ping, instead of a constant ping per
character.

-Brian
Posted by BrianSniffen at Tue, 07 Jun 2005 12:28:16 -0400 X
===== Random Ping Thought =====
However, you also potentially have very high ping values, potentially making the negative effects of the Essence-ping rule even worse.  For instance, this would totally negate the ability for a tank character to decide not to dodge and to simply soak up the damage.  With no dodge or parry the attacker gets a 10+ successes, meaning 10+ damage is unsoakable.  Seems like this just devalued armor/soak even more with respect to dodge/parry rather than re-valuing it.
Posted by AndyTwyman at Tue, 07 Jun 2005 14:37:37 -0400 X
===== Random Ping Thought =====
Wait, frell, I interpreted the min() backwards.  I do that a lot.  A bad trait in a programmer.  I withdraw my objection.

This system might discourage attack-splitting, but only in cases where only ping-damage is getting through (which isn't always the case).  And it doesn't really increase the value of armor/soak so much as it increases the value of dodge/parry when combined with armor/soak.
Posted by AndyTwyman at Tue, 07 Jun 2005 14:44:56 -0400 X
Further thoughts on multiple actions: the real reason it's in the
system is so that mortals have to indicate how much they're focusing
on attack vs. defense.  A mortal has to choose between 0-3 attacks and
0-3 defenses, giving him up to sixteen different tactical options per
round, plus Full Defense.

It would be nice to find a way of letting him roll once for his
complicated declared action.  We can't actually get that far ''and''
keep differentiation between attack and defense.  But perhaps we can
get to one roll of each pool per player per turn.

Multiple actions should be slightly discouraged.  Right now, there's a
penalty of N/2 dice for N actions.  If it were a larger penalty---N or
even 2N---that wouldn't be too bad.  But both of the following
scenarios sound reasonable:

* Lion whacks Mical.  He rolls his one attack, and Mical rolls his one
  defense.  Maybe he uses one persistent defense he rolled earlier in
  the round.

* Next round, Mical whacks Lion.  He splits for five attacks, and makes one roll
  at -5 dice.  Lion defends, either by going "full defense" and making
  an appropriate roll, or by splitting his action and making one
  Dex+Dodge-5 roll, or by activating five instances of Shadow Over
  Water and making ''one'' Dodge roll.

So how does this fit into the timing engine?  Well, if you're a
mortal, it's easy: on your action, you declare what you're going to do
and roll one pool for each sort of thing you're doing.  Each pool
takes a -N die multiple-action penalty, where N is the total number of
actions you're taking.  If you use the "Full Defense" option, then you
make ''one'' roll at ''no'' penalty.  Subtract one success from every
other use of this.  That is, if you have a Dex+Dodge of 10, and roll 5
successes, you defend with 5, 5, 4, 4, 3, 3, 2, 2, 1, 1.  In the
normal system, you'd defend with 5, 4.5, 4, 3.5, 3, 2.5, 2, 1.5, 1,
0.5.  So this seems reasonably balanced.

But what happens when someone who is full-dodging is attacked?  I can
see several approaches:

1.  Mical makes his one roll of 10 dice (Dex 5 + Melee 5 + Acc 5 - 5-dice
   multiple action penalty).  He gets 5 successes.  These are compared to
   the full-dodge results of 5,5,4,4,3.  Three hit, and 1, 1, and 2
   net successes.

1.  Mical gets his 5 successes.  These are compared to the ''lowest''
   defense result in the series, so he has 2 net successes.  We now
   say that two attacks have hit, with 2 net successes each.

In either case, if there is no defense he hits 5 times for 5 net
successes each time.

Now, what do Supplemental, Action-generating, and persistent defenses do in
this system?

  Supplemental
    work as normal.  You do need to activate them a number of times equal to the number of actions you're taking, or else roll twice with the different effects (e.g. one attack boosted with Hungry Tiger, one not, so they'd get separate rolls)
  Action-generating
    neither cause nor suffer the extra-action penalty.  You still typically make only one roll, but apply it a number of extra times based on the Charm.  For example, if you use Shadow Over Water, you make one Dodge roll at full-pool and apply it each time you activate the Charm.
  Persistent
    make one roll, apply it against every incoming defense. Dice-adders ''can'' be used later in the round, and you just roll the difference.  For example, if you have 5 successes of Dodge from Flow Like Blood, you might spend three motes on Reed In The Wind to roll 6 more dice for just that one attack.

Is this system broken in some way I'm not seeing?  I think it reduces
the number of times a character acts with imperfect knowledge, but see
no other negative effects.
Posted by BrianSniffen at Fri, 01 Jul 2005 17:06:11 -0400 X
===== Multi-Action and stunting =====
What about stunting in this case?

What's just gone away is the ability of the defensive player, to  
realize a particular attack is very scary, and pull out a stunt.  or  
a channeled virtue.

Also, what about defensive charms on top of a persistent defense?  
(Lion realizes his 3 successes are going to suck, so has perfect  
knowledge of where to add in his die-adder?)

I think that where this is headed is to a deterministic system, where  
everyone gets .5 sux per die, and you just need to match dice.    
Unless you're a Sidereal, that is.
Posted by AndyEllis at Fri, 01 Jul 2005 20:44:24 -0400 X
===== Multi-Action and stunting =====
I'd expect to handle Stunts the same way as dice-adders: if you're
making that decision at the right point, then roll separate pools.  If
you're making that decision late in the action, as for a stunt on a
particular defense or with a dice-adder, you just roll the extra dice.

> I think that where this is headed is to a deterministic system, where  
> everyone gets .5 sux per die, and you just need to match dice.    
> Unless you're a Sidereal, that is.

I'd much rather see a default auto-success system with people only
using no or small pools most of the time, and taking increasing risk
for their characters as they pull out more dice.  But I don't think
you can get to a sane version of that from the Exalted system.
Posted by BrianSniffen at Fri, 01 Jul 2005 21:20:28 -0400 X
===== Prior Knowledge =====
The one weird aspect of the "roll only once" system is the prior knowledge it provides about particularly good or particularly bad rolls.  It's weirdest for reflexives where you make more separate decisions to pay Essence than you make rolls: i.e. I know my Reflexive Dodge roll earlier this round sucked, so I save Essence by not activating it againt bother to activate it again, or activate a different reflexive instead.  It comes up for persistents too, though, allowing you to take different action based on how good your persistent is for the round: i.e. someone hits me before my action, so I roll my persistent defense.  If it was a good roll, then on my action I charge into a horde of enemies.  If it was a bad roll, then I withdraw and get out of the way until next round.  Kinda a weird dynamic.
Posted by AndyTwyman at Fri, 01 Jul 2005 22:13:00 -0400 X
===== Prior Knowledge =====
Well.  You can't activate a different Reflexive, since you only get
one Charm per turn.  You're still getting a bonus from your
Reflexive... it just may not be as big as you'd hoped.  It does create
a somewhat weird dynamic.  Objections like yours are why I wouldn't
try to implement it in this game.

It's based on some ideas from "Sword and Sorcery Feng Shui," on how
to implement AD&D attack routines in FS.  Their solution is
similar to this, but that's based on a system where the default
defense is high, and you get flat bonuses out of spending for various
additional defenses.
Posted by BrianSniffen at Fri, 01 Jul 2005 22:36:30 -0400 X
===== FengShui-like Initiative =====
I started to post the whole shebang here, but think it should probably go to TickingInitiative instead.  Please do comment there!
Posted by BrianSniffen at Wed, 27 Jul 2005 16:43:44 -0400 X

HouseRules (last edited 2007-04-26 17:05:45 by BrianSniffen)