Stacking artifacts and hearthstones

[The Dark Wizard]

Didn't FafL have some scene-length charm where he just straight up murders everything without perfect defenses? I remember seeing him in, umm.... first edition alchemicals or something, and ALL OF MY NOPE.

In my games, the deathlords formidable but they are not ridiculous OP machines of death. Because I personally believe that is retarded, because they have charms and powers that would let them take entire cities in a day, they should have killed all of creation by now.

 

[Tabby]

To be fair, FaFL IS pretty much an unstoppable engine of facemurdering! But yeah, some of those charms are just... ridiculous. There's amazingly powerful or even overpowered (though this IS Exalted so "overpowered" is a transitory joke at worst), and then you get into "the ONLY reason he hasn't singlehandedly destroyed a cardinal direction is because... umm... because... he didn't feel like walking all that way? And it's a tuesday, and he just hates tuesdays."


I really do like the Underworld/Deathlord stuff, though, even if deathknights are (to me) the most boring and uninspired exalt types - you get this sense of how their infighting cripples them more than anything else, and I like how incredibly flawed the Deathlords are, even as ex-Solars who still retain all of their brilliance and more.

 

[Incendius]

...Which is not what anyone said. Orihalcum material bonuses being totally negated by any of the 1-3 dot stuff that adds an accuracy dot or two, or if you want to get to minmaxing stuff more like perfected kata bracers/7LDS, is a/the problem depending on how you define it. If there was maybe a cap of [essence] accuracy from equipment and it could be hit however, that would be fine, but having orihalcum's biggest bonus be totally negated just because you have one similar-but-not-identical bit of equipment seems dumb. Again, I'm not suggesting that multiple 7LDS should stack.

The thing that should to be considered here is that the system needs to be as clear as possible as to what it does or does not allow, so that there is a minimum of ST judgement needed, and so that the system can facilitate play as easily as possible. They made the rule to eliminate the possibility of problems arising from stacking bonuses, so that the baseline doesn't allow for unforeseen broken consequences. It also makes it easier for the developers to create new things, as they don't need to consider how everything stacks. Exalted is already a pretty bad system mechanically, and the point of the 2.5 errata was to try to fix some of the most gregarious errors


However, Rule 0 exists for a reason, and it is this exact situation. If you and your ST (or the reverse) want this to stack and think it is balanced... then go ahead and change it, but be aware that you ARE changing it.

I'm not... really interested in touching on your admission of min/maxing and having all your character concepts revolving around being superperfect at something, so I'm just going to end this shortly. I don't think we're going to see eye to eye there, which isn't necessarily a bad thing because it takes all kinds to make a world, but I just don't think we're going to be able to convince each other than our extremely-subjective opinions are "wrong."

I just want to comment here my characters are not superperfect. I put a very large amount of thought into my characters background, personality, and capabilities. I give them faults, and I make them people. However, I play Exalted because the foundation of the system is about playing an epic and larger than life Hero who accomplishes tremendous deeds. Being mechanically powerful allows that kind of story.

@Thorn: oh I definitely think that ALL artifacts should have a story behind them. Finding any artifact should be a bit of an adventure, otherwise you just devalue them all.

I agree here. I try to make histories for my artifacts.

[QUOTE="Lord Kamina]Bringing "characters" the size of FaFL to any discussion about mechanics is automatically a hyperbole. In 99% of games, those characters are the endgame (if even that.)

[/QUOTE]
This may apply to the games you are running in, but it doesn't apply to all of them. We even have a game on the forum right now (Rushing Towards A New Age) whose entire premise is that the characters are going to become world-shakingly powerful Exalts, and actually be able to accomplish their insanely epic motivations. Heck, we encountered Ma-Ha-Suchi in the very first session (though admittedly, the ST wasn't intending us to).


One of the premises of Exalted is that your characters DO matter. That the world is doomed without them, and that the PCs are the ones who are supposed to save the world. Here is a quote of the head developer of the line, and I'll find more if you want.

Tell that to the original conception of the Age of Sorrows. "Everyone points fingers and jockeys for position until the sky caves in" and etc.

That is the default ending of the Age of Sorrows is PCs do not intervene. It is not inevitable.

The point being that the gameline needs to address all possible games in the system. You may never find yourself in a chronicle where it matters (Which is fine!), but other people will and the game has to cater to them as well.

And you're basically argumenting that if you have a masterfully-crafted blade and then through an enchantment; become an impossibly competent swordsman, your blade is now not as good.


That makes no thematic sense whatsoever.

Um, I agree. A sword/exceptional sword/no magical material daiklave has inherent stats, that don't count as equipment bonuses. If you enchant your exceptional sword further, it gets better, because now it has magic supporting it. A grand daiklave hits hard because it is a 300 pound slab of metal, its magic allows a person to wield it without breaking their arms.

But then again, what do I know? I'm the kind of guy who never even considered having a "Paranoia combo.", back when that was still a thing.

None of my current characters have perfect defenses. That is almost entirely because 2.5 fixed a lot of the issues with the system and made it possible to play without a full paranoia combo, which I think is a lot more fun.

 

[Thorn Darkblade]

Now, as someone who is explicitly planning multiple endgame fights (ED, various deathlords, and the ED again in Neverborn form, at various points through the game), this is why I am explicitly in favor of stacking bonuses, once again, as long as they are UNIQUE in their application. A +3 to Melee because it gives you an unnatural sense of your opponent's defenses is not the same as a +2 because your blade is made unnaturally swift and light. A +2 swiftness plus a +3 swiftness wouldn't fly with me, but, those two differing examples would.

 

[Incendius]

I'm with you from a 'Makes Sense' standpoint on that, but the problem I have with it is again, balancing (which if you don't care much about it, is not a problem).


Though the question becomes: why aren't the Deathlords and company getting the same bonuses? I mean, if the artifacts exist in game and aren't special dispensations for the PCs (which they may be), the antagonists have a much better infrastructure to rely on and have been around for considerably longer, so they should already be fully kitted out with them.


A sidenote though; If you haven't got it yet, Compass: Autocthonia has a writeup for a 3CD/Deathlord equivalent named The Viator of Nullspace, if you are looking for inspiration at all. The authors of the book have said he is their test run for how to stat high level antagonists without resorting to "Has all Solar charms/can channel their Yozi's charms".

 

[Ker'ion]

[QUOTE="Lord Kamina]What you're saying makes virtually no sense.
We're here advocating for a judicious use of the ruling and you're trying to sway us with hyperbolic arguments.

[/QUOTE]
Actually, from a psychological standpoint, what Incendius is saying makes perfect sense if you consider his side of the argument.


Allowing someone to have a higher dice pool because they spent more time or points into that area shouldn't be allowed because a min-maxed fighter with maximum stats can be upstaged by someone with a lower Dexterity + Melee or MA pool but a good blade and hearthstone combo.


Whatever reasoning is needed to justify this position is warranted because there is only one correct final decision and it doesn't matter how the rules are written, it matters how the rules should be interpreted to keep this from happening.


It's classic either-or logic.

 

[Tabby]

[QUOTE="Ker'ion]Allowing someone to have a higher dice pool because they spent more time or points into that area shouldn't be allowed

[/QUOTE]
Did you even read through that before posting?


I mean I can empathize with the pursuit of balance, but... yeah. that just came out woefully wrong. Not gonna argue for or against the rest of your post, I think it's pretty clear that neither party is going to be able to convince the other here regardless of how many "obviously..." posts anyone makes or how much hyperbole is utilized, but wording is important!

 

[Incendius]

I'm getting the impression that you think that my sole focus in life is mechanics and that I cannot acknowledge arguments based on any other factor. If this assumption is wrong, please forgive me, but...


If I only cared about mechanics I wouldn't write a 4000 page backstory in the form of a play, just because my character is an actor.


I wouldn't spend two evenings compiling a picture-based history to cement my character's themes.


I wouldn't have my character take the extraordinarily stupid action of assaulting the relative of the most powerful figure in the region, just because it fit her personality to do so.


And y'now the reason I like having powerful characters in the first place? Its not for the mechanics; it is so I can write two back to back 3 die stunts and have my character be awesome. Like Hercules, or Odysseus, or Achilles; the legends that represent are the basic conception of heroism that Exalted harkens back to.


So maybe you shouldn't be so quick to abandon the discussion, just because you saw the danger word of "Min-Max".

 

[Ker'ion]

A... 9... page background, plus a picture based history?


I'm guessing the issue isn't a "min-max" problem, but is more of a control issue.


Perhaps you need something else to hyperfocus on for a while...


Maybe you should take a breather from game.


Seriously.

Did you even read through that before posting?

I read that through after staying up way too late, so no. I can't reliably say I consciously read it through.

 

[Thorn Darkblade]

[QUOTE="Ker'ion]Allowing someone to have a higher dice pool because they spent more time or points into that area shouldn't be allowed because a min-maxed fighter with maximum stats can be upstaged by someone with a lower Dexterity + Melee or MA pool but a good blade and hearthstone combo.

[/QUOTE]
I get what you're saying, but, I disagree with this one...I see no reason someone can't even the playing field with toys. Take an enlightened-smith-gone-Solar, he's decided with his crafting skills, he's no longer going to be the wimp he once was, fine tuning artifacts and weaponry to make himself a deadly warrior. Why should this be any less valid a character than the natural born fighter? It's two paths to a different end, in my opinion, and, I'm all about having multiple options

 

[Ker'ion]

[QUOTE="Thorn Darkblade]I get what you're saying, but, I disagree with this one...I see no reason someone can't even the playing field with toys.

[/QUOTE]Then you didn't get what I was saying.
My point was that one person not wanting someone else to be able to even the playing field because they didn't specialize in whichever area you want to try to claim is absurd and juvenile.


Dragging someone else down because you can't be a better person is a poor trait to have.


It makes me angry.

 

[Incendius]

Edit: Not worth it.

[QUOTE="Thorn Darkblade]I get what you're saying, but, I disagree with this one...I see no reason someone can't even the playing field with toys. Take an enlightened-smith-gone-Solar, he's decided with his crafting skills, he's no longer going to be the wimp he once was, fine tuning artifacts and weaponry to make himself a deadly warrior. Why should this be any less valid a character than the natural born fighter? It's two paths to a different end, in my opinion, and, I'm all about having multiple options

[/QUOTE]
The thing is, you can even the playing field without stacking bonuses, and in a much more fun way. Artifacts emulate charms at the Solar tier, and the rule says absolutely nothing about how many artifacts you can attune to or use. If you want targeting systems, why not make have them do things like eliminate External penalties, do undodgeable attacks, or replace your archery score with your lore score when fueled with motes? That is just an example, but I'm sure you can think of a bunch more. Nothing prevents artifacts from doing the work of charms.


Edit: Essentially, stackable accuracy bonuses in charm design are very rare; so much so that I can only think of one offhand (the anima boosting charm for Dawn's in Glories). If it isn't valid charm design space, it shouldn't be valid Artifact design space.


What the rule does prevent, is pointless stacking. Exalted is not D&D, the developers do not want it to be, and they make every effort to move away from D&D when they can. It is the same reason that sorcery works a la Conan instead of Vancian casting.


Furthermore, the story of Exalted is the story about the character. The character may have many items of power to help them, but the items of power don't substitute for actual skill; they supplement it. I mean just look at Exalted's inspirations; here is the first paragraph of the core book.

So' date=' you’ve picked this game up and you’re wondering what makes Exalted different from any other fantasy roleplaying games on the market? First, there are its influences. Almost every fantasy game can directly trace itself back to that monolith of 20th-century fantasy, J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings. Exalted, however, draws its inspiration from Western and Eastern sources both older and more recent. The first major influence are the ancient epics of the West and the East: The Ramayana, The Iliad, Journey to the West, The Arabian Nights, et cetera. All feature larger-than-life heroes capable of laying waste to nations and challenging the might of the gods themselves. The second source is pulp fiction. This genre includes the pre-Tolkien fantasy produced by Edgar Rice Burroughs, Robert E. Howard and Fritz Leiber, which birthed Tarzan, Conan, Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser. The final sources of inspiration for Exalted are Asia’s over-the-top manga, anime, video games and wuxia films, which have only recently found a large American following. More than the rest, it is this last source that differentiates Exalted from its competitors.[/quote']
Many of these feature items of power, but those items would have been useless if the character wasn't already capable in their field. They are part of the legend; not the source of it.


Edit: Also, since I am quoting the core book anyway, here is a quote pertaining to how powerful starting characters should be. It is the second paragraph.

The second way Exalted is different from other roleplaying games is in the power levels involved. In most games, a player’s “heroic” character starts out as a complete wuss. He’s lucky if he owns a rusty dagger and a loincloth, and he’s possessed of all the fighting prowess of an asthmatic schoolboy. Exalted is different. Exalted characters begin the game as bad-asses—reborn heroes of old wielding powerful magic and weapons so massive mere mortals can’t even lift them. These heroes are easily capable of challenging armies in combat and prevailing.