DissectingDefenseValue - Revision history

Wordman: Note about errata

2011-05-10T16:44:42Z

Note about errata

Conversion script: link fix

2010-04-06T01:15:47Z

link fix

Conversion script: link fix

2010-04-06T00:35:31Z

link fix

Conversion script: link fix

2010-04-05T08:06:32Z

link fix

Conversion script: link fix

2010-04-03T09:02:46Z

link fix

Hapushet: Actually, none of that is true.

2007-04-13T03:29:36Z

Actually, none of that is true.

Show changes

IanPrice: If it's not defensible, it ought not to be cheatable.

2007-04-13T03:12:42Z

If it's not defensible, it ought not to be cheatable.

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:44, 10 May 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	'''''NOTE''': The release of some better errata likely solved some of the problems mentioned here. It also probably added some new ones. At some point, I need to edit this with the errata in mind, but that hasn't happened yet.''
		+
	The passive defense system in Exalted Second Edition uses a Defense Value (DV) that is more complex than it first appears. The original intent of this page was to provide concrete examples of how DV worked, particularly how charms interacted with the defense system. As the page matured, it became clear that this was not actually possible, because the rules for defense value are inconsistent and, in some places, blatantly contradictory. Instead, this page will explore what the rules for defense ''actually say'', describing exactly how the rules are inconsistent or incomplete and where the contradictions lie. The primary aim of this page is to present as complete a picture of what book rules affect defense, so you can make a choice as to which of them you actually want to use. The [[SuturedDefenseValue]] page suggests a number of different ways rules can be cherry picked to make more consistent defense systems. The examples that were intended to be listed here should instead be listed on such pages, as they will have made concrete decisions to remove ambiguity.		The passive defense system in Exalted Second Edition uses a Defense Value (DV) that is more complex than it first appears. The original intent of this page was to provide concrete examples of how DV worked, particularly how charms interacted with the defense system. As the page matured, it became clear that this was not actually possible, because the rules for defense value are inconsistent and, in some places, blatantly contradictory. Instead, this page will explore what the rules for defense ''actually say'', describing exactly how the rules are inconsistent or incomplete and where the contradictions lie. The primary aim of this page is to present as complete a picture of what book rules affect defense, so you can make a choice as to which of them you actually want to use. The [[SuturedDefenseValue]] page suggests a number of different ways rules can be cherry picked to make more consistent defense systems. The examples that were intended to be listed here should instead be listed on such pages, as they will have made concrete decisions to remove ambiguity.

@@ Line 215: / Line 215: @@
 == Comments ==
-A number of past comments applied to an old draft and have been incorporated into the main text. They have been preserved in [[/Discussion]].
+A number of past comments applied to an old draft and have been incorporated into the main text. They have been preserved in [[DissectingDefenseValue/Discussion]].
 Re: Inapplicability.  The rules are completely silent on when inapplicability should be applied, and I think you'd be better off clarifying the justification for your stance and explaining what the alternatives are (assuming you mean this page to be more than your houserules, which has been the apparent case thus far).  Specifically, stating that inapplicability applies so late in the process eliminates the possibilty of using Excellencies and the like to raise DVs set to 0 by inapplicability; this is an option that I, for one, maintain is valid.  Also, I am curious as to why you say in Step 5 that "it appears that inapplicability is ''not'' intended to apply yet" - is there a particular Charm or rule that implies that to you?

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-The passive defense system in Exalted Second Edition uses a Defense Value (DV) that is more complex than it first appears. The original intent of this page was to provide concrete examples of how DV worked, particularly how charms interacted with the defense system. As the page matured, it became clear that this was not actually possible, because the rules for defense value are inconsistent and, in some places, blatantly contradictory. Instead, this page will explore what the rules for defense ''actually say'', describing exactly how the rules are inconsistent or incomplete and where the contradictions lie. The primary aim of this page is to present as complete a picture of what book rules affect defense, so you can make a choice as to which of them you actually want to use. The SuturedDefenseValue page suggests a number of different ways rules can be cherry picked to make more consistent defense systems. The examples that were intended to be listed here should instead be listed on such pages, as they will have made concrete decisions to remove ambiguity.
+The passive defense system in Exalted Second Edition uses a Defense Value (DV) that is more complex than it first appears. The original intent of this page was to provide concrete examples of how DV worked, particularly how charms interacted with the defense system. As the page matured, it became clear that this was not actually possible, because the rules for defense value are inconsistent and, in some places, blatantly contradictory. Instead, this page will explore what the rules for defense ''actually say'', describing exactly how the rules are inconsistent or incomplete and where the contradictions lie. The primary aim of this page is to present as complete a picture of what book rules affect defense, so you can make a choice as to which of them you actually want to use. The [[SuturedDefenseValue]] page suggests a number of different ways rules can be cherry picked to make more consistent defense systems. The examples that were intended to be listed here should instead be listed on such pages, as they will have made concrete decisions to remove ambiguity.
 This page will make use of terms and definitions defined in several other pages. They are:
-* CharmTypes2E - defines "families" of charms by function, such as "pool adder".
+* [[CharmTypes2E]] - defines "families" of charms by function, such as "pool adder".
 * [[Wordman/2eTerminologyRefinements]] - provides more specific language for talking about "actions".
 * [[Wordman/ReferenceStandard]] - lists codes used in page references.
@@ Line 92: / Line 92: @@
 * Different charms apply at different points in the order of modifiers, and it is not always easy to determine which. The next section breaks charms into "families" based on how and when they function.
 * There is an implied "Step 0: Determine your base pool".
-* Some rare bonuses may actually modify traits directly (see "trait adders" in CharmTypes2E). This indirectly results in extra dice, but is not exactly a dice bonus. It is suggested that these be applied during the aforementioned step 0.
+* Some rare bonuses may actually modify traits directly (see "trait adders" in [[CharmTypes2E]]). This indirectly results in extra dice, but is not exactly a dice bonus. It is suggested that these be applied during the aforementioned step 0.
 * It is unclear if the minimum pool calculation (step 5) applies to defense pools or other static value pools. Lacking a statement that it doesn't, this pool minimum is assumed to apply.
 * There is an implicit step missing: "Step 5.5 - Determine Pool Result". This would mean rolling the dice for rolled pools or, if using defense pools, dividing the number of dice in the pool by 2 and rounding. This generates a base number of successes (or the DV for defense pools).
@@ Line 102: / Line 102: @@
 The Second Excellency (ex2e.184) is clearly an exception to the rule when used to buy successes for normal rolls. It's clear that "Charms that add automatic
-successes &hellip;do not count as increases to a dice pool unless otherwise stated" (ex2e.185) and the Second Excellency definitely "otherwise states", that there is an upper bound on successes it can purchase, associated with dice limits. When used to augment DV, it clearly applies a similar limit. It is not clear if this is an exception in this case. It depends on what ex2e.185 really means (see above). In any case, Second Excellency clearly acts as a ''bound adder'' (see CharmTypes2E).
+successes &hellip;do not count as increases to a dice pool unless otherwise stated" (ex2e.185) and the Second Excellency definitely "otherwise states", that there is an upper bound on successes it can purchase, associated with dice limits. When used to augment DV, it clearly applies a similar limit. It is not clear if this is an exception in this case. It depends on what ex2e.185 really means (see above). In any case, Second Excellency clearly acts as a ''bound adder'' (see [[CharmTypes2E]]).
-First Excellency is even more strange. It is clearly a ''pool adder'' (see CharmTypes2E) when used for normal rolls; however, when used to augment DV it becomes a ''rolled adder'' (again, see CharmTypes2E), where the number of dice actually rolled are ''not'' bound by dice caps, but the ''successes generated by the roll are''. This might be taken as evidence that there is no such thing as a "defense pool", as if it existed why wouldn't this charm just add dice to it?
+First Excellency is even more strange. It is clearly a ''pool adder'' (see [[CharmTypes2E]]) when used for normal rolls; however, when used to augment DV it becomes a ''rolled adder'' (again, see [[CharmTypes2E]]), where the number of dice actually rolled are ''not'' bound by dice caps, but the ''successes generated by the roll are''. This might be taken as evidence that there is no such thing as a "defense pool", as if it existed why wouldn't this charm just add dice to it?
 So, one excellency is an exception to the rule when used for static values, the other is an exception when it isn't. While the mechanics of these charms work in unambiguous ways, the lesson here is to avoid thinking of these charms as examples of the ''general'' mechanics for defense, as it isn't clear that they are.
@@ Line 134: / Line 134: @@
 :Dexterity + Ability (usually Melee or Martial Arts)
-Trait adder charms (see CharmTypes2E) apply at this step.
+Trait adder charms (see [[CharmTypes2E]]) apply at this step.
 === Step 1: Apply Non-Magical Bonuses ===
@@ Line 148: / Line 148: @@
 *''Mobility penalties'' have a similar issue to wound penalties, except that one rule implies that mobility is an internal penalty for defenses (ex2e.374) while another claims mobility is an external penalty for defense (ex2e.147).
-Unless mobility truly is an internal penalty, there appear to be no non-magical internal penalties that apply to defense. Note that penalty reducing charms (see CharmTypes2E) may prevent some of these penalties, if they actually exist, from applying.
+Unless mobility truly is an internal penalty, there appear to be no non-magical internal penalties that apply to defense. Note that penalty reducing charms (see [[CharmTypes2E]]) may prevent some of these penalties, if they actually exist, from applying.
 === Step 3: Apply Magical Bonuses ===
@@ Line 223: / Line 223: @@
 The only concrete thing the rules say on inapplicability is "bonuses and penalties apply to inapplicable DVs after the reduction to zero, so a character huddled behind a rock may still benefit from its cover, and so on." I made the assumption that this didn't include charm manipulation, but you're right in suggesting that that is just my own assumption and not provable. Looks like "unblockable" attacks really aren't that unblockable. I'll update this a bit later. As for "static" vs. "unrolled", some of the rules read like what you say is true, some of them don't. Page 185 calls feats of strength both in the opening sentence that mentions them. Lightening Speed refers to excellencies increasing "the static rating of (Dexterity + Athletics)" (ex2e.224). Notes on linguistics talk about "increasing the static rating of Linguistics with the Linguistics Excellencies" (ex2e.232). The rules also suggest that not all static values are divided, using phrases like "if the value is rounded" (ex2e.185) and "often have to round" (ex2e.122), but then of course follow this with text that suggests that all static values are rounded. They also don't officially define "unrolled values". I think your approach is better though, making "static" and "unrolled" have specific meanings. - [[Wordman]]
-:I think we can easily infer from context that the bonuses and penalties to DV referred to by that statement are only those which do not benefit the innaplicable form of defense (such as the defense of a weapon or a parry-enhancing charm against an unblockable attack), but only those which apply regardless of the form of defense (certain highly potent charms might do this, but no printed ones that I know of - also, shields and cover work this way). - IanPrice
+:I think we can easily infer from context that the bonuses and penalties to DV referred to by that statement are only those which do not benefit the innaplicable form of defense (such as the defense of a weapon or a parry-enhancing charm against an unblockable attack), but only those which apply regardless of the form of defense (certain highly potent charms might do this, but no printed ones that I know of - also, shields and cover work this way). - [[IanPrice]]
-::I beg to differ. Essence manipulation in all its forms is magic. Thus its ability to mitigate inapplicability should not be denied outright, especially when the rules as written allow it to do so. If somebody wants to max out his First Dodge Excellency when he's being targeted by the Godspear, then it is reasonable to allow those 10 motes to give him 5 Dodge DV. Yes, in first edition, it doesn't work that way. But this is second edition, and together with ticks and excellencies, you also get inapplicability mitigation. - TonyC
+::I beg to differ. Essence manipulation in all its forms is magic. Thus its ability to mitigate inapplicability should not be denied outright, especially when the rules as written allow it to do so. If somebody wants to max out his First Dodge Excellency when he's being targeted by the Godspear, then it is reasonable to allow those 10 motes to give him 5 Dodge DV. Yes, in first edition, it doesn't work that way. But this is second edition, and together with ticks and excellencies, you also get inapplicability mitigation. - [[TonyC]]
 :::An interesting thought; but what then, is the relevance of a callout on which charms can block the unblockable, and which can't? SSE leaps immediately to mind, insofar as it's effect has nothing to do with DV, so a reduction to zero wouldn't eliminate it's effect. -[[Vaegrim]]
-::I have problems with that. Inapplicability-producing effects are far more difficult to obtain than DV bonuses, and almost all of them are Essence-based. Excellencies are the lowest form of this manipulation, and should not be offering defense against the Essence 3+ charms and high-dot-level artifacts which tend to be the causes of inapplicable defense. Therefore, I favor a strict interpretation of the rules towards "inapplicability means you just don't count it." Since penalty-removers specifically can't get around it, I also infer bonuses can't. Similarly, if a player in my game wanted to circumvent Adamant Skin Technique with Fire and Stones Strike (a perfect "removes all raw damage" soak with a post-soak damage adder), I would say no - Adamant Skin Technique perfectly defends against damage. Other things not necessarily, but damage yes. - IanPrice
+::I have problems with that. Inapplicability-producing effects are far more difficult to obtain than DV bonuses, and almost all of them are Essence-based. Excellencies are the lowest form of this manipulation, and should not be offering defense against the Essence 3+ charms and high-dot-level artifacts which tend to be the causes of inapplicable defense. Therefore, I favor a strict interpretation of the rules towards "inapplicability means you just don't count it." Since penalty-removers specifically can't get around it, I also infer bonuses can't. Similarly, if a player in my game wanted to circumvent Adamant Skin Technique with Fire and Stones Strike (a perfect "removes all raw damage" soak with a post-soak damage adder), I would say no - Adamant Skin Technique perfectly defends against damage. Other things not necessarily, but damage yes. - [[IanPrice]]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-The passive defense system in Exalted Second Edition uses a Defense Value (DV) that is more complex than it first appears. The original intent of this page was to provide concrete examples of how DV worked, particularly how charms interacted with the defense system. As the page matured, it became clear that this was not actually possible, because the rules for defense value are inconsistent and, in some places, blatantly contradictory. Instead, this page will explore what the rules for defense ''actually say'', describing exactly how the rules are inconsistent or incomplete and where the contradictions lie. The primary aim of this page is to present as complete a picture of what book rules affect defense, so you can make a choice as to which of them you actually want to use. The SuturedDefenseValue page suggests a number of different ways rules can be cherry picked to make more consistent defense systems. The examples that were intended to be listed here should instead be listed on such pages, as they will have made concrete decisions to remove ambiguity.
+The passive defense system in Exalted Second Edition uses a Defense Value (DV) that is more complex than it first appears. The original intent of this page was to provide concrete examples of how DV worked, particularly how charms interacted with the defense system. As the page matured, it became clear that this was not actually possible, because the rules for defense value are inconsistent and, in some places, blatantly contradictory. Instead, this page will explore what the rules for defense ''actually say'', describing exactly how the rules are inconsistent or incomplete and where the contradictions lie. The primary aim of this page is to present as complete a picture of what book rules affect defense, so you can make a choice as to which of them you actually want to use. The [[SuturedDefenseValue]] page suggests a number of different ways rules can be cherry picked to make more consistent defense systems. The examples that were intended to be listed here should instead be listed on such pages, as they will have made concrete decisions to remove ambiguity.
 This page will make use of terms and definitions defined in several other pages. They are:
-* CharmTypes2E - defines "families" of charms by function, such as "pool adder".
+* [[CharmTypes2E]] - defines "families" of charms by function, such as "pool adder".
 * [[Wordman/2eTerminologyRefinements]] - provides more specific language for talking about "actions".
 * [[Wordman/ReferenceStandard]] - lists codes used in page references.
@@ Line 92: / Line 92: @@
 * Different charms apply at different points in the order of modifiers, and it is not always easy to determine which. The next section breaks charms into "families" based on how and when they function.
 * There is an implied "Step 0: Determine your base pool".
-* Some rare bonuses may actually modify traits directly (see "trait adders" in CharmTypes2E). This indirectly results in extra dice, but is not exactly a dice bonus. It is suggested that these be applied during the aforementioned step 0.
+* Some rare bonuses may actually modify traits directly (see "trait adders" in [[CharmTypes2E]]). This indirectly results in extra dice, but is not exactly a dice bonus. It is suggested that these be applied during the aforementioned step 0.
 * It is unclear if the minimum pool calculation (step 5) applies to defense pools or other static value pools. Lacking a statement that it doesn't, this pool minimum is assumed to apply.
 * There is an implicit step missing: "Step 5.5 - Determine Pool Result". This would mean rolling the dice for rolled pools or, if using defense pools, dividing the number of dice in the pool by 2 and rounding. This generates a base number of successes (or the DV for defense pools).
@@ Line 102: / Line 102: @@
 The Second Excellency (ex2e.184) is clearly an exception to the rule when used to buy successes for normal rolls. It's clear that "Charms that add automatic
-successes &hellip;do not count as increases to a dice pool unless otherwise stated" (ex2e.185) and the Second Excellency definitely "otherwise states", that there is an upper bound on successes it can purchase, associated with dice limits. When used to augment DV, it clearly applies a similar limit. It is not clear if this is an exception in this case. It depends on what ex2e.185 really means (see above). In any case, Second Excellency clearly acts as a ''bound adder'' (see CharmTypes2E).
+successes &hellip;do not count as increases to a dice pool unless otherwise stated" (ex2e.185) and the Second Excellency definitely "otherwise states", that there is an upper bound on successes it can purchase, associated with dice limits. When used to augment DV, it clearly applies a similar limit. It is not clear if this is an exception in this case. It depends on what ex2e.185 really means (see above). In any case, Second Excellency clearly acts as a ''bound adder'' (see [[CharmTypes2E]]).
-First Excellency is even more strange. It is clearly a ''pool adder'' (see CharmTypes2E) when used for normal rolls; however, when used to augment DV it becomes a ''rolled adder'' (again, see CharmTypes2E), where the number of dice actually rolled are ''not'' bound by dice caps, but the ''successes generated by the roll are''. This might be taken as evidence that there is no such thing as a "defense pool", as if it existed why wouldn't this charm just add dice to it?
+First Excellency is even more strange. It is clearly a ''pool adder'' (see [[CharmTypes2E]]) when used for normal rolls; however, when used to augment DV it becomes a ''rolled adder'' (again, see [[CharmTypes2E]]), where the number of dice actually rolled are ''not'' bound by dice caps, but the ''successes generated by the roll are''. This might be taken as evidence that there is no such thing as a "defense pool", as if it existed why wouldn't this charm just add dice to it?
 So, one excellency is an exception to the rule when used for static values, the other is an exception when it isn't. While the mechanics of these charms work in unambiguous ways, the lesson here is to avoid thinking of these charms as examples of the ''general'' mechanics for defense, as it isn't clear that they are.
@@ Line 134: / Line 134: @@
 :Dexterity + Ability (usually Melee or Martial Arts)
-Trait adder charms (see CharmTypes2E) apply at this step.
+Trait adder charms (see [[CharmTypes2E]]) apply at this step.
 === Step 1: Apply Non-Magical Bonuses ===
@@ Line 148: / Line 148: @@
 *''Mobility penalties'' have a similar issue to wound penalties, except that one rule implies that mobility is an internal penalty for defenses (ex2e.374) while another claims mobility is an external penalty for defense (ex2e.147).
-Unless mobility truly is an internal penalty, there appear to be no non-magical internal penalties that apply to defense. Note that penalty reducing charms (see CharmTypes2E) may prevent some of these penalties, if they actually exist, from applying.
+Unless mobility truly is an internal penalty, there appear to be no non-magical internal penalties that apply to defense. Note that penalty reducing charms (see [[CharmTypes2E]]) may prevent some of these penalties, if they actually exist, from applying.
 === Step 3: Apply Magical Bonuses ===
@@ Line 223: / Line 223: @@
 The only concrete thing the rules say on inapplicability is "bonuses and penalties apply to inapplicable DVs after the reduction to zero, so a character huddled behind a rock may still benefit from its cover, and so on." I made the assumption that this didn't include charm manipulation, but you're right in suggesting that that is just my own assumption and not provable. Looks like "unblockable" attacks really aren't that unblockable. I'll update this a bit later. As for "static" vs. "unrolled", some of the rules read like what you say is true, some of them don't. Page 185 calls feats of strength both in the opening sentence that mentions them. Lightening Speed refers to excellencies increasing "the static rating of (Dexterity + Athletics)" (ex2e.224). Notes on linguistics talk about "increasing the static rating of Linguistics with the Linguistics Excellencies" (ex2e.232). The rules also suggest that not all static values are divided, using phrases like "if the value is rounded" (ex2e.185) and "often have to round" (ex2e.122), but then of course follow this with text that suggests that all static values are rounded. They also don't officially define "unrolled values". I think your approach is better though, making "static" and "unrolled" have specific meanings. - [[Wordman]]
-:I think we can easily infer from context that the bonuses and penalties to DV referred to by that statement are only those which do not benefit the innaplicable form of defense (such as the defense of a weapon or a parry-enhancing charm against an unblockable attack), but only those which apply regardless of the form of defense (certain highly potent charms might do this, but no printed ones that I know of - also, shields and cover work this way). - IanPrice
+:I think we can easily infer from context that the bonuses and penalties to DV referred to by that statement are only those which do not benefit the innaplicable form of defense (such as the defense of a weapon or a parry-enhancing charm against an unblockable attack), but only those which apply regardless of the form of defense (certain highly potent charms might do this, but no printed ones that I know of - also, shields and cover work this way). - [[IanPrice]]
-::I beg to differ. Essence manipulation in all its forms is magic. Thus its ability to mitigate inapplicability should not be denied outright, especially when the rules as written allow it to do so. If somebody wants to max out his First Dodge Excellency when he's being targeted by the Godspear, then it is reasonable to allow those 10 motes to give him 5 Dodge DV. Yes, in first edition, it doesn't work that way. But this is second edition, and together with ticks and excellencies, you also get inapplicability mitigation. - TonyC
+::I beg to differ. Essence manipulation in all its forms is magic. Thus its ability to mitigate inapplicability should not be denied outright, especially when the rules as written allow it to do so. If somebody wants to max out his First Dodge Excellency when he's being targeted by the Godspear, then it is reasonable to allow those 10 motes to give him 5 Dodge DV. Yes, in first edition, it doesn't work that way. But this is second edition, and together with ticks and excellencies, you also get inapplicability mitigation. - [[TonyC]]
 :::An interesting thought; but what then, is the relevance of a callout on which charms can block the unblockable, and which can't? SSE leaps immediately to mind, insofar as it's effect has nothing to do with DV, so a reduction to zero wouldn't eliminate it's effect. -[[Vaegrim]]
-::I have problems with that. Inapplicability-producing effects are far more difficult to obtain than DV bonuses, and almost all of them are Essence-based. Excellencies are the lowest form of this manipulation, and should not be offering defense against the Essence 3+ charms and high-dot-level artifacts which tend to be the causes of inapplicable defense. Therefore, I favor a strict interpretation of the rules towards "inapplicability means you just don't count it." Since penalty-removers specifically can't get around it, I also infer bonuses can't. Similarly, if a player in my game wanted to circumvent Adamant Skin Technique with Fire and Stones Strike (a perfect "removes all raw damage" soak with a post-soak damage adder), I would say no - Adamant Skin Technique perfectly defends against damage. Other things not necessarily, but damage yes. - IanPrice
+::I have problems with that. Inapplicability-producing effects are far more difficult to obtain than DV bonuses, and almost all of them are Essence-based. Excellencies are the lowest form of this manipulation, and should not be offering defense against the Essence 3+ charms and high-dot-level artifacts which tend to be the causes of inapplicable defense. Therefore, I favor a strict interpretation of the rules towards "inapplicability means you just don't count it." Since penalty-removers specifically can't get around it, I also infer bonuses can't. Similarly, if a player in my game wanted to circumvent Adamant Skin Technique with Fire and Stones Strike (a perfect "removes all raw damage" soak with a post-soak damage adder), I would say no - Adamant Skin Technique perfectly defends against damage. Other things not necessarily, but damage yes. - [[IanPrice]]
 :::There are a horde of misstatements in this paragraph.  First of all, the rules give a specific definition of what "unblockable" or "undodgable" mean: the relevant DV is set to 0 before bonuses.  Nothing else is offered as a game effect; therefore, the "strict interpretation of the rules" is what is given above.  What it used to mean in 1E is not relevant.  As for the relative Essence level of the effects, I would like to point out that an Integrity 1, Essence 1 Charm completely negates all uses of an Essence 6 SMA Charm for an entire day.  Being able to only partially negate a Charm that is a point or two of Essence higher is hardly beyond reason.  Your point about penalty reducers holds no water, because the rules specify that setting your DV to 0 is not a penalty - hence, penalty reducers have no effect.  The same rules do permit bonuses after the DV is set to 0, however, so DV bonuses apply.  Finally, there is no appropriate analogy between a perfect defense and an inapplicable attack.  The two have nothing to do with one another. - [[Hapushet]]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-The passive defense system in Exalted Second Edition uses a Defense Value (DV) that is more complex than it first appears. The original intent of this page was to provide concrete examples of how DV worked, particularly how charms interacted with the defense system. As the page matured, it became clear that this was not actually possible, because the rules for defense value are inconsistent and, in some places, blatantly contradictory. Instead, this page will explore what the rules for defense ''actually say'', describing exactly how the rules are inconsistent or incomplete and where the contradictions lie. The primary aim of this page is to present as complete a picture of what book rules affect defense, so you can make a choice as to which of them you actually want to use. The [[SuturedDefenseValue]] page suggests a number of different ways rules can be cherry picked to make more consistent defense systems. The examples that were intended to be listed here should instead be listed on such pages, as they will have made concrete decisions to remove ambiguity.
+The passive defense system in Exalted Second Edition uses a Defense Value (DV) that is more complex than it first appears. The original intent of this page was to provide concrete examples of how DV worked, particularly how charms interacted with the defense system. As the page matured, it became clear that this was not actually possible, because the rules for defense value are inconsistent and, in some places, blatantly contradictory. Instead, this page will explore what the rules for defense ''actually say'', describing exactly how the rules are inconsistent or incomplete and where the contradictions lie. The primary aim of this page is to present as complete a picture of what book rules affect defense, so you can make a choice as to which of them you actually want to use. The SuturedDefenseValue page suggests a number of different ways rules can be cherry picked to make more consistent defense systems. The examples that were intended to be listed here should instead be listed on such pages, as they will have made concrete decisions to remove ambiguity.
 This page will make use of terms and definitions defined in several other pages. They are:
-* [[CharmTypes2E]] - defines "families" of charms by function, such as "pool adder".
+* CharmTypes2E - defines "families" of charms by function, such as "pool adder".
 * [[Wordman/2eTerminologyRefinements]] - provides more specific language for talking about "actions".
 * [[Wordman/ReferenceStandard]] - lists codes used in page references.
@@ Line 92: / Line 92: @@
 * Different charms apply at different points in the order of modifiers, and it is not always easy to determine which. The next section breaks charms into "families" based on how and when they function.
 * There is an implied "Step 0: Determine your base pool".
-* Some rare bonuses may actually modify traits directly (see "trait adders" in [[CharmTypes2E]]). This indirectly results in extra dice, but is not exactly a dice bonus. It is suggested that these be applied during the aforementioned step 0.
+* Some rare bonuses may actually modify traits directly (see "trait adders" in CharmTypes2E). This indirectly results in extra dice, but is not exactly a dice bonus. It is suggested that these be applied during the aforementioned step 0.
 * It is unclear if the minimum pool calculation (step 5) applies to defense pools or other static value pools. Lacking a statement that it doesn't, this pool minimum is assumed to apply.
 * There is an implicit step missing: "Step 5.5 - Determine Pool Result". This would mean rolling the dice for rolled pools or, if using defense pools, dividing the number of dice in the pool by 2 and rounding. This generates a base number of successes (or the DV for defense pools).
@@ Line 102: / Line 102: @@
 The Second Excellency (ex2e.184) is clearly an exception to the rule when used to buy successes for normal rolls. It's clear that "Charms that add automatic
-successes &hellip;do not count as increases to a dice pool unless otherwise stated" (ex2e.185) and the Second Excellency definitely "otherwise states", that there is an upper bound on successes it can purchase, associated with dice limits. When used to augment DV, it clearly applies a similar limit. It is not clear if this is an exception in this case. It depends on what ex2e.185 really means (see above). In any case, Second Excellency clearly acts as a ''bound adder'' (see [[CharmTypes2E]]).
+successes &hellip;do not count as increases to a dice pool unless otherwise stated" (ex2e.185) and the Second Excellency definitely "otherwise states", that there is an upper bound on successes it can purchase, associated with dice limits. When used to augment DV, it clearly applies a similar limit. It is not clear if this is an exception in this case. It depends on what ex2e.185 really means (see above). In any case, Second Excellency clearly acts as a ''bound adder'' (see CharmTypes2E).
-First Excellency is even more strange. It is clearly a ''pool adder'' (see [[CharmTypes2E]]) when used for normal rolls; however, when used to augment DV it becomes a ''rolled adder'' (again, see [[CharmTypes2E]]), where the number of dice actually rolled are ''not'' bound by dice caps, but the ''successes generated by the roll are''. This might be taken as evidence that there is no such thing as a "defense pool", as if it existed why wouldn't this charm just add dice to it?
+First Excellency is even more strange. It is clearly a ''pool adder'' (see CharmTypes2E) when used for normal rolls; however, when used to augment DV it becomes a ''rolled adder'' (again, see CharmTypes2E), where the number of dice actually rolled are ''not'' bound by dice caps, but the ''successes generated by the roll are''. This might be taken as evidence that there is no such thing as a "defense pool", as if it existed why wouldn't this charm just add dice to it?
 So, one excellency is an exception to the rule when used for static values, the other is an exception when it isn't. While the mechanics of these charms work in unambiguous ways, the lesson here is to avoid thinking of these charms as examples of the ''general'' mechanics for defense, as it isn't clear that they are.
@@ Line 134: / Line 134: @@
 :Dexterity + Ability (usually Melee or Martial Arts)
-Trait adder charms (see [[CharmTypes2E]]) apply at this step.
+Trait adder charms (see CharmTypes2E) apply at this step.
 === Step 1: Apply Non-Magical Bonuses ===
@@ Line 148: / Line 148: @@
 *''Mobility penalties'' have a similar issue to wound penalties, except that one rule implies that mobility is an internal penalty for defenses (ex2e.374) while another claims mobility is an external penalty for defense (ex2e.147).
-Unless mobility truly is an internal penalty, there appear to be no non-magical internal penalties that apply to defense. Note that penalty reducing charms (see [[CharmTypes2E]]) may prevent some of these penalties, if they actually exist, from applying.
+Unless mobility truly is an internal penalty, there appear to be no non-magical internal penalties that apply to defense. Note that penalty reducing charms (see CharmTypes2E) may prevent some of these penalties, if they actually exist, from applying.
 === Step 3: Apply Magical Bonuses ===
@@ Line 223: / Line 223: @@
 The only concrete thing the rules say on inapplicability is "bonuses and penalties apply to inapplicable DVs after the reduction to zero, so a character huddled behind a rock may still benefit from its cover, and so on." I made the assumption that this didn't include charm manipulation, but you're right in suggesting that that is just my own assumption and not provable. Looks like "unblockable" attacks really aren't that unblockable. I'll update this a bit later. As for "static" vs. "unrolled", some of the rules read like what you say is true, some of them don't. Page 185 calls feats of strength both in the opening sentence that mentions them. Lightening Speed refers to excellencies increasing "the static rating of (Dexterity + Athletics)" (ex2e.224). Notes on linguistics talk about "increasing the static rating of Linguistics with the Linguistics Excellencies" (ex2e.232). The rules also suggest that not all static values are divided, using phrases like "if the value is rounded" (ex2e.185) and "often have to round" (ex2e.122), but then of course follow this with text that suggests that all static values are rounded. They also don't officially define "unrolled values". I think your approach is better though, making "static" and "unrolled" have specific meanings. - [[Wordman]]
-:I think we can easily infer from context that the bonuses and penalties to DV referred to by that statement are only those which do not benefit the innaplicable form of defense (such as the defense of a weapon or a parry-enhancing charm against an unblockable attack), but only those which apply regardless of the form of defense (certain highly potent charms might do this, but no printed ones that I know of - also, shields and cover work this way). - [[IanPrice]]
+:I think we can easily infer from context that the bonuses and penalties to DV referred to by that statement are only those which do not benefit the innaplicable form of defense (such as the defense of a weapon or a parry-enhancing charm against an unblockable attack), but only those which apply regardless of the form of defense (certain highly potent charms might do this, but no printed ones that I know of - also, shields and cover work this way). - IanPrice
-::I beg to differ. Essence manipulation in all its forms is magic. Thus its ability to mitigate inapplicability should not be denied outright, especially when the rules as written allow it to do so. If somebody wants to max out his First Dodge Excellency when he's being targeted by the Godspear, then it is reasonable to allow those 10 motes to give him 5 Dodge DV. Yes, in first edition, it doesn't work that way. But this is second edition, and together with ticks and excellencies, you also get inapplicability mitigation. - [[TonyC]]
+::I beg to differ. Essence manipulation in all its forms is magic. Thus its ability to mitigate inapplicability should not be denied outright, especially when the rules as written allow it to do so. If somebody wants to max out his First Dodge Excellency when he's being targeted by the Godspear, then it is reasonable to allow those 10 motes to give him 5 Dodge DV. Yes, in first edition, it doesn't work that way. But this is second edition, and together with ticks and excellencies, you also get inapplicability mitigation. - TonyC
 :::An interesting thought; but what then, is the relevance of a callout on which charms can block the unblockable, and which can't? SSE leaps immediately to mind, insofar as it's effect has nothing to do with DV, so a reduction to zero wouldn't eliminate it's effect. -[[Vaegrim]]
-::I have problems with that. Inapplicability-producing effects are far more difficult to obtain than DV bonuses, and almost all of them are Essence-based. Excellencies are the lowest form of this manipulation, and should not be offering defense against the Essence 3+ charms and high-dot-level artifacts which tend to be the causes of inapplicable defense. Therefore, I favor a strict interpretation of the rules towards "inapplicability means you just don't count it." Since penalty-removers specifically can't get around it, I also infer bonuses can't. Similarly, if a player in my game wanted to circumvent Adamant Skin Technique with Fire and Stones Strike (a perfect "removes all raw damage" soak with a post-soak damage adder), I would say no - Adamant Skin Technique perfectly defends against damage. Other things not necessarily, but damage yes. - [[IanPrice]]
+::I have problems with that. Inapplicability-producing effects are far more difficult to obtain than DV bonuses, and almost all of them are Essence-based. Excellencies are the lowest form of this manipulation, and should not be offering defense against the Essence 3+ charms and high-dot-level artifacts which tend to be the causes of inapplicable defense. Therefore, I favor a strict interpretation of the rules towards "inapplicability means you just don't count it." Since penalty-removers specifically can't get around it, I also infer bonuses can't. Similarly, if a player in my game wanted to circumvent Adamant Skin Technique with Fire and Stones Strike (a perfect "removes all raw damage" soak with a post-soak damage adder), I would say no - Adamant Skin Technique perfectly defends against damage. Other things not necessarily, but damage yes. - IanPrice

← Older revision	Revision as of 01:15, 6 April 2010
(No difference)