Does Combat work without Charms?

[Kyeudo]

I've been musing about the combat system for a long time and I can't seem to shake this feeling that without Charms, Exalted combat would devolve into a coin flip between similarly skilled combatants.


Without DV boosting effects and because of defensive stunts and the primacy of defense, any single attack has less than a 50% chance to get through your opponent's defense, so it comes down to who gets lucky first, as DVs and attack pools both start to fall once someone gets a wound penalty.


A flurry can impose large enough penalties to get through practically any defense. However, the DV penalty from any large flurry is enough to ensure that your opponent gets through your defense, especially if he uses a flurry as well. So, if you don't hurt him with your flurry, he will hurt you.


So, either you wait around and hope to get lucky first or you gamble it all and things come to an end quickly, one way or another. Unless someone has some sort of tactical advantage (range, cover, or whatever), you end up flipping a coin. From a mechanical standpoint, it doesn't sound like much fun.

 

[Ledaal Kajiri]

Even without charm use you have difference in weapon and armor choice, willpower expenditures on virtues, Aim, Guard and Defend Another actions...there's still a number of tactical choices one can make. And, well. What's so bad about equal opponents being equal? That's...pretty much entirely reasonable. You want to do something cool to make things end quicker? Stunt, stunt, stunt. That's the purpose of stunts. I fail to see how two similarly skilled, similarly armed opponents shouldn't have equal opportunities for success. Why would it be otherwise?

 

[Kyeudo]

Even without charm use you have difference in weapon and armor choice' date=' willpower expenditures on virtues, Aim, Guard and Defend Another actions...there's still a number of tactical choices one can make. And, well. What's so bad about equal opponents being equal? That's...pretty much entirely reasonable. You want to do something cool to make things end quicker? Stunt, stunt, stunt. That's the purpose of stunts. I fail to see how two similarly skilled, similarly armed opponents shouldn't have equal opportunities for success. Why would it be otherwise?[/quote']
It's just their tactics will boil down to "Attack and stunt as hard as I can." If you are seriously pressed to win (like you have no perfect defense waiting in the wings to save your bacon) you don't pull out anything that causes a significant penalty to your chances of success. What incentive is there to do more than stand in one place and trade blows with varying degrees of fluff attached?

 

[MorkaisChosen]

That's one way to look at it, but that's segregating fluff and crucnh in a way that I think the stunt mechanic was designed to avoid. Yes, "I hit him" and "Using the momentum from dodging his attack, I throw myself into a backflip, my feet landing momentarily on the wall, before springing upwards into an arcing leap to bring my sword crashing down on his head" are the same manoeuvre apart from a one- or two-die stunt bonus, but that's not the point.


If I was STing, I'd tend to give higher stunt awards to anything that builds off the opponent's stunting- so if one guy's using a lot of unsubtle, heavy, sweeping slashes, you'll be better off saying stuff about deflecting his attacks and dodging round his guard. That takes some of the emphasis off thinking of the most effective strategy under the mechanics and onto what'd be the most effective strategy in an actual fight with swords.

 

[Fabricati]

Objective. Objective, objective, objective!


People always forget that you're generally not trying to fight just to kill the other guy, you're fighting the other guy to achieve some thing you could not otherwise. If you're a guard, your job isn't "Kill all thieves" it's "Protect this MacGuffin". If you can drive the thief off without worrying about combat, so much the better.


The thief is in a similar position- his first priority is "Don't get caught" and "Don't die". Killing the guard is one method. Leaving the MacGuffin for another night is just as well.


Many people in Creation might just decide to leave after getting hit the first time.


Besides, among two equal characters, the chances of victory should be about even, a matter of stunt and description just as much as mechanics. That's why they're, you know, equal.

 

[Andoriol]

Also note, you're saying without charms, this means we're talking about mortals or somethin' real damn close.


What you described in your first post is exactly how combat goes between two people who actually know how to fight. Fights between two people who actually know what they're doing aren't decided by who's better at offense, they're decided by who screws up first. (Unless you've got guns, then luck comes far more into play)


You're complaining that you don't have many mechanical options... um, put a sword into your hand and make you fight someone else with a sword, are you gonna run up that beam, flip in the air, and bring down your sword on his head?


Probably not.


You're gonna probably wait until he messes up and then go in for the kill, even if you don't actually kill him in the first go, you've wounded him and his odds of winning have suddenly dropped steeply.


Exalted is mostly built around it's charm system, and without those, it doesn't cover each person's individual style or teeny tiny choices in combat that would make or break it for real people, it covers that reasonably well with the stunt mechanic.


You're essentially complaining (not unreasonably) that the system isn't built for fights between mortals... 'cause it's kinda not.

 

[Kyeudo]

Actually, I'm running into the problem with Exalts, its just the problem most shows up more clearly when you take away the magic tricks.


My players, unless given some reason not to, just stand in place once a fight starts and trade blows. Oh, they stunt it differently and some of those are fairly awesome, but there's no action. No one's moving around and backflipping off walls or swinging on chandeliers, no one's ducking behind the scenery or making it into an impromtu weapon. What little change-up I do see in my games is only there because they've got perfect defenses at the ready for when they fail.

 

[Persell]

That sounds more like a problem with your players, not the system. My players are constantly running, jumping, vaulting, sliding and rolling around the scene. Yes, some of the players are more mobile, in terms of how they stunt things, than others, but they all tend to have some amount of movement. Its been my experience that if I set the scene properly, they tend to go crazy.

 

[Gylthinel]

It seems like a fight between two equally skilled individuals should be a 50/50 fight. After all, if you can do something to tilt the odds... so can they.


There are tons of combat options, TONS. Paired with stunts, and you have a very fertile environment for action. Especially if you allow stunts to grant actions, like they did in 1E. If your players don't stunt, then that's their fault, not the game's. Though, reliance on PDs IS the game's fault.


My question would be: does combat work WITH charms?

 

[Jukashi]

My players, unless given some reason not to, just stand in place once a fight starts and trade blows. Oh, they stunt it differently and some of those are fairly awesome, but there's no action. No one's moving around and backflipping off walls or swinging on chandeliers, no one's ducking behind the scenery or making it into an impromtu weapon. What little change-up I do see in my games is only there because they've got perfect defenses at the ready for when they fail.

Maybe you should set up fights where they have to move around. Slowly collapsing towers and such. Active-but-broken factory-cathedrals with conveyor belts. You know?

 

[Kyeudo]

Maybe you should set up fights where they have to move around. Slowly collapsing towers and such. Active-but-broken factory-cathedrals with conveyor belts. You know?

That's a little hard to pull off all the time. What do you do when the plot calls for solid ground?

 

[Persell]

That's a little hard to pull off all the time. What do you do when the plot calls for solid ground?

One scene had my players rushing to stop a necromantic ritual in an underground cave. The cave was nearly featureless, save for a raised dias in the center that a circle of necomancers were chanting away on. My players still came up with all sorts of crazy stuff. One ran up the wall of the cavern and began knocking lose stalactites from the ceiling, which another character then caught with a dire chain and used as giant missiles. Another simply decided there were at least some small rock formations to use as launching points, or cover. Two other cooperated, performing a modified fast ball special and mowing through enemies.


And that's just one example. Encourage your players to be inventive and reward them for it. Its worked for me with two different groups of players.

 

[Kyeudo]

I've been giving them two and three stunt dice whenever I think they did something good, but I still get stunts that spend more time discribing how they swing a sword than actually doing anything.

 

[cyl]

Well the combat system works fine... for mortals, there are tactical choices formed around actions, weapon and armor of choice...


When you're talking about superpowered beings with powers that can eat souls or can cut through the fabric of the world and open a portal into another dimesion... well not that much anymore.


The problem is not the system in itself, it's how the players & ST use it and of course, escalation... when a player thinks attack, he usually intends to kill his target, same goes for the ST (which usually tries to compensate the power of his players and make them sweat a bit).


So it usually comes down to hit first, hit hard, and attack to kill... or hit and kill involuntarily because your weapon / attack is too powerful.


A player choosing a grand klave has to know what he's doing... when he will swing his blade, people will die, and his reputation will become that of a slayer of men.


If you keep things proportionated, things run much smoother.


Exalts don't need acc pool of 15...

 

[Joe_Mello]

I still get stunts that spend more time describing how they swing a sword than actually doing anything.

Then stop awarding stunt dice. Make your PC's actually do things for the bonus. There's little reason to be unable to start a 2-move flurry at full dice pool. If they complain, then encourage them to actually do something other than just swing their mighty sword. If they can't handle that and everybody's frustrated, yourself included, maybe you should try 4th edition D&D.


(Aside: In a future Age game, one of our party uses dual pistols, but has trouble thinking up charms. We all (including the ST) recommended Equilibrirum and Devil May Cry,et al and whenever we watch something with badass gunplay, we jokingly tell her to take notes. She's getting better.)

 

[MorkaisChosen]

I've been giving them two and three stunt dice whenever I think they did something good, but I still get stunts that spend more time discribing how they swing a sword than actually doing anything.

To my eyes, that doesn't always hve to be a bad thing. In a fight between two swordmen, there's going to be a certain amount of the tactics in what cuts you use, and encouraging people to build off what their opponent's doing should work. This is, of course, just my view.


The other possibility is stuff like disarming and called shots- they're no worse for DV than other attacks, and getting rid of your opponent's weapon can give the opening you need to get in that vital first hit. It might work to have an opponent use that on the PCs, so they go "ARGH, that's NASTY," and promptly try it themselves.

 

[Gylthinel]

The other possibility is stuff like disarming and called shots- they're no worse for DV than other attacks, and getting rid of your opponent's weapon can give the opening you need to get in that vital first hit. It might work to have an opponent use that on the PCs, so they go "ARGH, that's NASTY," and promptly try it themselves.

Disarming is impossible if you're skill levels are anywhere near the same. A Solar can disarm an untrained peasant... that's about it.

If they can't handle that and everybody's frustrated' date=' yourself included, maybe you should try 4th edition D&D.[/quote'] Isn't it taboo to mention that game here?

 

[MorkaisChosen]

The other possibility is stuff like disarming and called shots- they're no worse for DV than other attacks, and getting rid of your opponent's weapon can give the opening you need to get in that vital first hit. It might work to have an opponent use that on the PCs, so they go "ARGH, that's NASTY," and promptly try it themselves.

Disarming is impossible if you're skill levels are anywhere near the same. A Solar can disarm an untrained peasant... that's about it.

Ah.


...


PITIFUL NEWBIE STANCE!


What about called shots?

 

[Kyeudo]

What about called shots?

Only Fierce Blows offers any benefits from any of the called shots.

 

[MorkaisChosen]

What about called shots?

Only Fierce Blows offers any benefits from any of the called shots.

Right, and that's no good, it just means you're less likely to get that first hit in.

 

[josiah42]

Disarming is impossible if you're skill levels are anywhere near the same. A Solar can disarm an untrained peasant... that's about it.

Wait, what? *pulls out Core book*


Ok, you need to beat their DV +2 successes on top of that... that's doable. Ah ok, defender must roll Wits+ability versus the net successes on the attack roll. So you're thinking that if they negate all my successes with that second roll then the disarm doesn't count? I can see that, but on the next line it references that roll for how far the weapon flies, not disarm success/failure. I figured that meant that they weapon falls at their feet. That means they have no parry DV until their next action when the have to flurry a Ready Weapon + attack roll. I'd say disarming is very useful. Also, experienced players get good at stacking DV penalties, so beating a DV+2 on an equal character isn't that hard. But my group may be slanted +accuracy -damage.

 

[Gylthinel]

Disarming is impossible if you're skill levels are anywhere near the same. A Solar can disarm an untrained peasant... that's about it.

Wait, what? *pulls out Core book*


Ok, you need to beat their DV +2 successes on top of that... that's doable. Ah ok, defender must roll Wits+ability versus the net successes on the attack roll. So you're thinking that if they negate all my successes with that second roll then the disarm doesn't count? I can see that, but on the next line it references that roll for how far the weapon flies, not disarm success/failure. I figured that meant that they weapon falls at their feet. That means they have no parry DV until their next action when the have to flurry a Ready Weapon + attack roll. I'd say disarming is very useful. Also, experienced players get good at stacking DV penalties, so beating a DV+2 on an equal character isn't that hard. But my group may be slanted +accuracy -damage.

It is my understanding that you're doing it incorrectly. If their wits + ability beats your net successes, your disarm fails.


Meaning, you have to make a roll and beat their dexterity + ability + essence or weapon defense + wits + ability, +2 successes, to disarm them. Not gonna happen against anybody who has half an ass.

 

[Kyeudo]

It is my understanding that you're doing it incorrectly. If their wits + ability beats your net successes, your disarm fails.


Meaning, you have to make a roll and beat their dexterity + ability + essence or weapon defense + wits + ability, +2 successes, to disarm them. Not gonna happen against anybody who has half an ass.

Which brings it back around to my original point. Two evenly matched combatants going mano-e-mano against each other have two options: Flurry or Don't Flurry. They both will be stunting as hard as they can on everything they can so, assuming one is not extremely more creative than the other, stunt bonuses will largely cancel out. First one to roll really high wins, first one to miss with a flurry loses.

 

[vegetalss4]

I thougth, DVs didn't count for the purpose of net sucesses?


as a part of it not really being an external penelity?

 

[Gylthinel]

I thougth, DVs didn't count for the purpose of net sucesses?
as a part of it not really being an external penelity?

You could look at an attack roll this way. You roll your attack, reduce your successes by your DV, and then compare what's left to the difficult of the attack roll (1). The remainder is then your net successes, which will be rather small and easily defeated by a wits + ability roll.


I've actually modified disarming in my list of house rules.

Which brings it back around to my original point. Two evenly matched combatants going mano-e-mano against each other have two options: Flurry or Don't Flurry. They both will be stunting as hard as they can on everything they can so, assuming one is not extremely more creative than the other, stunt bonuses will largely cancel out. First one to roll really high wins, first one to miss with a flurry loses.

Stunting is not the only strategy in the game (in fact, my GM replaces strategy with stunts and it pisses me off). You can take high ground (that's a big one). You can aim. Or you can guard, and time your attacks specifically to manipulate the tick system to your advantage. I.e. if you have a speed 4 weapon, and they have a speed 5 weapon, use that to your advantage. Back your foe into a corner to give him a penalty to his dodge. Re-establish surprise. Strike, then use your movement speed to retreat as your foe comes after you. Grapple (God help us). Channel virtues. You have options. In fact, my players tend to get MORE creative when they don't have their powerful charms to fall back on.


If you play some other RPG (say, DND), and you strip away it's exception based stuff (say, spells and feats), you don't have too many options either.