PDA

View Full Version : Exalted: Second Edition



Kantolin
2008-11-17, 09:01 PM
Why do or don't people like Exalted 2nd as opposed to exalted first? I know a lot of people seem to fiercely dislike one or the other.

A bit more information: I've played a little bit of exalted under first edition, and the entire group opted to swap to second edition not too long afterwards, so I never really got much experience with the first edition before shifting to the second (And then Exalted tends to confuse me, but that's a story for a different day).

I'm mostly curious as to the reasons more than this becoming a flame war - trying to see the advantages/disadvantages of the editions. The one change I'm most aware of (War exists) strikes me as a good change, even though I like playing brawlers thematically.

Ravyn
2008-11-17, 09:31 PM
My problems with Second....

Social combat. Granted, I understand the need for a better social resolution system than opposed rolls with no apparent stat to oppose said rolls with. But at the same time, turning it into a mess complete with byzantine combat rules was really not the answer. I get irritated enough with how long fights take, never mind people sticking dice rolls in my conversations so you could have a fight that consisted of "BRILLIANT ARGUMENT!" "WITTY RIPOSTE!" Come on. And Appearance-based Soak? What, suddenly I'm resistant to your arguments because I'm prettier than you? And then they tied Limit to it, which meant they had to invent Limit for two Exalt types that didn't even have it before, and suddenly the Sids have two ten strikes and you're out mechanics (Paradox wasn't bad enough?) and the Abyssals are getting Resonance for trying to throw off a compulsion....

DVs. They really don't work too well with Excellencies, particularly when you get into Dodge and a reroll is suddenly rewritten as a numerical conversion. Particularly when you get into how you apply the Sidereal target number reduction to such. And I liked defense-splitting, once I got used to it; it created a tactical element that allowed for people who were specialized to a very specific set of fighting talents, and most people had some sort of workaround for if they didn't count carefully enough.

The power-scaling. Suddenly, Perfect Defenses are cheap! And almost everyone has one! And they have "limitations" that really aren't very limiting! And it has just as bad power-creep as First Ed did, and despite designer notes in First detailing very good reasons why nobody was ever going to have a Charm that bypassed Perfect Defenses, what do they do? Create Charms that bypass Perfect Defenses.

Solar-centrism. Yes, they're supposed to be the most powerful Exalts, yada yada, we get it already. But if you look through the fluff, nobody but them is capable of doing anything worthwhile--the Lunars only have their successes when there isn't a Solar around to do it better, the Sidereals are blamed for everything up to and including the existence of the Deathlords (really, they had enough issues before, is this really necessary?), and don't get me started on the Dragon-Blooded. And it takes all the way until the book on the East for there to be a canonical Solar who isn't Automatically Right somehow. I have a friend who is semi-constantly ranting about game groups who think that, at chargen, they can do anything because they're Solars. What's the rest of the setting, chopped liver? First was bad about this--particularly with the Lunars--but it wasn't THAT bad.

The Labyrinth, 2E. All right, so we're dealing with an Underworld comprised of people who were too egotistical to let themselves reincarnate and are now rather static versions of their former selves. And most people just reincarnate and get it over with. I happen to like that. Only then, they take the tunnels underneath this place that are supposed to be full of nasty ghosts, cthonic horrors, the whispers of dead gods and various other nightmares.... and they turn it into Dante's stinking Inferno! Seriously. Where in this cosmology does anyone get the idea that souls being punished for their transgressions in life--when as far as I can tell the concept of "sin" hasn't gotten to this world in the form that we know it--belongs in this kind of reincarnation system.

Getting crushed under the weight of its own metaplot. Seriously. Individuals who were originally minor characters used to give the world a little color are now Vital To Its Future. They're committing on a bunch of things that worked a lot better as mysteries left up to the ST. They're statting the blasted Infernals, for crying out loud--I consider that their biggest mistake, as half the fun of the Infernals is that they're something you can surprise your players with, and the little I've heard about how they're doing it makes me want to cringe and sic my first BBEG on them.

....and don't get me started on Ligier's sword, we'll be here all day.

I will grant that not having to roll defenses does speed things up a little bit, and that the later edition is more cohesive--well, yeah, they already had an existing body of knowledge to work on, so of course it's cohesive. And I will give them full credit for what they did to the Lunars, and allow that a lot of the splats are very useful (Oadenol's Codex and its geomancy stats are just awesome, and I cheerfully raid their spirits and Charms on a regular basis). It's just... way too many downsides, not enough upsides, and they've managed to offend pretty much my entire game group anyway.

Friv
2008-11-18, 12:42 AM
In the interests of trying to obey the OP by not turning this into a rabid argument...

Most people don't like it because it's a new edition, and a lot of things are run differently than earlier editions, in ways that have a "it wasn't broke, but we tried to fix it anyway" vibe. In particular, social combat is a kludge that a lot of groups just mostly ignore, even if they are pro-2e, and certain books (*cough Dragon-Bloods, Sidereals cough*) were not adapted well to the edition.

On the flip side, 2nd Edition has cleaner rules in many areas, having the advantage of knowing where they're going to start with. Their Lunar book is so far ahead of the 1e version that it's crossed the horizon, and the area books are an order of magnitude superior to their First Edition equivalents.

(Then there is centrism, which has always been an issue. If you believe angry threads on the internet, 2e is horribly pro-Solar, immensely anti-Solar, viciously anti-Sidereal, embarassingly pro-Sidereal, or totally pro-Primordial.)

BobVosh
2008-11-18, 12:49 AM
I like second ed for the quicker combats, but I miss contested rolls. Which is what made first ed combat longer. So...

That sucks.

I haven't read up on second ed labrynth, what book is it in?

Artanis
2008-11-18, 01:04 AM
If you mean rolling for defense, statistically it comes out almost the same in 2nd edition.

BobVosh
2008-11-18, 01:05 AM
If you mean rolling for defense, statistically it comes out almost the same in 2nd edition.

Felt more epic with the rolls

Ravyn
2008-11-19, 06:57 PM
Agree with Bob.

Speaking of whom: Labyrinth's in Celestial Directions Underworld. I prefer to use the previous edition's fluff there, since the suddenly the Deathlords are more silly than usual. If you're sensible, you'll ignore it; it's about as "Don't fix the non-broken thing!" as Second Ed fluff gets.

Terrestrial Directions are better.... okay, except for Luthe, Mahalanka and the radiolari, but I can forgive the designers a few errors in judgment.

Cubey
2008-11-19, 07:09 PM
Felt more epic with the rolls

1st edition: If you forgot to declare a dodge/parry or run out of attempts, and used up a charm this round so you can't perform a Dipping Swallow Defense or whatever else, the enemy's difficulty to hit you is 1. A bunch of mortal soldiers can kill an Exalt who ran out of defense attempts.

2nd edition: You are nigh unstoppable against mortal opponents, and you can't turtle as effectively against other Exalted so you, gasp, have to use other tactics than just waiting until the enemy blows all their motes and willpower.*

*Perfect defenses are cheaper than in 1st ed, but they have limits that smart opponents can use against you.

Nope. 2nd feels definitely more epic for me. And I like the streamlining with three Excellencies for each charm - it's simple and very elegant. And that Martial Arts and Brawl are the same thing. And codified rules for war and social combat. And better Lunar fluff.

Jerthanis
2008-11-20, 01:58 AM
Terrestrial Directions are better.... okay, except for Luthe, Mahalanka and the radiolari, but I can forgive the designers a few errors in judgment.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on Luthe. Luthe in 1st edition was basically, "You know Atlantis right? Well, it's that kind of vibe, but make it all up yourself"

Meanwhile 2nd edition Luthe is like, "Equal parts utopia, equal parts insane morass of madness where the inmates are running the asylum and Leviathan is flogging the thousand year descendants of the people who killed his lost love." It's awesome.

In fact, that's the main thing I like about the edition transfer, is that the setting is treated with more attention to details and specifics. Also, Lunars. My goodness, the Lunar book, and Lunars within the setting get so much more love by comparison that if you even kind of like Lunars, 2nd edition is for you.

Kantolin
2008-11-21, 04:45 AM
Phew, sorry it took me so long to respond to this (Then forums went down). Let me catch up...

First of all, thank you much. What I really wanted was a few examples of parts that bothered people, and now that I read through this, I understand a lot more on why people like first. Anyway, to respond more sepcifically...


Social combat.


so you could have a fight that consisted of "BRILLIANT ARGUMENT!" "WITTY RIPOSTE!"

That's actually the one thing I've heard people be irritated about. The one time we've used it it came out okay, but it did take a lot of work on the storyteller's side to do so. But I definitely can see it getting annoying if done very frequently.


The power-scaling. Suddenly, Perfect Defenses are cheap! And almost everyone has one! And they have "limitations" that really aren't very limiting!

I've noticed that too. I'm unsure how I feel about it after having it in play - the one drawback I'm noticing to using a perfect in place of everything is that multiple mildly threatening attackers make you run through motes quickly compared to scenelong raising your DVs. But the limitations indeed don't feel limiting at all (Conviction?), and they are kinda commonplace. I think it makes it harder to have an overwhelming build, though, as in first a few of my friends made builds which threw buckets of motes at you in order to make you go away on round one.


what do they do? Create Charms that bypass Perfect Defenses.

O_o They did? That's incredibly stupid of them. I'm sure they're gonna have Perfecter Defenses.


Solar-centrism. Yes, they're supposed to be the most powerful Exalts, yada yada, we get it already. But if you look through the fluff, nobody but them is capable of doing anything worthwhile--the Lunars only have their successes when there isn't a Solar around to do it better, the Sidereals are blamed for everything up to and including the existence of the Deathlords (really, they had enough issues before, is this really necessary?), and don't get me started on the Dragon-Blooded.

I was actually very confused about this at first - I thought the changes to the other exalts made Solars less overwhelmingly better than the others than in first and was a bit miffed by that, but then you mentioned fluff.

But for those examples, isn't that about accurate for first as well? Personally, I never quite understood how the Dragon-blooded have kept their empire going if all of these better-than-them powers seem to be jogging around.


they turn it into Dante's stinking Inferno!

That is, indeed, rather lame.

I'm not sure how I feel about them statting out a lot of things. In large part it's probably terrible, but I'm reminded of the 'monster' from first that if the party attacked it, the DM was instructed to 'take their character sheets' and that was it for the stats. Sure, it worked if the goal was to keep the players in line, but you couldn't have a heroic stand against it, nor a heroic death, without kind of lame ad-hoccing. The net/net was that the monster seems intended to be kind of trivialized as a time limit in the background while you go macguffin it, not that I needed another time limit during a game.

I suppose what I mean by this is, if I want to house rule that soandso cannot be beaten or has arbitrarily unstoppable stats, then I can do so. If smoething is needed to keep the group in line, it can exist. If I don't, it's nice to have stats present so I can just consult and make a Charisma+Socialize check.

I'm also up in the air about not rolling for defense, although I do err on the side of streamlined. I also like 'all charms have three excellencies'; a lot of the trees in first were meh (And in second, some are still meh but at least a touch better), and I like the existance of war and integrity.

Now, all this stated, I haven't played very much exalted at all (So for example, while everyone else is tired of being the Solars who are better than everyone, my group and I haven't yet done so enough to have problems with it. This results in amusement when I note a game that attempts to deter from the 'dry standard', but that's neither here nor there). So these flaws may become more apparant when you've played it a bit longer.

I can understand the need for a bunch of house rules, though. Ravyn, I recall you mentioning that you had an 'Exalted 1.5' edition you were either working on or had completed. Is any of it presentable somewhere, or is it still a work in progress?

Thanks again for the responses. My group is happy with second so we'll keep it up, but I'll keep these potential pitfalls in mind (After all, I'm noting all of our games are buried under house rules anyway, so hey...)

potatocubed
2008-11-21, 05:06 AM
I can understand the need for a bunch of house rules, though.

See, that's the issue I had with the switch from 1st to 2nd edition:

1st Edition: Here is an awesome game with some problems and power creep. I bought a lot of material for it, and houseruled it to my satisfaction.

2nd Edition: Here is an awesome game with some problems and power creep. It needs to be houseruled exactly as much as 1e (in different places) to be played to my satisfaction. Oh, and no, it's not properly compatible with the older stuff.

It just annoyed me that they expected me to fork out again for all the material I'd already bought, when all the changes they had made resulted in exactly 0 progress.

Oh, plus, 2nd ed Exalted has suffered from a string of 'developers' who have no idea what they're doing and don't much care. Hence the wild range of product quality.

And 1st ed has proper rules for alchemical Exalts, so yay.

banjo1985
2008-11-21, 05:26 AM
I've never played 1st edition so I can't really comment on it's merits over 2nd edition. What I can say is that the 2nd edition rulebook annoys the hell out of me. It's a nightmare to find anything other than charms, and nothing is where you would expect it to be. The splatbooks tend to be even worse.

I find Exalted too much effort to run to be honest, the dice rolls and rules mechanics take up too much of my time as a GM, and I don't enjoy running the game enough to become fully clued up on the rules.

Tengu_temp
2008-11-21, 05:35 AM
I find Exalted too much effort to run to be honest, the dice rolls and rules mechanics take up too much of my time as a GM, and I don't enjoy running the game enough to become fully clued up on the rules.

Isn't this the case with all rules-heavy RPGs?

banjo1985
2008-11-21, 05:47 AM
Probably, but when I bought the thing I went in blind, buying mainly because it was White Wolf. I'm a WoD player and GM for the most part, I haven't really touched any other rules heavy games.

Poison_Fish
2008-11-21, 07:10 AM
I've never played 1st edition so I can't really comment on it's merits over 2nd edition. What I can say is that the 2nd edition rulebook annoys the hell out of me. It's a nightmare to find anything other than charms, and nothing is where you would expect it to be. The splatbooks tend to be even worse.

I wouldn't say that's a problem with Exalted. I'd say it's a problem with White Wolf's editing. I've always found tons of typo's and poor document construction on their part to be pretty thick.

But Exalted, rules heavy? You kid me not. Perhaps it's my experience with really rules heavy games out there, but I'd put Exalted to be only slightly more complicated then D&D.

Artanis
2008-11-21, 01:12 PM
I get irritated enough with how long fights take, never mind people sticking dice rolls in my conversations so you could have a fight that consisted of "BRILLIANT ARGUMENT!" "WITTY RIPOSTE!" Come on.
I'm sorry, I really, REALLY REALLY despise this arguement. Exalted goes to great pains to tell you not to do this in any sort of confrontation, whether physical or social or the mass versions of each, or even non-"combat" checks. That's the whole point of Exalted. And you know the great part? If somebody's attack is described as "Brilliant Arguement!", you do the same thing as if they were in physical combat and said "Daiklave Attack!": you go by the mechanic for not giving them jack **** for doing this. You know, the Stunt mechanic?

And if even that isn't enough, try this:
Player: "Brilliant Arguement!"
You: "Hehehehehe, oh, that's great. The last time I heard that one was when Avuka tried to talk to my brother. He'd been dropped on his head as a child. Repeatedly. So he wasn't very good at that stuff. Thank you for reminding me of that. Now, you were saying?"
Player: "Uhhh...Brilliant Arguement!"
You: "Seriously, it isn't funny anymore."

Now, if you dislike Social Combat, that's fine. Everybody is entitled to their opinions and preferences, and if Social Combat is poor in both for you, then that's fine. But don't try to argue that it's terrible due to problems that literally every other sort of dice roll in literally every other sort of game has.


And Appearance-based Soak?
It's a way to give Appearance an actual effect beyond being able to say "hey, my character looks good! It will never actually come into play on any rolls, and as such is a complete and utter waste of points, but I can say I look pretty!" Hokey? Yes. But at least it's something for people who aren't Lunars.


Edit: Addendum

Honest question: when were Perfect-defeating attacks added?

NeoVid
2008-11-21, 01:49 PM
(unhelpful post)

I never liked either Exalted, since they killed off my all-time favorite setting to support Exalted in the first place.

Grr.

(/unhelpful post)

Kyeudo
2008-11-21, 02:24 PM
I've only got the 1st Edition core book, but I've been loading up on 2nd Edition stuff left and right. I'd still play 1st Edition, but 2nd seems to have greater mechanical unity in all the places that get hit often and some nice streamlining where it counds.

Social combat seems a little awkward, but that's because it was tacked on as a way to handle the Epic arguments that the Exalted can have. Seriously, when two people who can make fanatics out of mortals with three words and can't be swayed from their course of action, you need a way to figure out what happens when they decide to talk their problems out instead of killing each other.



Honest question: when were Perfect-defeating attacks added?

There are a few scattered here and there that specifically arn't just undogeable or unblockable, they can't be blocked or dodged at all. They are rare and epic in power, so I'm not too worried.

Artanis
2008-11-21, 02:37 PM
A) Is this 2nd edition?

B) Do they just say they can't be blocked/dodged? Because the perfects in the core book, at least, say that they stop attacks "Even if they are unblockable/undodgeable".

Kyeudo
2008-11-21, 06:48 PM
A) Is this 2nd edition?

B) Do they just say they can't be blocked/dodged? Because the perfects in the core book, at least, say that they stop attacks "Even if they are unblockable/undodgeable".

A) Yes.
B) It's a few very specific Charms and they have been clarified by the authors as invalidating perfects. I can't remember the wording, but it's something like "can only be parried, not dodged" or vice versa.

Artanis
2008-11-21, 07:19 PM
I didn't know that. Thanks.

RPGuru1331
2008-11-21, 07:32 PM
(unhelpful post)

I never liked either Exalted, since they killed off my all-time favorite setting to support Exalted in the first place.

Grr.

(/unhelpful post)

....What?


People don't like second edition because it's a new edition, because they added an actual resolution system to Social-based exalts that prevented one from saying "I spend 1 WP and negate your entire Raison d'etre", and because Tick-based combat is a massive (And unnecessary) change to old Initiative.

DV complaints are nonsense, because the system really doesn't give a damn whether you oppose rolls or not, and I may just go kick a puppy if I see a complaint along those lines again (Or anything remotely similar to "An easily calculated static that includes an averaged roll should be rolled again"). Seriously people. It obviously averages your roll. Just roll it.

Ravyn
2008-11-22, 08:11 PM
I'm sorry, I really, REALLY REALLY despise this arguement. Exalted goes to great pains to tell you not to do this in any sort of confrontation, whether physical or social or the mass versions of each, or even non-"combat" checks. That's the whole point of Exalted. And you know the great part? If somebody's attack is described as "Brilliant Arguement!", you do the same thing as if they were in physical combat and said "Daiklave Attack!": you go by the mechanic for not giving them jack **** for doing this. You know, the Stunt mechanic?

And if even that isn't enough, try this:
Player: "Brilliant Arguement!"
You: "Hehehehehe, oh, that's great. The last time I heard that one was when Avuka tried to talk to my brother. He'd been dropped on his head as a child. Repeatedly. So he wasn't very good at that stuff. Thank you for reminding me of that. Now, you were saying?"
Player: "Uhhh...Brilliant Arguement!"
You: "Seriously, it isn't funny anymore."

Now, if you dislike Social Combat, that's fine. Everybody is entitled to their opinions and preferences, and if Social Combat is poor in both for you, then that's fine. But don't try to argue that it's terrible due to problems that literally every other sort of dice roll in literally every other sort of game has.


I suppose this is the wrong time to tell you that the person responsible for the first "BRILLIANT ARGUMENT!" I had to deal with was one of my STs. How the heck does a PC stunt off of that?

As for Appearance needing to be more useful, I agree, but there are better ways of doing so. App-Pres to get people's attention. App-Stealth to fit into a crowd (my personal favorite). App-Larceny for disguises (I see no reason not to!). I've seen it used a lot of ways, ones that fit internal consistency better than pretty-soak.

Grey Paladin
2008-11-23, 07:36 AM
Uh.. according to 1E Errata Cascade of Cutting Terror (5M 0Will Sup) cannot be Dodged by anything, including Seven Shadow Evasion- Heavenly Bulwark Defense is unique in its ability to block attacks it normally cannot.

Both editions are about the same in the level of unbalance- the focus is just different.