Difference between revisions of "FixTheSolarCharmTrees/PeonyBlossomAttack"
m |
m (link fix) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
As printed, but with half the cost; the first extra attack costs 2, the second 3, the third 4, and so on. | As printed, but with half the cost; the first extra attack costs 2, the second 3, the third 4, and so on. | ||
| − | == GoldenH's version == | + | == [[GoldenH]]'s version == |
Cost: As printed, but you only need to pay the cost of each supplemental and simple charm in the combo once. | Cost: As printed, but you only need to pay the cost of each supplemental and simple charm in the combo once. | ||
| − | == HeWhoSpeaksOfDarkness's version == | + | == [[HeWhoSpeaksOfDarkness]]'s version == |
As printed but the total cost is the number of attacks squared\\ | As printed but the total cost is the number of attacks squared\\ | ||
<i>as it turns out, this isn't substantially different from the original, as each individual attack costs 2n+1, where n is how many attacks you've done previously. You just sort of get attack 1 for free and a 1-mote surcharge on all the rest. - [[willows]]</i> | <i>as it turns out, this isn't substantially different from the original, as each individual attack costs 2n+1, where n is how many attacks you've done previously. You just sort of get attack 1 for free and a 1-mote surcharge on all the rest. - [[willows]]</i> | ||
| Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
#Mask of Winters | #Mask of Winters | ||
#[[Mapache]] | #[[Mapache]] | ||
| − | #MetalFatigue | + | #[[MetalFatigue]] |
#[[Grandmasta]] | #[[Grandmasta]] | ||
| Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
== [[ikselam]]'s version == | == [[ikselam]]'s version == | ||
#[[ikselam]] | #[[ikselam]] | ||
| − | #DaveFayram | + | #[[DaveFayram]] |
#[[Quendalon]] | #[[Quendalon]] | ||
| − | #OnyxChasm | + | #[[OnyxChasm]] |
#[[Blaque]] | #[[Blaque]] | ||
| − | #SilverMeerKat | + | #[[SilverMeerKat]] |
| − | #BrokenShade | + | #[[BrokenShade]] |
#[[Darloth]] | #[[Darloth]] | ||
#[[Scrollreader]] | #[[Scrollreader]] | ||
| − | == GoldenH's version == | + | == [[GoldenH]]'s version == |
| − | #GoldenH | + | #[[GoldenH]] |
| − | == HeWhoSpeaksOfDarkness's version == | + | == [[HeWhoSpeaksOfDarkness]]'s version == |
| − | #HeWhoSpeaksOfDarkness | + | #[[HeWhoSpeaksOfDarkness]] |
===== Comments ===== | ===== Comments ===== | ||
| − | I like thinker's version, as the original was a speed bump. -- BrokenShade | + | I like thinker's version, as the original was a speed bump. -- [[BrokenShade]] |
I like Thinker's too. It provides something missing in the tree and makes the charm worth taking in itself. Don't have books with me, but perhaps looks a bit cheap in motes? - [[Voidstate]] | I like Thinker's too. It provides something missing in the tree and makes the charm worth taking in itself. Don't have books with me, but perhaps looks a bit cheap in motes? - [[Voidstate]] | ||
| − | I don't think undodgeable attacks are a good idea - Dodge is already limited by the fact that it can't attack, and with people ruling in a way that makes 5fBS much better than FLB. Thus I think that it might be okay if you make it unparriable (Say that each time it deflects the opponent's weapon, that it gets to hit again, or a flurry of attacks too fast and too widely spaced for the sword to get all of them at once) it will work better. - GoldenH | + | I don't think undodgeable attacks are a good idea - Dodge is already limited by the fact that it can't attack, and with people ruling in a way that makes 5fBS much better than FLB. Thus I think that it might be okay if you make it unparriable (Say that each time it deflects the opponent's weapon, that it gets to hit again, or a flurry of attacks too fast and too widely spaced for the sword to get all of them at once) it will work better. - [[GoldenH]] |
| − | <i>GoldenH, I think your version has to be rephrased so that it gives a clear statement of function rather than referring one to assorted other Charms (with initials, no less; I can't figure out what FLB is, either) and leaving it to the reader to deduce the common factor. Do you mean to say, "This attack may only be defended against by a perfect defense"? - [[Quendalon]]</i> | + | <i>[[GoldenH]], I think your version has to be rephrased so that it gives a clear statement of function rather than referring one to assorted other Charms (with initials, no less; I can't figure out what FLB is, either) and leaving it to the reader to deduce the common factor. Do you mean to say, "This attack may only be defended against by a perfect defense"? - [[Quendalon]]</i> |
| − | I agree with Quendalon. I assume that FLB is Flow Like Blood; the mechanical intent looks like "this can only be defended against by area defenses", which Flow Like Blood is not. Rather than naming specific Charms, it's far better to give an effect and allow the users to determine which defenses apply. (For instance, can you redirect this attack with Safety Among Enemies or Underling-Trampling Dance? Can you escape it with Corners-of-Creation Escape or Unnatural Many-Step Stride?) If it's an area attack, you also need to define the area intelligently enough that you can determine what escapes it and what does not. - FourWillowsWeeping | + | I agree with Quendalon. I assume that FLB is Flow Like Blood; the mechanical intent looks like "this can only be defended against by area defenses", which Flow Like Blood is not. Rather than naming specific Charms, it's far better to give an effect and allow the users to determine which defenses apply. (For instance, can you redirect this attack with Safety Among Enemies or Underling-Trampling Dance? Can you escape it with Corners-of-Creation Escape or Unnatural Many-Step Stride?) If it's an area attack, you also need to define the area intelligently enough that you can determine what escapes it and what does not. - [[FourWillowsWeeping]] |
| − | Well, I think its just an Area Attack, kinda like an avalanche or something like that, which can't normally be parried or defended against without the use of charms. Sorry about the initial thing, I'm just so used to using HGD, FLB, SSE that I assume everyone else does too. Also, I consider FLB to be able to defend against area attacks, but if you don't, then this ins't a rule saying that FLB can defend against this charm, so if you don't think it should, then obviously FLB won't do jack. - GoldenH | + | Well, I think its just an Area Attack, kinda like an avalanche or something like that, which can't normally be parried or defended against without the use of charms. Sorry about the initial thing, I'm just so used to using HGD, FLB, SSE that I assume everyone else does too. Also, I consider FLB to be able to defend against area attacks, but if you don't, then this ins't a rule saying that FLB can defend against this charm, so if you don't think it should, then obviously FLB won't do jack. - [[GoldenH]] |
| − | Everyone is trying to radically change the charm. This worries me. The charm's problem before was cost, not function. -- DaveFayram | + | Everyone is trying to radically change the charm. This worries me. The charm's problem before was cost, not function. -- [[DaveFayram]] |
True. And on the subject of undodgeable attacks: an undodgeable or unblockable attack should be fine: other Exalted have access to things like that (Lunars have several Charms that make it very very hard to block their attacks, for example), and Solars should be able to do it even better. But their unblockable/undodgeable should cost Willpower, and shouldn't be the third Charm up the tree. In my campaign, we have a supplemental that makes an attack unblockable with Fire & Stones Strike as its prerequisite, and an undodgeable coming off Iron Whirlwind Attack. The unblockable costs 2 Willpower and 5 Essence, as most Exalts have the ability block far better than they dodge, and the undodgeable costs 1 Willpower and 3 motes. -- Onyx Chasm | True. And on the subject of undodgeable attacks: an undodgeable or unblockable attack should be fine: other Exalted have access to things like that (Lunars have several Charms that make it very very hard to block their attacks, for example), and Solars should be able to do it even better. But their unblockable/undodgeable should cost Willpower, and shouldn't be the third Charm up the tree. In my campaign, we have a supplemental that makes an attack unblockable with Fire & Stones Strike as its prerequisite, and an undodgeable coming off Iron Whirlwind Attack. The unblockable costs 2 Willpower and 5 Essence, as most Exalts have the ability block far better than they dodge, and the undodgeable costs 1 Willpower and 3 motes. -- Onyx Chasm | ||
| Line 84: | Line 84: | ||
I like Ikeselam's version best so far really. Since I think the tree should be mostly towards fast, multiple attacks, simply making the Charm cheaper is the best way to go. It retains an advantage over Iron Whirlwind in that its got no upper cap on how many attacks you take with it. It trades off quanity for quality, though, as Iron Whirlwind give syou cheaper, but less, extra actions. I see this as a nice trade-off and keeps an "Extra Attack Branch" theme going. And stuff. -- [[Blaque]] | I like Ikeselam's version best so far really. Since I think the tree should be mostly towards fast, multiple attacks, simply making the Charm cheaper is the best way to go. It retains an advantage over Iron Whirlwind in that its got no upper cap on how many attacks you take with it. It trades off quanity for quality, though, as Iron Whirlwind give syou cheaper, but less, extra actions. I see this as a nice trade-off and keeps an "Extra Attack Branch" theme going. And stuff. -- [[Blaque]] | ||
| − | Yeah, what Blaque said. - SilverMeerKat | + | Yeah, what Blaque said. - [[SilverMeerKat]] |
Simply delete it, it gets shafted by the next charm anyway. Alternately, just have it cost a flat rate... 3 or 4 motes per attack. - Domon | Simply delete it, it gets shafted by the next charm anyway. Alternately, just have it cost a flat rate... 3 or 4 motes per attack. - Domon | ||
| − | As often seems to happen, [[Ikselam]]'s suggestion looks better after a bit of pondering. ^_^ -- BrokenShade | + | As often seems to happen, [[Ikselam]]'s suggestion looks better after a bit of pondering. ^_^ -- [[BrokenShade]] |
The main thing it has over Iron Whirlwind, though, Domon, is that it has no upper cap. So if you have the Essence, you can start piling away without a worry int he world. It will be more expensive in the long run, sure, but in the end youc an become a flury of bladed death. That might even be why there is the obscene costs to it now. The math actually ended-up rather interesting. | The main thing it has over Iron Whirlwind, though, Domon, is that it has no upper cap. So if you have the Essence, you can start piling away without a worry int he world. It will be more expensive in the long run, sure, but in the end youc an become a flury of bladed death. That might even be why there is the obscene costs to it now. The math actually ended-up rather interesting. | ||
| Line 97: | Line 97: | ||
| − | I had a great Idea when I tried to go to sleep so I deleted this to change it! wootness. -- GoldenH | + | I had a great Idea when I tried to go to sleep so I deleted this to change it! wootness. -- [[GoldenH]] |
Actually [[Blaque]], I really like that. Mind if I gank it?\\ | Actually [[Blaque]], I really like that. Mind if I gank it?\\ | ||
| Line 118: | Line 118: | ||
I cooncur with Ikselam. I think it's important to have distinctions between the Solar and the Abyssal versions. And the freedom this offers is nifty. But I'm worried about theme to a greater degree than most people, I guess. | I cooncur with Ikselam. I think it's important to have distinctions between the Solar and the Abyssal versions. And the freedom this offers is nifty. But I'm worried about theme to a greater degree than most people, I guess. | ||
:[[Scrollreader]] | :[[Scrollreader]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | I would note that the Power Combat revision introduced the idea of a flat rate for extra attacks, although I suspect this discussion occurred before the release of the PG anyway. ~ <i>[[G]]</i> | ||
Revision as of 08:06, 5 April 2010
Contents
Official Charm
Peony Blossom Attack
- Cost: Varies
- Duration: Instant
- Type: Extra Action
- Minimum Melee: 3
- Minimum Essence: 1
- Prerequisite Charms: One Weapon, Two Blows
[...] The character may make multiple attacks, either against multiple targets or a single opponent. The character may attack as many times as she likes, so long as she has sufficient Essence to fuel the Charm. Each attack costs motes of Essence equal to twicee the total number of attacks the character has made that turn, including his normal attack. A character making 5 attacks would pay 28 (4 + 6 + 8 + 10) motes of Essence to activate the Peony Blossom Attack. The player must declare how many attacks the character will make this turn before the character takes her first action.
Power Combat Version
Change the cost to a flat 3 motes/extra attack, with a maximum number of extra attacks equal to the character's permanent Essence.
thinker's version
Peony Blossom Attack</b>
<b>Cost: 3 motes Duration: Instant Type: Supplemental Min. Melee: 3 Min. Essence: 1 Prereqs: One Weapon Two Blows
Expanding on the power of One Weapon Two Blows the Solar Exalted makes a rapid series of attacks, like a Peony Blossom caught in the current of a river, being pulled one way and then the next. The series only stops when the characters weapon meets its target. As a result an attack supplemented by this Charm may be parried, but cannot be dodged.
Ikselam's version
As printed, but with half the cost; the first extra attack costs 2, the second 3, the third 4, and so on.
GoldenH's version
Cost: As printed, but you only need to pay the cost of each supplemental and simple charm in the combo once.
HeWhoSpeaksOfDarkness's version
As printed but the total cost is the number of attacks squared\\ as it turns out, this isn't substantially different from the original, as each individual attack costs 2n+1, where n is how many attacks you've done previously. You just sort of get attack 1 for free and a 1-mote surcharge on all the rest. - willows
Vote Tally
Official version
Nobody yet
Power Combat Version
- Mask of Winters
- Mapache
- MetalFatigue
- Grandmasta
thinker's version
ikselam's version
GoldenH's version
HeWhoSpeaksOfDarkness's version
Comments
I like thinker's version, as the original was a speed bump. -- BrokenShade
I like Thinker's too. It provides something missing in the tree and makes the charm worth taking in itself. Don't have books with me, but perhaps looks a bit cheap in motes? - Voidstate
I don't think undodgeable attacks are a good idea - Dodge is already limited by the fact that it can't attack, and with people ruling in a way that makes 5fBS much better than FLB. Thus I think that it might be okay if you make it unparriable (Say that each time it deflects the opponent's weapon, that it gets to hit again, or a flurry of attacks too fast and too widely spaced for the sword to get all of them at once) it will work better. - GoldenH
GoldenH, I think your version has to be rephrased so that it gives a clear statement of function rather than referring one to assorted other Charms (with initials, no less; I can't figure out what FLB is, either) and leaving it to the reader to deduce the common factor. Do you mean to say, "This attack may only be defended against by a perfect defense"? - Quendalon
I agree with Quendalon. I assume that FLB is Flow Like Blood; the mechanical intent looks like "this can only be defended against by area defenses", which Flow Like Blood is not. Rather than naming specific Charms, it's far better to give an effect and allow the users to determine which defenses apply. (For instance, can you redirect this attack with Safety Among Enemies or Underling-Trampling Dance? Can you escape it with Corners-of-Creation Escape or Unnatural Many-Step Stride?) If it's an area attack, you also need to define the area intelligently enough that you can determine what escapes it and what does not. - FourWillowsWeeping
Well, I think its just an Area Attack, kinda like an avalanche or something like that, which can't normally be parried or defended against without the use of charms. Sorry about the initial thing, I'm just so used to using HGD, FLB, SSE that I assume everyone else does too. Also, I consider FLB to be able to defend against area attacks, but if you don't, then this ins't a rule saying that FLB can defend against this charm, so if you don't think it should, then obviously FLB won't do jack. - GoldenH
Everyone is trying to radically change the charm. This worries me. The charm's problem before was cost, not function. -- DaveFayram
True. And on the subject of undodgeable attacks: an undodgeable or unblockable attack should be fine: other Exalted have access to things like that (Lunars have several Charms that make it very very hard to block their attacks, for example), and Solars should be able to do it even better. But their unblockable/undodgeable should cost Willpower, and shouldn't be the third Charm up the tree. In my campaign, we have a supplemental that makes an attack unblockable with Fire & Stones Strike as its prerequisite, and an undodgeable coming off Iron Whirlwind Attack. The unblockable costs 2 Willpower and 5 Essence, as most Exalts have the ability block far better than they dodge, and the undodgeable costs 1 Willpower and 3 motes. -- Onyx Chasm
I like Ikeselam's version best so far really. Since I think the tree should be mostly towards fast, multiple attacks, simply making the Charm cheaper is the best way to go. It retains an advantage over Iron Whirlwind in that its got no upper cap on how many attacks you take with it. It trades off quanity for quality, though, as Iron Whirlwind give syou cheaper, but less, extra actions. I see this as a nice trade-off and keeps an "Extra Attack Branch" theme going. And stuff. -- Blaque
Yeah, what Blaque said. - SilverMeerKat
Simply delete it, it gets shafted by the next charm anyway. Alternately, just have it cost a flat rate... 3 or 4 motes per attack. - Domon
As often seems to happen, Ikselam's suggestion looks better after a bit of pondering. ^_^ -- BrokenShade
The main thing it has over Iron Whirlwind, though, Domon, is that it has no upper cap. So if you have the Essence, you can start piling away without a worry int he world. It will be more expensive in the long run, sure, but in the end youc an become a flury of bladed death. That might even be why there is the obscene costs to it now. The math actually ended-up rather interesting.
Stuff. If anything, though, the only change I would make to the ikselam version is to make it so you pay for the first action too. So instead of being 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ect, it would be 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ect. Simple
And stuff. -- Blaque
I had a great Idea when I tried to go to sleep so I deleted this to change it! wootness. -- GoldenH
Actually Blaque, I really like that. Mind if I gank it?\\ ~*~Braydz~*~
Nope, go right ahead. Stuff - Blaque
caught a huge bug :D
don't want people getting free HGDs.
Ganked with a minor revision.\\ ~*~Braydz~*~
Blaque, maybe a flat rate of five motes pr attack? i'm really into flat rates ;) let's see: with maximum solar essence at essence 5 and WP 10 you could make 14 attacks, and be utterly and definitely spent. 11-12 if you have some artifacts attuned. less if you have some persistent charm. so, it let you go wyld with the number of attacks, but it isn't as powerful as to make you WANT to go wyld...
Domon (not Dolomon :D)
I cooncur with Ikselam. I think it's important to have distinctions between the Solar and the Abyssal versions. And the freedom this offers is nifty. But I'm worried about theme to a greater degree than most people, I guess.
I would note that the Power Combat revision introduced the idea of a flat rate for extra attacks, although I suspect this discussion occurred before the release of the PG anyway. ~ G
