2e Core book - template 'Defense'

[Moonsilver]

In 2e Core book starting p.279 various character templates are shown. They list a value called “Defenseâ€

 

[Flagg]

Check the errata. Many of those templates are fucked up.

 

[Moonsilver]

I have applied the errata. That only adjusted Dodge DV.

 

[Laundreu]

If you divide by two, it looks like it's the proper Parry DV.

 

[Moonsilver]

Yes it seems to be:


Dex + (Melee or Martial Arts) + Def bonus of weapon = “defenseâ€

 

[fhgwdads05]

Yes it seems to be:
Dex + (Melee or Martial Arts) + Def bonus of weapon = “defenseâ€

 

[Arthur]

One of the worst sections on 2e book is templates one. Full of 1e stuff. The weapons section is full of errors.


I'm unculturedg, that thing on your avatar is a Owlbbit or a Rabbowl?

 

[Flagg]

I don't really know.

 

[Moonsilver]

The first templates are for extras, so it is round down, but I should have made that clear.


I thought wound penalties were subracted from Defence values directly?

 

[Flagg]

I thought wound penalties were subracted from Defence values directly?

They are.

 

[Persell]

And yes, I believe they have that for situations in which your pools are altered, for example Wound Penalties.  When you've checked off your first -1 Health level, correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that the -1 Wound Penalty applies to your Defense Pool, not directly on your PDV.  A -2 Wound Penalty would also do the same, but at the same for simplicity's sake you could just subtract -1 from your DV's.

I thought wound penalties were subracted from Defence values directly?

They are

Hurray! Another exciting episode of "As the Fucked Static Value System Turns!" Don't you just love when something that is supposed to make the game easier just makes things more complicated?

 

[Flagg]

If anything, subtracting directly from DV is LESS complicated than subtracting from your defense pool and then dividing and rounding it off. What's your gripe, exactly?

 

[Persell]

Not a gripe really, just that the whole Static DV system is a bit wonky. Is it a dice pool or a hard number? WW isn't consistent on how its used and modified. I've seen this same question asked about Wound Penalties and DVs alot. So obviously there's something about the system that isn't as straight forward and time saving as the authors intended.

 

[Flagg]

It's pretty clearly stated in the book that wound penalties are subtracted directly.

 

[Persell]

Never the less, it still comes up alot. And there's still the confusion about how certain charms work with it. Wordman considered it enough of a headache to have an entire 3-4 page entry in the unofficial Wiki on the subject.

 

[Flagg]

Not to be a jerk, but I think Wordman sometimes misses the forest for the trees by being too strictly literal in his interpretations. It creates "confusion" where a little common sense and reasoning would suffice.

 

[Arthur]

You know how are the bots...

 

[Praedoran]

However


However,


Having a static defense does work in favor of survival.  I've played enough systems to know that when one has to roll their defense, it will statistically works in favor of the attacker (swing enough times against even the best defense, they will fall).  Now that it's static and rounded up, people don't die quite so easily.


It is a pain though to remember that wound penalties are exceptions to various rules and applied differently, but it shouldn't be that big of a problem.

 

[wordman]

Not to be a jerk, but I think Wordman sometimes misses the forest for the trees by being too strictly literal in his interpretations. It creates "confusion" where a little common sense and reasoning would suffice.

That's a valid criticism, but less so in this particular case, I think. The book flat out contradicts itself regarding defense. It's also organized such that where common sense leads you is highly dependent on which section of the book you read first or take as correct.


What I initially was trying to accomplish with that page was to give some concrete examples of how DV worked in various situations, from simple to more and more complex. This turned out to be impossible, because you were forced to make house rule choices that would vary between campaigns. That's easy to do if all you care about is your own campaign; it sucks when trying to have rules discussions. In any case, the page mutated into more of a "what in the hell is White Wolf doing" page than useful examples. It's companion page is more useful, but still doesn't really give examples.


As for the general forest for the trees issue, I probably give the impression of caring way more about literal interpretations than I actually do in my actual games. There is a big difference (bigger in Exalted than most games) between 1) what the rules actually say, 2) what the rules intend and 3) what I actually do with them. I think its important to know #1 before moving on to #3. I learned the hard way that not doing this can lead to needlessly reworking systems because I didn't like what they weren't really doing anyway. In any case, I post a lot about #1, a bit less about #2, and almost nothing on #3. To me, why would anyone give a shit about what I do for #3? #1 and #2, however, are more relevant for general discussion groups like this one, as they can influence everyone to their own #3.

 

[wordman]

Re: However

when one has to roll their defense, it will statistically works in favor of the attacker (swing enough times against even the best defense, they will fall).  Now that it's static and rounded up, people don't die quite so easily.

In the extreme case, the attacker still has the advantage in canonical Exalted, though not for the same reason. Even though the 2nd Excellency has an upper bound on how many successes can be purchased, this is not a general restriction, so successes from other sources (e.g. martial arts or melee charms) stack for attacks, theoretically infinitely. DV, on the other hand, does have a generic upper bound on improvements from all charms. This is, however, more of a theoretical mathematical advantage, rather than a practical one.

 

[Yakumo]

Hurray! Another exciting episode of "As the Fucked Static Value System Turns!" Don't you just love when something that is supposed to make the game easier just makes things more complicated?

Since this thread was resurrected...


Though I agree penatlies straight off DV is easier, having templates that used 1E terminology was confusing.  Even granting that it ultimately helps to have the score for recalculation, them templates cause confusion.