DV confusion

[cyl]

Honestly, I don't know why this rule exist.


Particularily around DV.


And the more I read about 2e, its system and the charms, the less I understand what was meant to be.


Limitating combination of magical bonuses makes no sense, since some cheaper and longer effects are more powerful than others shorter and more expensive ones.


I say: let the player raise their pool to astronomical levels with extreme combinations if they feel like it... they pay the cost anyway, and perfect defenses and unapplicable defenses still exist...


Outside combat... why would you want to prevent a player from maximizing his results, why block them from getting 10 suxx on a 5 diff roll and achieve legendary success over a legendary difficulty if they spent 25 motes on it ?

 

[Nemal]

Mostly to prevent Essence 4 characters from walking around with a DV of 24 and not needing a perfect defense for over 90% of the attacks they receive, I think?

 

[cyl]

Well, charms limitations makes it hard to raise more than a certain value lesser than 20.


Let's take an essence 4 character: dex 5 dodge 5 spe unarmored 3 essence 4 bracers 3


Base DDV 10


ESF activated 5 motes 1 simple action: +4 DV


Let's assume Infinite Dodge's on to the max with a 20 motes boost (+5DV for free when excellency is used) another simple action.


Add circumstantial bonuses like +1 height and other stuff like that.


You get a base DDV of 10 (reducible to 0 in case of unapplicable DDV) with +5 stable bonus to DV (ESF), a +5 depending on charm use (which prevents uses of perfect defense or other types of charm without a combo)... for 25 motes committed and 1W. (of course I could've used a lighting shield with the +3, but then the motes commited raises).


Perfect attacks still land, inapplicable DDV attacks are resolved like normal attacks (let's say solar's stupid enough to use an excellency for free his DV will be 5 + 5 + bonuses/penalties) I don't think that's broken at all.

 

[wordman]

As wordman said, every charm explicitely modifying DV (for example Ebon Shadow Form) violates this rule.

Actually, the rule I was talking about was the "charms that manipulate static values do it through the pool" rule.


And here I was trying to set up a trick question and Dominik spoils the fun. (Well done, sir.)


Cyl, you might want to look at this variation. It's based around bringing back the pool concept that almost certainly was the first draft of the 2E rules, before they abandoned the idea for direct DV manipulation and didn't clean up after themselves. In this early version, if you follow the logic of a defense pool where the average result is taken rather than rolled -- mathematically giving one success per two dice -- to get a number of 1E-like "defense successes" (i.e. points of DV), then you reach the idea that DV == successes. And charm alterations to successes are not capped in any version of Exalted. In this version (which is pretty clearly a radical departure from canon), there is a distinct difference between first and second excellency for defense, and you can just pump second excellency to get higher DV. I don't particularly like this variation, but some do.


Also, you think the limit on the solar example was harsh, think about how it works on your sidereal example, where they can only add Essence dice, which (depending on how you interpret the maze of DV rules) probably means that he can only add Essence/2 to DV. (Also, I can't find an 2E mention of the higher, solar level, dice caps that sidereals had for martial arts in 1E. Looks like they got rid of the idea. Might have to house rule that one back in.)

 

[Persell]

Of course the hardcap should apply to any and all instances of charms raising the DV. Otherwise Celestial Monkey Style would blow half the sidereal marital arts out of the water. Not to speak of someone who knows a couple of water dragon on top of that.


The system relies on the hardcap to remain working and not becoming one of ridiculously high numbers. On the other hand a lot of martial arts styles were obviously written when the writer had forgotten two things:


1. the hardcap rule


2. that there exist other styles that modify the DV


That together makes a huge mess out of the exalted martial arts styles.


In my games I usually ignore the hardcap as long as only a single charm is in the equation but when a player thinks about getting a second one then I plainly explain him that it breaks the combat system and ask him not to do it. There is really no satisfying solution to that problem.

 

[wordman]

your sidereal... can only add Essence/2 to DV.

This turns out to be incorrect, maybe. Rules on excellencies say a sidereal "cannot add more dice or bonus successes than her permanent Essence score" (exsi.126). Yes, this means that, mathematically speaking, the cap on the second allows twice the benefit compared to the first. All part of 2E's "hey, fuck the math" approach. As with the other capping rules, it's unclear if this is meant to be a generic rule or specific to excellencies. Given both its location and the fact that nothing other than 2nd excellency limits successes anywhere else, it's probably excellency specific.


Which leads back to the cap on DV in the main rules. Is this taken literally as always meaning the cap is half (ability + attribute), or does it imply half(normal dice cap)? The lunars book explicitly specifies that lunars work using the latter. The dragon-blooded book, like the sidereal book, doesn't say in a general sense, but uses the latter for second excellency. The former might be a better middle ground between the latter and no cap at all.


Another possibility would be to embrace the "fuck the math" and the "directly manipulate DV" concepts, and apply the full standard limit to DV, the way sidereal excellencies work. That is, cap DV enhancements from charms for solars at (ability + attribute) instead of half that. This essentially makes some things "twice as good" for defense, but a) that might be desirable and b) several things in the rules do this already (such as stunts).

 

[Flagg]

There's a cap on DV? How did I miss this?

 

[cyl]

Because it's lost somewhere in a book... 30 pages away from the DV mode of calculation, and 60 page away from the orders of modifiers... :evil:

Another possibility would be to embrace the "fuck the math" and the "directly manipulate DV" concepts, and apply the full standard limit to DV, the way sidereal excellencies work. That is, cap DV enhancements from charms for solars at (ability + attribute) instead of half that

I think it would be the best solution for a cap, otherwise it is too limitating and some charms reach the DV cap too easily at a lower cost and with longer duration than excellencies.
It "balances" the game and the level of powers of the exalts, without restraining them too much, except for the siddies, who are kinda screwed... I mean... +Essence cap is not very celestial-powered.

 

[Nemal]

I, for one, find that stuff in Exalted is hard enough to hit as it is and would rather keep the DV cap.

 

[cyl]

I, for one, find that stuff in Exalted is hard enough to hit as it is and would rather keep the DV cap.

Well considering a 9-15 average dicepool attacks, against a 5-8 average DV... with all the charms boosting attacks, all the penalties that regularily lower DV (onslaught, wound, action), I say the only advantage DV has if you cap it that low is the stunt.


Otherwise, you just rely on your perfect defense... but that has nothing to do with your DV.

 

[Persell]

There's a cap on DV? How did I miss this?

It is on page 185 of the core rulebook.

 

[cyl]

Charms Increasing DV Directly
Question: A large number of Charms say that they add to "DV." Do all of these Charms actually add directly to the DV, or to the pool used to calculate DV? Many Charms seem written as if they should increase the DV directly, even though the core rules say that Charms that "increase DV" should be considered to increase the pool.


Answer: These do increase the DV directly, yes. The reason it mentions the pool is in case the character is utilizing a Combo in which a Charm that directly increases DV is used alongside, say, an Excellency. So, for this purpose, a Charm that adds +3 to your Dodge DV is effectively adding six dice to your (Dexterity + Dodge) pool for the purpose of deriving DV. Because you can only double any pool with such effect, if you had a (Dexterity + Dodge) of 10, you could only add the equivalent of four more dice (or another effect with +2 DC) to the example above.

Ow what the hell

 

[wordman]

The tone of those errata answers fascinates me. Reading them, I get a distinct sense that the writers don't actually realize what a bad job they did of writing down what was in their head. They have a system in their head that makes perfect sense (and may actually be a good system) but don't seem to have a clue that a) that system isn't what they committed to print and b) what they did commit to print is a train wreck in a lot of places.


Many of those questions are like "does this work like (a - some reasonable interpretation of what is written down) or (b - some different, but still reasonable, interpretation of what is written down)" and the tone of the answer is sort of like "Well of course it is b. What the fuck is the matter with you?". When, all that 'is the matter" with the person asking is that they don't have telepathic access to the game designer's mind and have to resort to the pathetic expedient of reading what the designer actually wrote down.


By the way, re-reading this thread, I have to correct my advice from the beginning of "you have to make some shit up". The trick to dealing with DV is really "decide which rules to ignore". The problem with the stuff in the book isn't that rules are missing (mostly), its that they are overly abundant. The book seems to contain two similar but mathematically quite different systems at once and you have to filter out the bits from the one that you don't like.


Many people do this sort of automatically without realizing it (usually by not noticing certain rules). They firm an idea for the system in their head and stick to it. It makes perfect sense and is "justified by the rules", so don't get why other people bitch about it. But compare that with systems used by others, and you generally don't find much agreement. (And the differences are usually colored by who read what rule first.) From the responses from White Wolf, it looks like even John Chambers is doing this.


The issue isn't that you can't find a system that's justified by the rules, it's that you can find several, which is worse in a lot of ways.

 

[Decurion]

The tone of those errata answers fascinates me. Reading them, I get a distinct sense that the writers don't actually realize what a bad job they did of writing down what was in their head. They have a system in their head that makes perfect sense (and may actually be a good system) but don't seem to have a clue that a) that system isn't what they committed to print and b) what they did commit to print is a train wreck in a lot of places.
Many of those questions are like "does this work like (a - some reasonable interpretation of what is written down) or (b - some different, but still reasonable, interpretation of what is written down)" and the tone of the answer is sort of like "Well of course it is b. What the fuck is the matter with you?". When, all that 'is the matter" with the person asking is that they don't have telepathic access to the game designer's mind and have to resort to the pathetic expedient of reading what the designer actually wrote down.

I am not involved in the gaming industry, so I have to ask if there is a real editor.


I don't mean someone with the job-title of an editor, I mean someone who does what an editor does in a normal publishing house.


It's really common in any field for a writer producing a large complex product (novel, for instance) that went through numerous revisions to write passages that only make sense in context with a part that was cut, or to leave out vital details that the author knows as well as he knows the name of his children, but which he forgot to commit to print. So the editor enters the picture and reads the manuscripts and hopefully catches these things and tells the author to rewrite portions that don't make sense.


From what I've read of the way roleplaying games are developed, there does not seem to be such a person in the process--someone who approaches it with fresh eyes and no intimate association with the developmental process who reads the product and says, "Do you mean X or Y or what? Seriously?" Playtesters fill that role to a certain extent, but I don't know how extensively Exalted was playtested outside of the community of White Wolf employees prior to release, nor how well those playtesters are selected.

 

[Nemal]

I agree that the rules are badly written and contradictory at times.


One of the main problems I find when arguing rules with people is that this is taken as a reason to come up with things that actually arent' the rules' fault.


Say, one part of the manual says "A" and the other says "B", and "A" and "B" contradict each other. So you get people advocating "A" and others "B".


This is fine. Sometimes, someone will come along and say that the rules say "C" or that they don't say "A", and point at the contradiction as a reason. When this happens, it isn't a valid argument.


I don't know if it's the case here, because I haven't spend hours poring over each entry on DV the manual has... but yeah, at some point, you have to decide for one thing the manual says or another contradictory thing the manual -also- says.


And I still like dice caps! Nothing makes me want to go "Eh, screw it" and go play something else than when an opponent declares no Charm use on step 2 and his DV is still in the mid teens.

 

[Nemal]

I am not involved in the gaming industry, so I have to ask if there is a real editor.

There is. The problem seems to be mostly last-minute changes. Editorial runs are expensive, both money-wise and time-wise, so every time there's a change after an editorial run the temptation to make "just a little change" without triggering another one is huge, especially when deadlines are close.


Yes, they playtest. Yes, they edit. Just not enough for the more demanding standards of experienced roleplayers.

 

[wordman]

Seems like there are three types of editing that matter in RPG products.

1. Copy editing. Making sure stuff is spelled correctly, tense agrees, etc. Making sure the layout is correct, that columns line up and so on. Making sure page references make sense, etc. Compared to the rest of the RPG industry, Exalted does pretty well with this kind of stuff. Really. That may be more of a statement at how bad the rest of the industry does it.
   
2. Continuity editing. Making sure that setting remains consistent, that references to something don't contradict each other and so on. Compared to the industry, Exalted gets a middling grade here. Their setting is a lot more vast than most and is largely consistent, but there are numerous nit-picky issues and occasional large fumbles.
   
3. Technical editing. Making sure rules say what you think they should say, that they agree with each other, etc. Second Edition is much worse at this than First was and, in general, Exalted has problems here, largely because there are so many charms.

 

[cyl]

Wow... Now I'm glad I asked the question.


Now that we know the main problem is "you have to throw some shit away", the big question is... which shit has to go away ?


I think we have 2 distinct problems:


1/ the order of modifiers and the step when charms kick in, 2/the dicepool/DV cap.


The order of modifiers : there are 2 seperate systems, one for standard and attack rolls (p.124), and another for DV calculation (p.145-148). This should not be.


The general system is: (attribute+ability+specialty) +(non magical bonuses- non magical penalties) + (magical bonuses - magical penalties) + bonus success = total dicepool


The DV calculation system is: [(attribute+ability+specialty)/2] + [(sum of magical and non magical bonuses) - (sum of magical and non magical penalties)]= total DV


In fact, there is no reason why this distinction exists.


Everything should work on the same level because in the end, as the developper said: "Charm that adds +3 to your Dodge DV is effectively adding six dice to your (Dexterity + Dodge) pool for the purpose of deriving DV."


If it is the dicepool that is affected... then why the hell did they come up with 2 systems ???


My guess is... one should apply, the other be thrown away, and I think it should be the actual DV calculation system that has to go away.


Mainly because magical bonuses/penalties work the same way than they do with the general system while SOME (not all) non magical bonuses/penalties do not.


It might seem "interesting at first, but considering penalties are more numerous and more "permanent" than bonuses in the non magical department... it really is not.


I think the best thing to do would be to erase this creepy DV calculation system, and to calculate a regular pool (applying the penalties as with the general system).


Now, second phase: the DV cap.


There... everyone has to choose.


As wordman said, there are people who skipped that part, and other who didn't.


I did, and will not apply it, mainly because it's too limitating for the game... the only real impact the cap has, is to force players to seek the cheapest and shortest way to achieve the longer and most powerful effect (in the case of DDV, surely Ebon Shadow Form).


But it makes sense other guys want to apply it to keep things under control.

 

[Jeppe]

If you use the charm above mentionned (PDV x2) there are various possible consequences depending on the interpretation:
- PDV x2 applies to base PDV: so my base PDV will be 16, and my final PDV will be 16+1+1-2-1: 15


- PDV x 2 applies as a bonus during calculation of final DV: my base PDV is 8, and my final PDV will be (8+1+1)x2-2-1: 17


- PDV x 2 applies at the final stage of calculating final DV: my base PDV is 8 and my final PDV will be (8+1+1-2-1)x2: 14

In this case, I'd rule that the wound penalties and the sickness are internal penalties, and thus must be subtracted from the dice pool, and that the shield and the high ground are external bonuses and should be added after (DV pool)/2 and before DV x 2. Note that this is subjective ruling.


I kinda liked the way they put up internal and external modifiers (Core, p. 121). Simple, easy to remember. But WW seems to have forgotten they came up with this simple rule, because later supplements tend to not correctly label internal modifiers as dice and external modifiers as successes.


In general I go with adding and subtracting all modifiers, and then dividing or multiplying that result. Simple and easy to remember. Again, this is just how I do things.

 

[cyl]

I kinda liked the way they put up internal and external modifiers (Core, p. 121). Simple, easy to remember. But WW seems to have forgotten they came up with this simple rule, because later supplements tend to not correctly label internal modifiers as dice and external modifiers as successes.

Yeah and when people started asking question, they were like: "how did you miss something like "adding to your DV does not add to your DV, but actually to your pool" where the fuck did you go to school people ?!"