Guess I'll bump the thread once before going to sleep, in the hopes of finding it in a more active state tomorrow. I do have an actual question, too, not just a bump for the sake of a bump. Does anyone know if there are good homebrew 1CDs for 3E around? I might be running an Infernals campaign sometime in the near-ish future, and when players spend time in Malfeas, I'd like to have a greater variety of rank-and-file demons than what the published material offers. Obviously I can just make something up, and probably will, but any interesting 1CDs other people have written up would be appreciated.

>>97656235
Weekly Update
>Art Direction
Abyssals Companion – Working on art buy
>Layout
Alchemicals – I’m getting on this shortly, really
>Press
Exigents – Shipping to fulfillment shippers
very short this week, but at least the damn exigent books are shipping
i may as well mention there's a dtrpg sale, and exalted stuff is in it for all editions, so do what you like

>>97656235
just a little thing from last thread,

in 2nd ed infernal, they start with cult1 because of the worship if DEMONS in malfeas.

File: 2e infernal cult dot.jpg (16 KB, 353x121)

16 KB JPG

>>97659599
>in 2nd ed infernal, they start with cult1 because of the worship if DEMONS in malfeas.
Source: You made it the fuck up.

The actual reason that Infernals start with a Cult dot by default is that Yozi worship is widespread in Creation. Which is to say, among mortals. It's unclear whether Infernals are being delegated worship from those mortals by their Yozi patrons, if they're siphoning off worship from their Yozi patrons by dint of being their champions and the Yozi can't do anything about it, or if it's because word of them as the coming champions of those ancient powers from beyond the world has begun spreading among the Yozi's cults.

Source: Picrel.

PS: Not sure why Yozi have cults, let alone popular ones. They don't do much of anything and worshipping them is a worthless endeavour. This would go through much better if it was demon cults that were widespread, and the Yozi/Infernals were hijacking them.

>>97659790
>PS: Not sure why Yozi have cults, let alone popular ones. They don't do much of anything and worshipping them is a worthless endeavour. This would go through much better if it was demon cults that were widespread, and the Yozi/Infernals were hijacking them.
They're the big dogs of Hell. I think there's a pretty straightforward logic there: if I'm going to worship demons, might as well worship the boss demons rather than their servants. It's not like Yozi-worship prevents anyone from dealing with demons, either. In fact, I'd expect it to be pretty common for the same cult to offer worship both to a Yozi or all of them and to some set of demons as the aspects and emissaries of Yozis.

>>97659864
>demons as the aspects and emissaries of Yozis.
That cult section also describes their presence in Creation as 'especially now that the Demon Princes have missionaries of their own', strongly implying they didn't have missionaries before the Infernals.

>>97659884
Obviously. Demons are imprisoned in Hell, they're not going to have an easy time going out and evangelizing. Equally obviously demons are still more active and have more chances to interact with Creation than Yozis.

3E Infernals manuscript states that, while Yozis will never escape, they can reach to Creation through dreams of mortals, seeding those dreams with visions of power and knowledge Hell could offer. That goes some way towards explaining the spread of Yozi cults, too.

>>97659884
1e Harmonious Jade was member of a demon worshipping assassin cult, it seemed not that "uncommon" in 1e.

And I need to check 1e's anteng to be sure if they worshipped SWLIHN

>>97659790
>PS: Not sure why Yozi have cults, let alone popular ones. They don't do much of anything and worshipping them is a worthless endeavour. This would go through much better if it was demon cults that were widespread, and the Yozi/Infernals were hijacking them
I understand you, the setting would have made more sense if the original devs didn't decide to make yozis a separate 4th circle from 3rd circles.
But the ship already sailed.

How to improve Lunars:
>Give them more historical victories over the Realm; the biggest Anathema victory pre-Solar return being from a Solar (Bull of the North) is completely embarrassing for them
>Give them more of a presence in other realms; Lunar domains ought to stretch from Creation to the Underworld and Cecelyne, they have way more reason to be exploring and understanding those places than anyone else. There should be entire Lunar empires that are at least partly in the Underworld and butt up against the deathlords
>Have them in at least partial contact with the ghosts of First Age exalts (not deathlords), learning stuff from them
>Add more Lunar domains around the map and give them actual goals besides "man, fuck the Realm"
>Make Lunars the main anti-Sidereal faction, sneaking into Heaven and fucking shit up, instead of Getimians, whom no one cares about
>Make the Silver Pact actively recruit Solars and be worried about the Cult as a Sidereal tool manipulate them

>>97660051
What bizarro-/exg/ have I stumbled into? Is someone actually offering reasonable ways to improve Lunars instead of demanding that their very basic concept be scrapped and a completely new and different splat sharing only the name being written from the scratch to replace them? I agree with all those suggestions 100%, except maybe for the one about ghosts. I don't disagree with that one per se, either, I just think it's not all that important when there are actual, living First Age Lunars around to learn from. Add a bit of expansion of shapeshifting, let Lunars steal the shapes of inhabitants of all those realms where Lunar dominions exist, and I we'd have Lunars I'd be happy with.

>>97660145
Quit talking to yourself. None of that matters in the face of their confused and shitty mechanics and themes

>>97660237
Don't schizopost, anon. Not everyone disagreeing with you is the same person. Biggest problem with Lunars isn't their themes or mechanics but their lack of impact on the setting, and biggest problem with their mechanics is just overemphasis on animal shapeshifting. /exg/ occasionally turns into an anti-Lunar echo chamber with some truly wacky ideas about what should be done with Lunars, but that doesn't mean that /exg/'s ideas are any kind of a fact or even commonly shared anywhere outside this place. Or even commonly shared in this place, as there are always people calling bullshit when someone goes on a rant about how Lunars absolutely need to be replaced by something completely different.

>>97660259
I disagree. I don't give a shit about their setting impact because I don't treat this game as a novel to read. Lunars suck because their themes suck, their mechanics suck, their imagery sucks. I couldn't care less about you making up some dumb thing that an NPC I don't care about did. I care about you making my characters more fun to play.

>>97660264
Well, find Lunars fun to play, the only thing I'd want added is that expanded, more versatile shapeshifting, and I do care about the setting because the actual fucking gameplay happens in the setting. It's fine if you want to play something other than Lunars, but you could just, you know, do that. Play something else instead of demanding drastic changes to a splat with its own fans.

>>97660145
>Is someone actually offering reasonable ways to improve Lunars instead of demanding that their very basic concept be scrapped and a completely new and different splat sharing only the name being written from the scratch to replace them?
No, that's actually exactly what you're looking at. A rework. The only thing it doesn't do is try to rework their mechanics, and if that's the thing you're praising then you're still mad because those need fixing too.

>>97660269
When people ask for lunars to be remade it's because they are a burned dish. You can't fix it by salting it, it's already burned. The problems with Lunars go all the way down to their conceptual beginnings being a mess, and people just tacking on more and more to that. I'm happy for you, but don't take it personally when people noticed that it is fundamentally flawed and the only way to fix it is to start fresh.

>>97660273
None of what anon suggested is a conceptual, starting-from-the-scratch rework, though. It's same old Lunars, they're just in more places and actually do shit.

>>97660282
They would not be the same lunars because you're changing a lot of things about their very nature already. You're just being a shithead.

>>97660282
>None of what anon suggested is a conceptual, starting-from-the-scratch rework, though. It's same old Lunars, they're just in more places and actually do shit.
It's about as much of a rework as I suggested when I played into it after being accused of wanting Lunars ripped out and replaced with in-name-only Lunar reworks. It's actually exactly the same thing I have suggested multiple times previously and have been accused of hating Lunars for proposing, the idea isn't anywhere near new.

>>97660279
I fully understand that some people really dislike Lunars on a fundamental level. Obviously those people haven't actually noticed any fundamental flaws Lunar fans ignore, they just subjectively dislike Lunars but are too deep in the autism spectrum to recognize their subjective preferences for what they are. I just wish these people would make something they'd like to play instead of insisting that a splat they dislike but other people like should be changed to cater to them.

>>97660297
You're taking it personally instead of being able to understand that they're fucked. Your position is "leave thing I like alone" instead of having actual dialogue about what's fucked and why they are fucked from the get-go. Nobody is taking you seriously for that reason.

>>97660297
This is like kitchen nightmares, splat edition.

>>97660307
Actual dialogue can't start from the premise that you're right and the other side's wrong, either. In other words, we can't have a discussion about why Lunars are fucked without first having a discussion about whether Lunars actually are fucked. If we end up disagreeing about that, the obvious explanation for disagreement would, of course, be that these opinions are about preferences rather than facts.

>>97660297
>Obviously those people haven't actually noticed any fundamental flaws Lunar fans ignore
You think Lunar fans don't see any fundamental flaws in Lunars that make them painful to play? Holy shit do I have news for you. Tight restrictions on shapeshifting that'll never go away because Lunars have been tied so tightly to being the animal Exalted, that shapeshifting itself being neutered by the shapeshifting-as-disguise rather than shapeshifting-as-empowerment paradigm, so many problems stemming from their charms being Attribute-based in a system not designed to handle it and originally written (and then re-written three times in styles based on that) by people who hadn't tried it before, the narrative issues with their default home-base being the Wyld - a place that nobody likes and which has no impact on the world at large - and then there's also Lunar Elders who're basically the worst parts of the Deathlords in that they're way too strong to handle personally and utterly deplorable in attitude and yet supposed to be respected while also not having many of the Deathlord's strengths, which is to say they aren't active in the world and if they do have any grand plans their track record is so shit nobody would believe they'd do anything anyway, and they're also actually Exalted rather than the Deathlord's sorta-kinda-but-not-really, so they share the same level of protagonist halo any other Lunar (PC) is supposed to have with a Storyteller who likes verisimilitude, but they're so shit that it makes Lunar PCs look less like protagonists by proxy.

Anyway, yeah. Fundamental flaws / Sacred cows, but ones that makes Lunars feel like Lunars to a lot of people: Shapeshifting sucks, Lunars are stuck hard to animals (and yes this is a flaw even if you like them as animal exalted), attribute-based charm design but was poorly implemented and that style is sacred, their elders and organisations suck, and they have no game impact unless they're in your game.

>>97660323
Animal shapeshifting's not a fundamental flaw because it's not fundamental to Lunars. I mean, it's not conceptually fundamental. 2E Lunars could turn into other things, and they weren't any less Lunars for it.

>>97660329
Shapeshifting in *Exalted* sucks because there may as well not be a point to it. Everything it can do is surpassed by Charms, and if there was something it could do better, you can always just make a charm that surpasses it anyway. This turns it into weak fluff at best and liabilities in competency at worst

>>97660335
Shapeshifting's got versatility going for it, at least. It offers disguise, mobility, senses and survival in different environments - all of that can be achieved through Charms, sure, but shapeshifting offers it all in one power. Obviously it's more of a utility power and Lunars should have more than it going on, but it's not pointless in my experience.

>>97660329
>Animal shapeshifting's not a fundamental flaw because it's not fundamental to Lunars. I mean, it's not conceptually fundamental. 2E Lunars could turn into other things, and they weren't any less Lunars for it.
Animal shapeshifting isn't a fundamental flaw, but it's one step removed from the fundamental flaw that is Lunars being tied too tightly to animals. Their charms are animal charms, they get stuck shapeshifting into animals and only animals way too often (i.e. 1e/3e/Essence), and even in 2e their shapeshifting into things other than animals is restricted to only getting them the things that they would get if the things they ate were animals, so if they eat a spirit, they can't dematerialize, they only get to take a similar shape. This sucks even for fans of animal Lunars, since they get barred out of becoming the wildlife of the Underworld (those're spectral animals, not animals, after all), the Wyld (those're minor fae or wyld emanations, and you don't get to have the mutations when you eat a wyld mutant anyway), Malfeas (can't take spirit-forms, and in 2e when you can take spirit-forms you're still fucked because you can't breath Malfean miasma or do any of the things that spirit does to blend in), and even in Yu Shan (see: spirit forms, but also Heaven's wildlife is mostly minor household spirits that spend 90% of their time ephemeral, which Lunars can't mimic). Basically, the fans of animal Lunars only get to play the Lunars they want to see in Creation, and even then only so long as the supernatural or First Age doesn't get too involved and barely sapient roving automata are the thing they need to blend in with.

>>97660343
I don't need a One-Stop shop for less powerful, more restrictive abilities. Charms completely remove the need. There has never been a situation in which even my DBs have needed to be able to change into anything. That's the problem. It can do stuff, but why would I do it when I can already do better? It's a pointless avenue.

>>97660346
Sure, fair enough, that's a real problem. Putting less focus on animal themes and more on just shapeshifting in general and on the sacred hunt would be my preference. There'd need to be some limits, of course, as just giving Lunars potential access to the powers of literally everything they can hunt and kill would probably be impossible to balance, but, like, only having access to one form's powers at one time probably would bepossibly to handle, and ability to dematerialize definitely wouldn't break the game.

>>97660357
Slapping on the abilities of other, better design things would not make Lunars more interesting. For this to be even worthwhile, lunars would also have to have worse charms to make it advantageous to steal. Hell, the sacred hunt itself is a really shitty mechanic and I'm surprised it's something you want to even keep.

>>97660357
>only having access to one form's powers at one time probably would bepossibly to handle, and ability to dematerialize definitely wouldn't break the game.
That's pretty much where I'm at when it comes to Lunar power-thieving. So long as they can't use everything at once, and can't immediately eat their way up the ladder to the endgame, then it's pretty much fine. Saying 'no multi-form' and 'no increasing essence rating' and then sticking to those rules would make a Sacred Hunt that stole powers as a base ability of Lunars something close to fair in the grand scheme of things, though obviously it'd change the Lunar playstyle dramatically (which is intentional and a good sign when reworking).

>>97660370
>Hell, the sacred hunt itself is a really shitty mechanic and I'm surprised it's something you want to even keep.
It makes sense in the context of Lunars being able to get the powers of anything they can hunt down and defeat, and being able to actually use them. It doesn't make sense in the current scope of Lunars where they're already very limited thematically to Creation-born forms without any attached superpowers. It can work as something like a limit on power in a world where shapeshifting has broader scope and potential; you cannot defeat the Unconquered Sun, therefore you cannot wield the Unconquered Sun's powers, and so on.

>>97660370
Power-stealing and shapeshifting are both completely valid design space, and literally everyone, no matter how powerful, would benefit from being able to use powers of others on top of their own. Say, Solars sure as fuck would benefit from being able to steal some wimpy E1 spirit's ability to dematerialize, and there are plenty of actual spirit Charms that'd be useful to them without being stronger than Solar Charms.

>Hell, the sacred hunt itself is a really shitty mechanic and I'm surprised it's something you want to even keep.
Why do you think that? I think that the idea of hunting and killing someone and taking his very shape - and, if I had ny way, powers - as your trophy is cool as fuck, and I think the kinds of predator-and-prey themes and dynamics that leads to are also cool and something pretty distinctly Lunar.

>>97660388
I reiterate again, for this to be worthwhile, my stuff has to suck. I don't give enough of a shit about power stealing to intentionally tank my own capabilities. That's the fundamental issue with shapeshifting to steal powers: why should I do it unless my stuff isn't good?
>>97660393
There is zero reason for me to take their charms, especially if I'm a Solar. I can make something that does it, or accomplishes the same effect, better, I am giving explicit license to. Once again, this comes back to the fundamental issue of charms just being better, and the only reason I wouldn't use my own charms is if they suck.

>>97660400
>I reiterate again, for this to be worthwhile, my stuff has to suck
Why? I haven't seen you explain why with anything other than 'because otherwise I wouldn't use it', which just seems intuitively wrong immediately. Of course you're going to use the power that gets you more power. It's like asking why you would use astrology or excellencies or charms at all.

>I don't give enough of a shit about power stealing to intentionally tank my own capabilities
This might be it, but what I don't get is where the idea that you'd be tanking your own capabilities came from, it seems left field and completely made up. You get your powers, and the powers of the form you've taken, not one or the other.

>why should I do it unless my stuff isn't good?
More good is more better. You can have good stuff and want more, unless you're claiming nobody spends xp or something.

>>97660423
It's only good if it's better. Why should I have overlapping capabilities? It's just a waste of my time to have two or more different things that accomplish the same effects at the same efficacy. It's just common sense. They would have to be meaningfully different for me to pick up a different thing, and the question is why can I not do the meaningfully different thing?

>>97660423
No, he has a point. The whole reason you steal forms in other games is because is a power boost (see druid). But if you're already strong and you have the same sorts of abilities of the things you're stealing, which is going to be true for most exalted, then you are either downgrading yourself or at best side grading into something you can already do.

Why the FUCK would anyone want to turn into an animal, let alone make that their defining gimmick? Animals suck. Even regular ass mortals have turned them into their bitches.

>>97660433
>the question is why can I not do the meaningfully different thing?
Because you don't have infinite experience? Duh? And also because you're a Solar, not a god of, I don't fucking know, agriculture or something, so you can't make corn rain from the sky. Why are you asking questions with clearly obvious answers?

>>97660443
>But if you're already strong and you have the same sorts of abilities of the things you're stealing, which is going to be true for most exalted
Citation fucking needed. What?

>you are either downgrading yourself
Literally not possible if you keep all of your own abilities.

>at best side grading into something you can already do.
Even in the absolute worst case scenario you just provided, abilities overlapping in the same field still sometimes stack up for better results, and you still don't have infinite experience to replicate every ability every other character has in the same field.

Also, Lunars aren't Solars, they don't have the best charms in the game by default.

>>97660460
People are assuming something reasonable, because the druid issue isn't something that this game needs. Because it certainly sounds like you are suggesting that we go that same way and you can just replace your character sheet

>>97660400
>I reiterate again, for this to be worthwhile, my stuff has to suck.
That's not true, and repeating it doesn't make it trrue. Even if your own Charms are good, as long as they're not omnipotent and all-encompassing, it's obviously useful to be able to take someone else's.

>>97660477
>the druid issue isn't something that this game needs
Better than the skinsuit issue. I prefer my Exalted high power high chicanery, not low energy.

>>97660460
I am a celestial exalt. I don't need to make corn rain from the sky because I can accomplish the same effect better through a myriad of means that are native to me. So either I am poaching pointless abilities for fluff (who cares) or for some reason I can't do a basic thing.

>>97660486
It really isn't. Why should I use someone else's Excellency unless mine is bad compared to theirs? Why would I use somebody else's damage increaser for the same reason? Unless your reason is to skip paying XP for abilities altogether, in which case go fuck yourself, there's no point.

>>97660490
Yoy're using shapeshifting to broaden your abilities because you have a finite amount of xp, you don't have all yiur splat's Charms, and also because your native Charms aren't just whatever the fuck you could possibly think of, they have some kind of a theme or set of themes.

>>97660490
>I don't need to make corn rain from the sky because I can accomplish the same effect better through a myriad of means that are native to me
Except you can't because like almost any other Exalt and PC in general, you chose not to dedicate your life to farming. You chose to optimize combat or social or sorcery or whatever instead. Thank god you've got this nifty shapeshifting ability that lets you steal corn-summoning powers, huh? As opposed to that animal shapeshifting power that basically just gives you a furry skinsuit to disguise yourself with.

>>97660493
At least two different people have explained this to you multiple times already. Just read the replies you've already got, and keep reading them until you actually understand them. Let's continue this discussion after you've done that.

>>97660493
>Why should I use someone else's Excellency unless mine is bad compared to theirs?
Why would you target someone for power theft if you already had their ability?

>>97660498
This is the druid problem though, and it's bad for any game that has it. If I can replace my character at any point with another character optimized for the situation, all sense of balance is ruined. Congratulations, you've literally just shown why you can never have somebody else's charms.

>>97660495
>>97660498
>>97660501
>>97660502
>anons make the case for why shapeshifting is gimp

>>97660508
While Eclipse Charmshare as it was in the previous editions was bad, it didn't cause the kinds of problems you're talking about.

>>97660512
Shapeshifting being a versatile tool is an argument for shapeshifting, not against it, anon.

>>97660520
This is actually a perfect argument against shapeshifting being able to access meaningful powers. Either they can and you're an idiot for actually specing or they can't and it's as shit as it is right now.

>>97660515
That's because they intentionally nerfed it as compared to this. There was a pretty big opportunity cost. The druid problem is a problem because there is no real opportunity cost for them to assume a new shape that comes with a whole host of beneficial abilities tailored for the situation at hand. It was literally the best ability in the game because of that, and it shows a general lack of understanding of the implications to suggest it instead of just making a splat that's independently good

>>97660529
Most Exalts can't shapeshifting, while Lunars being encouraged to shapeshift instead of specializing doesn't seem like a huge problem to me. Obviously there should be something to distinguish Lunars from each other, but coming up witj Charms that do something useful together with shapeshifting for a splat with shapeshifting powers shouldn't be overwhelmimgly difficult. Besides, few things are at good at anything as a specialized Exalt, and usefulness of shapeshifting comes from the fact that your Exalt is never, ever going to be a specialist in everything.

>>97660538
Sacred hunt, man. You can't just fart out these shapes.

>>97660540
That is not an opportunity cost. An Eclipse has to make a conscious decision about his investitures, but a hunt doesn't cost you anything except a little bit of time

>>97660539
This goes back to having to suck in order to make this worthwhile ON TOP of this being mechanically ill-advised.

>>97660544
Put an xp cost on forms. It doesn't even have to be big, 1xp would do, or maybe it costs 1xp for the unenlightened and 3xp for essence wielders or something. Problem solved, and it gives you a distinct furry class for people who actually just wanted to play furries and not shapeshifters.

That said, you don't even need to. There are a limited number of characters with abilities that're worthwhile in the world and they tend to be connected. Ganking supernatural enemies makes you Exalt-appropriate foes and has reasonable consequences to stop you going full serial killer rampage mode.

>>97660544
Time and effort matter, but beyond that sacred hunt gives the ST a tool to limit available shapes. You can't just decide thst Ligier's in the nearby forest just because you'd really want to have his powers. Relatively easily found shapes aren't gamebreaking, and potentially gamebreaking shapes don't need to be easily found.

>>97660549
It doesn't, not by any stretch of logic.

>>97660551
If I'm giving an XP cost to it, then why don't I just give you the eclipse keyword? Honestly having to adjudicate every single potential use of it to make sure that it's useful but also not too strong really doesn't strike me as faith in the mechanic.

I can tell none of you guys have had to play in games where one class had a strong shapeshifting power. When it does what you guys are talking about, it completely outshines every other ability because it is every other ability. Even if you can only be one at a time, even if you can only trade them out with time and effort, it is so much better to be all the things than it is to be one thing. That's why you're never going to get it and why it's a bad design space.

>>97660592
Turning into a ghost or a demon isn't going to let you out-fence a Solar or compete with a Sidereal in Fate shenanigans.

>>97660603
I'm not going to bother acknowledging the downplay, nor engage disingenuous talk. There's a reason you can't access charms and you know it.

>>97660603
>>97660592
>>97660632
It's always some shit like "oh let me dematerialize, let me grow plants" but if somebody who has let people copy charms at the table, I can tell you that it always comes down to combat effectiveness and using unintentional combos.

>>97660445
T-Rex, being pixie size and kicking ass, being the best spy (everyone has a pet), flexible attributes, several RP options (see picture of lunar archtypes).

The real question is why would anyone play a solar when every splat is basically an improvement upon them.

>>97660647
Because they beat everyone else up

>>97660647
>T-Rex
I'm stronger than one already.
>being pixie size and kicking ass
Not my fetish.
>being the best spy
I can already do that but better.
>flexible attributes, several RP options (see picture of lunar archtypes).
Not my fetish.

>>97660680
I can't really help your lack of creativity, other people don't really have this issue. Mechanically you can do all those things along with your other charms, so you're not just a T-Rex or a Pixie, you're a super powerful T-Rex or Pixie.

The Lunar picture is pretty correct.

File: Wall of Snakes.png (2.72 MB, 1301x877)

2.72 MB PNG

How do 3e 3rd circle creatures (demons, behemoths etc) stack up against PCs? Are they an actual challenge?

>>97660647
>T-Rex
>laughs in Riding the Dragon

>being pixie size and kicking ass
>laughs in Resplendent Destiny

>being the best spy (everyone has a pet)
>laughs in Resplendent Destiny

>flexible attributes
>laughs in shapeshifted attributes being charm dice

>RP options
>laughs in Resplendent Destiny

File: makura.jpg (178 KB, 850x1172)

178 KB JPG

>>97660051
Also add more sexy animal girl Lunars

>>97660592
>>97660645
Please don't take your D&D trauma out on us.

>>97660445
>>97660804
>>97660647

Do you have autism? It's not a competition to build the bestest most strong dude ever. People enjoy playing different character archetyps

File: Wrong.png (751 KB, 720x576)

751 KB PNG

>>97660921
>It's not a competition to build the bestest most strong dude ever.

>>97660051
>thread is dead
>mentions Lunars.
>nearly 100 posts over night

>>97660814
He's right.

>>97661062
Not really, Lunars already had strong shapeshifting in 1e, to the point the rest of their charmset was gutted to compensate.

Because of this, one of the biggest complaints since 1e era, is that Lunars only had stat checking and shape checking as options.

>>97661012
And only 3 of them replies to that post, and only 1 actually comment on what the post said...

>>97661089
When the forums were reworked, Lunars had the biggest section by far.

>>97661103
Sure, but my point is that I'm sad that more of this discussion isn't people talking about what that anon suggested for Lunars.

>>97661112
For me, it's because it's the most lame, tiny, should-already-be-the-case-if-the-developers-had-an-ounce-of-integrity set of changes to be put out there. It's not the wrong direction, and it's generic and broadly directed enough specifically so that it can be agreed upon as the right direction, but it's not doing enough. It's the kind of change the developers might even commit to with a new edition, and put a lot of effort into, and completely fuck up by not paying attention to all of the other problems and also letting some of the old solved problems crop back up while they're at it.

>>97661172
Even just talking about whether or not it's enough would be nice. I do think it is enough, but, like, I wouldn't mind actually hearing some kind of a solid case being made for Lunars requiring more fundamental changes.

>>97661194
>I wouldn't mind actually hearing some kind of a solid case being made for Lunars requiring more fundamental changes.
My opinion on that was >>97660323 >>97660346

>>97660323
>so many problems stemming from their charms being Attribute-based in a system not designed to handle it and originally written (and then re-written three times in styles based on that) by people who hadn't tried it before
As shown with Alchemicals, the system can handle it, it is Lunars who are the poor fit; as seen in their caste identities.

And some old and new WoD splats are pseudo attribute based

>>97661363
One problem with Lunars, IMO, is that they frequently feel like they'd rather be Ability-based. Their Charmset tends to split Abmttributes into subfields, with individual Charms being about those subfields rather than Attributes. That feels to me like missing the point and potential benefits of an Attribute-based Charmset altogether.

>>97661384
Exactly, like I posted it is also noticeable in the Caste identities, that are split into fighter, mage and thief instead of social, physical & mental.

No moons are shamans, a social kind of mage, but they don't get social.

Changing moons weren't meant to be social characters, they are actually the night caste analog.

>>97661259
Those narrative and lore issues you mention should mostly be taken care of by the suggested changes. Mechanics are trickier, especially if we're talking about things people could reasonably change for their own table rather than about a hypothetical new edition, of course. I don't really disagree with your problems with Lunar mechanics, dunno about a solution though. I find shapeshifting useful as it currently is and Lunars in general playable and functional, based on running a Lunars campaign, but there's ways to go from 'playable' to 'good and interesting'. Broader Charms and better shapeshifting should probably be at least a part of the solution.

>>97661554
>Those narrative and lore issues you mention should mostly be taken care of by the suggested changes
Yes. My two problems with them are that they (1) don't solve mechanical problems or (2) make a splash big enough that people will create a divide in their minds that can split the new Lunars off from the old Lunars. That divide is important to me because it's the only way we could cull the herd of sacred cows en-mass, and that divide is also the part which means that what comes out the other end will be Lunars in-name-only, because that's the idea. Make a big enough change that people stop associating the fixed Lunars with the old Lunars so that they also stop doing things like importing the problems of the old Lunars into the new version, as happens OFTEN with the current editions - people import 1e Lunar lore that's completely mad, like the whole pact meetings thing picrel, all the way into 3e and Essence. I find half my random players still call the kingdoms projects, as in Thousand Stream Projects, and these kinds of things aren't newbie mistakes, or the 'mistakes' of people old to Exalted but new to 3e, they're the kind of thing that become more common as people get more experienced and read more into older editions and drag their headcanons through over time.

Lunars facing a complete rework that utterly splits the old from the new is the only way I see forward. Otherwise their old sins will catch up to any new work and drag it down closer to an older level.

I guess you could call this another fundamental issue. Lunars have already been completely fucked, and you can't make people forget it, only try to get them to move past it and stop caring.

>>97660346
>Basically, the fans of animal Lunars only get to play the Lunars they want to see in Creation, and even then only so long as the supernatural or First Age doesn't get too involved and barely sapient roving automata are the thing they need to blend in with.
I think this is more of a general issue, than it is specific to Lunars.

Some threads ago, some-anon complained about Eclipses facing a similar problem.

>>97661728
If you're going to make nu-Lunars who are Lunars in name only, you might as well not make them Lunars in name, either. People will remember or read about the old lore and mix or confuse it with the new one as long as there's even that pretense of connection. Of course, if you end up just making an entirely new splat, you might also as well just keep Lunars alongside them. I'm personally of the opinion that making things too much of a counterreaction to old lore or old fandom ideas is not constructive, and that if we get a 4E someday it should just focus on executing the Lunar concept well without worrying too much about people still remembering the past editions. However, I'd prefer cutting Lunars off altogether and just making, I dunno, Dream-Souled canon and central or something, if the alternative was having a new splat masquerade as Lunars. Nobody liked it when the devs, say, made Lilith an entirely different character but kept the name, and doing the same thing to a more dramatic extent on the level of an entire splat wouldn't and shouldn't be received any better.

>>97661961
Not that anon, but I also just replaced Lunars with the Dream-Souled, and tied them to the old Luna's lore of her not being an Incarna

Why do Abyssals have medicine charms when their whole thing is killing and destruction

>>97662119
Because they're Ability-based.

>>97662119
It is too essential, even the most depraved dark lords have healing prowesses.

And in 2e they were aping sith dark lords really hard.

Preview for Abyssals companion: https://theonyxpath.com/riders-from-the-sunless-lands-preview-1-the-shape-of-the-underworld/

>>97660051
Hmm. These ideas are making me think about the 2e factions, and how much more interesting they might be in combination here.
>Swords and Wardens giving the Sun-King Seneschals and the Winding Path grief about their latest war plans, because wiping out that Imperial fort would leave the region vulnerable to creatures of darkness
>A Shadowland/Underworld nation overseen by the Winding Path and the Wardens of Gaia, an experiment to build a society empowered by the dead but not ruled by them
>Seneschals slipping into one of the Heavenly Bureaus with the help of a Gold faction insider, to steal secrets guarded by the Bronze faction

>>97660346
>Their Charms are animal Charms

Lolnope. Their Charms are blandly scrubbed lower powered versions of Solar (and sometimes Sidereal) Charms that having little to nothing to do with Lunars, physical transformations, or anything that might be visually striking at all. They vaguely wave at concepts like "predator" but ultimately don't do much with it.

Note, however, that a lot of concepts might have power levels you wouldn't expect. Solars are the biggest example of this, as they're "only human" but arbitrarily sit at a higher power level where they can get the highest circle of sorcery, the most powerful Martial Arts Charms (albeit without enlightenment), and any Evocations that they want. Just 'cause!

>>97664574
Not only human, humans turned up to 11 within their niche

>>97661961
It's the only way forward. As long as you keep threads to their old beginnings, people will inevitably draw out the shitty parts of those. Hell, I remember somebody in these threads saying that the splat should be focused on "predation", which is such a shitty idea for being a core concept and just says that they really like being werewolf.

>>97664928
What you're suggesting is not a way forwards. Not the only way forwards, not a good way forwards, not a bad way forwards, just not at all a way forwards for Lunars. It's just getting rid of Lunars altogether and replacing them with something else. You can do that at your table, and it may make the game better for your group, but if you're replacing rather than improving Lunars, why not go all the way an be honest about the new splat not being Lunars? Just drop the name, too. As I said, that'd be needed to really stop old ideas about Lunars from mixing with and messing up player views about the new splat, too.

>>97665105
You're not making any sense. Sometimes when you repair something it means you need to basically remake the thing from the ground up. Lunars are fucked from the ground up, as many people have pointed out over the years. It's shitty half measures that keep them from becoming something that's good. You're making some asinine point about how much of the original is left over or not instead of what could be done about making a GOOD Exalt that fills the role of this bad one

>>97664574
>as they're "only human" but arbitrarily sit at a higher power level
just like real life humans then

>>97664574
Solars represent peak heroism so their powers are the strongest. It's that shrimple

>>97665182
You don't have to agree with my point, which is that "don't use a name with established associations if you want to make something new", but the point's clear and straighforward whether you agree or not. You're mistaken if you think that there's some kind of consensus about Lunars needing rebuilding from scratch, though. There's no consensus on anything Lunars-related, and that includes how fundamentally fucked Lunars are. When I ran Lunars, the issues that cropped up were, not exactly minor but matters of execution rather than concept. My players mostly just had a general problem with the way 3E does Charms, with there being a whole lot of them and with many of them being narrow and fiddly. I mostly had a problem with Lunar lack of impact on the setting. My group's problems with Lunars would be fixed in their entirety by a better Charmset and more Lunar presence in Creation and in the other realms of existence. I've also seen people outside my group claim that 3E fixed Lunars and thta they're now fine. As I said, I have my problems with Lunars as they are and I don't agree with that assertion, but people who think that are also actual, real people who play the game. I said this earlier, but /exg/ occasionally turns into a pretty weird anti-Lunar echo chamber, and if you spend a lot of time here, that may well make it seem like the idea of Lunars needing a fundamental rewrite more universal and more of an objective fact than it is. Ultimately, though, it's just, like, your opinion, man. Yours and a lot of other people's sure, but not everyone's and nothing in my experience points towards that even being any kind of a majority opinion. Let me ask you this: if you're willing to completely remake Lunars, if you outright admit that your nu-Lunars would be Lunars in name only, why are you so stuck on the name? Again, my view is that if you make a new thing, you should give it a new name instead of the name of an old, established thing.

>>97661961
>If you're going to make nu-Lunars who are Lunars in name only, you might as well not make them Lunars in name, either
Lunars are a net negative, and it's possible to make a new Exalt a good thing so long as it's tied into the setting properly. From these assertions we can derive that removing Lunars and letting a new Exalt suck up their name, narrative, and charm space while expanding into the setting would also be net positive.

I also happen to think it would be more good than any attempted rework of Lunars that is less drastic.

>>97665221
See
>>97665238
An Exalted called Lunars should exist. The ones we have should not.

File: _87292293_hohoho.jpg (44 KB, 624x351)

44 KB JPG

Sorry if this is an obvious question, but do you have to pay merit dots for artifacts that you crat yourself? And if not, how are you meant to balance a game where a Craft supernal can churn out artifact weapons and armor like they're selling AI slop books on amazon?

File: Action man.jpg (13 KB, 206x220)

13 KB JPG

>>97665363
>Sorry if this is an obvious question, but do you have to pay merit dots for artifacts that you crat yourself?
No.
>And if not, how are you meant to balance a game where a Craft supernal can churn out artifact weapons and armor like they're selling AI slop books on amazon?
Don't worry about it.

>>97665363
>And if not, how are you meant to balance a game where a Craft supernal can churn out artifact weapons and armor like they're selling AI slop books on amazon?
All artifacts have a cost in motes that needs to be committed to use them. If they have effects that need to be activated, activating them will also almost always cost motes. Any single character with an unlimited access to Artifact 1-5s quickly runs into the problem that every artifact you attune to lowers your endurance and often how useful you are in combat. This is even worse in 3e where the base powers of artifacts are usually gutter trash, evocations are the point of artifacts and still take xp (unless you're doing Wake the Sleeper, which is pretty busted precisely because it breaks the dynamic), and all weapons and armor cost a flat five motes to attune to, which is a lot, especially if you plan to attune to more than one set. At best you end up with a character who can kind of swap between specialties a bit, if they've made the stuff for it which can't be assumed because it does still take time to craft, but even if they're basically locked in with specialised artifacts they're still not comparable to an Exalt who's spent effort dedicating a significant portion of their build to anything. Does the build kind of work? Yeah, if the Storyteller lets you play it. Is it doing anything 3e's Power Awarding Prana Lore Supernal build isn't? Not really, no.

Artifact N/As break the dynamic by being plot devices (and thus can be considered useless within the normal paradigms of combat/effect) and and almost always not having attunement costs.

>>97666198
Doesn't the flying sword martial art solve the commitment issue?

>>97666292
Only partially. You're still committing 15 motes and limiting yourself to a single kind of weapon. It also discounts only weapons and nothing else so you're still paying the full price for any other artefacts you want.

File: belt of shadow bullshit.png (435 KB, 472x801)

435 KB PNG

Or you could just make non-weapon artifacts that require 0 commitment or evocations and simply just work lol.

>>97666640
>can use spirit cutting to attack materialized targets with no recourse to defend against it
Wait, is this unique or can other things do this?

>>97666292
Put very simply: No. It only effects commitment costs on weapons, and only one specific weapon class. The advantage to having multiple weapons is... questionable, at best.

>>97666640
>Or you could just make non-weapon artifacts that require 0 commitment or evocations and simply just work lol.
Obviously it breaks down if you break the artifact rules, yes.

>>97667317
That doesn't break the artifact rules though.

>>97667324
Strongly held guidelines, then.

>>97667429
Doesn't break any of those either.

>>97667431
>artifacts have committed mote costs isn't a strongly held guideline
ok anon
I make an artifact that makes me omnipotent for 0m, since it's a personal effect that should be artifact 3 ezpz

>>97667456
It's only a rule for weapons and armor.

>>97666640
That says it needs 5 motes committed

When you're in stealth and attack a non-important character such as a palace guard, and there's another guard somewhere nearby, how do you determine whether you manage to eliminate the first opponent quietly or the other guard hears the commotion and investigates or sounds the alarm?

>>97667601
Roll their Perception+Awareness (or Senses if using Quick Characters) vs your stealth roll,maybe with a penalty for disposing of a body as part of it. If they don't beat your roll, they don't notice.

Theme wise I still think the Shoggoth/Thing is the best vibe for Lunars. They literally become Karz from Jojo, all the best animal parts. One of 2e's biggest mistakes was making that a lose condition for Lunars - imagine having something cool and just throwing it away.

Practically speaking the most played ones are probably going to be animal girls or furries I imagine. Lunars always seemed like a splat for girls so it'd make sense.

>>97668200
>2e mistake.
According to ancient 1e's development documents, it only existed to justify the tattoos.

The real 2e's ""mistake"" was making it sound cool, and not making it avaliable without the corruption.
The TAW homebrew fixed it for the most part.

>>97664774
>>97665216

And that's also why Lunars getting Charms that use animal transformations should allow them to handily crunch Dragon-Blooded and make Sidereals fear for their lives, while also allowing them to persist in contests against Solars even if they don't dominate them.

>>97665212
Go fap to HFY shit somewhere else.

>>97668465
TAW fixes nothing. It only ports over Sidereal and Infernal material with a thin coat of off-grey paint.

>>97667456
Doesn't break that guideline.

>>97669019
There's no such thing as guidelines or hard rules in Exalted.

Got an Infernal game coming up, looking through the 3e pdf now. Any charms in particular that stand out to you guys as particularly good or strong? Planning to make an Azimuth while the rest of the party is leaning more towards social or sorcery, so I want to be the biggest, scariest slab of beef I can possibly be.

>>97669190
Scar Writ Saga Shield allows you to stack soak and hardness for free

>>97668200
I think they're terrible themes for heroes, and all the OG Exalted should be heroes of some flavor. If you wanna be a weirdguy, that's for the fringe things.

>>97669243
Still, nothing's set in stone for 3e Infernals as of yet.

>>97668478
I do think some people overfocus on being weird and wacky when thinking about Lunars. Leave that for Infernals.

>>97669402
Funnily enough, turning into animals is also a horrible power for mcs.

>>97669678
I agree that it'll be hard for you to find good mythological inspiration for heroes who make that their main gimmick. Some of them are able to briefly transform into animals, but it's rarely their main thing.

>>97669190
Anything Ability you're particularly interested in? Off the top of my head,

>Transcendent Devil-Body Perfection
If you are at all interested in the Devil-Body mechanic, get more of this at every opportunity. 2-3 points doesn't sound like a lot but it adds up, and can potentially represent continuous free immunity to disease/crippling/Shaping/Psyche. Those are 1-dot powers. 3-dot ones are things like continuous dematerialisation or being a living tidal wave (with significant debuffs for anyone trying to hit you, being able to hit everything in close range of a given attack, generating difficult terrain and warping where you count as for the purpose of rangebands). The 2-dot Torments are probably the nastiest ones, though. Body-Warping Blight and Fate-Suborning Doom let you impose a form or Fate-altering Shaping effect if you can beat your target's Resolve with "an appropriate Attribute + Ability) pool.

In theory, this is an instantwin against something as otherwise overwhelmingly powerful as Gajam-Un (who has a Resolve of 6) but otherwise has no specific Shaping defences getting turned into a pie and eaten.

>Killing Wind Stride
Turn into crimson wind, pass through obstructions/barriers with any kind of opening, be unaffected by environmental hazards and smash into someone with a one-time environmental hazard. Worth noting if you have Pellegrina's Fury you can add half your extra successes on the rush roll to the hazard's difficulty, making it a rare case where environmental hazards might actually matter.

>Creation-Trampling Rampage
Make 2 rolls for a feat of strength and add them together. Infernals have very, very good Feat of Strength Charms but this one waives the mote and once-per-scene limit of Infinite Might Expansion (the "can attempt feat of strength beyond size and leverage/can attempts FoS of any difficulty at E5" Charm) and dumps a crazy amounts of sux.

>>97669190
>>Universe-Collapsing Juggernaut Beast
Too much shit to list. Suffice to say if you use this, you just fucking win at any strength-related contest I can think of in 3e other than wrestling another Infernal as long as you also have all the other Charms listed in it.

>Threat-Monitoring Excitement
You know how people complain ambushes just automatically fuck over Solars and pretty much anyone in 3e? "Against an ambush, she can defend normally - including using Charms - but reduces her Defense to 2. Every two extra successes she rolls increases this by +1, up to a maximum of her base Defense". Nuff said. Oh, and it has a Key that makes it free against unexpected attacks the Infernal has successfully defended against with the Charm in a scene, OR whose Stealth has been beaten with an Awareness roll.

>Careless Cosmic Blink
This is the other, funnier solution to unexpected attacks. For 1m1wp once per scene (unless reset by a Decisive ambush), Infernals are just flat out immune to any harm or supernatural effect they're not aware of.

>Collapsing Horizon Point
Wrassle, restrain, drag, throw or slam any number of opponents in close range. Key expands this out to SHORT range. It's really good.

>Crack the Sky
It's the first time 3e has published a way for Exalts to deal uncountable damage to their opponents, to my knowledge

>One Hand Fury
You can use this on the demon maws provided by Slavering Horror Maw which can erupt all over your body with Thousand-Toothed Hunger Blossom. It makes the maws artifact-tier, lets them ignore hardness, adds Strength to various withering/decisive rolls. Good shit.

>>97669917
>>97669939
NTA but what's the MHM suite like in Lore?

>>97669968
Sexy, that's what.

So you've got your basic +4 telekinetic attack pool that has +4 Accuracy, Damage (Willpower + 2) and Overwhelming (Essence) but doesn't include Strength. It uses Wits instead of Dex, Int instead of Strength, and can do Bashing OR lethal damage out to short range, or an Intelligence + Lore grapple gambit within close range. Decisive attacks can be either bashing or lethal, incoming attacks can be blocked with (Wits + Lore/2) for Parry, and the higher of (Essence) or 3 objects can be reflexively held aloft but only on the Infernal's turn. Oh, and it's obvious.

That's before the upgrades.

>Precision Thought-Force Exercise: Doubles 9s on TK actions that aren't attacks.
>Psychic Surge Exertion: Pay 4 motes, add Willpower/2, rounded up, to either a Withering attack roll or a FoS
>Tool-Transcending Constructs: You know what this does, also waives the penatly for fine manipulation as long as only TK is used
>Unseen Force Application: One auto sux on unexpected attacks. Confusingly this Key doesn't seem to do what it's supposed to since it says enemies can still sense invisibly attacks with a tingling of Essence; not sure if this will be edited.
>Focused Psyche Projection: Extends TK out to medium range
>Specimen Retrival Modus: Can now grapple at full range, none of the usual penalties for grappling, drags enemies into close range on a successful gambit
>Force-Draining Exigence: Deal 3+ levels of Decisive damage: Forgo levels of damage to steel 3 motes per level
>Will-Crushing Force: The above but willpower instead of motes. Crashes 0 willpower opponents

Oh, and Principle-Invoking Onslaught can do Agg damage to ANYONE as long as the player comes up with a way for it to exploit a logical weakness of the target using the manifested danger. And Counter-Conceptual Interposition clashes withering/decisive attacks with P-IO instead of forms a perfect defence.

1/2

>>97669968
TLDR M-HM starts off slightly worse at baseline compared to it's 2e version, not necessarily because it can't do everything previously possible but because of what it's worth in 3e's combat system. However, once you complete the fairly expensive buy-ins imo the most attractive use proposition is that you can make undodgeable or unblockable (should've mentioned this before but P-IO can also make attacks enhanced of it either) Aggravated damage grapple gambits out to medium range that are, potentially, unexpected. Depending on how invisible attacks are eventually reconciled by Unseen Force Application

One other hting I should've noted is while Orbital Impact Storm's damage is capped at Essence (maximum 5), it's difficulty scales to Intelligence, it imposes a -1 penalty on attack rolls against the Infernal, it only costs 1i to sustain for a scene after the initial activation cost, and it can be accompanied by a reflexive M-HM feat of demolition against any number of unattended objections or structures in range. It's keys let it dish out telekinetic disarm gambits if the Infernal telekinetically parries an attack at close range (Hostile Vector Realignment) which take a difficulty 5 FoS to retrieve, and allows the Charm to be ended with a difficulty 7 Damage (Essence + 3)L blast of all the orbital debris (Manifold Mind-Storm Onslaught). Basically, it's a Charm for clearing away fodder and for making it annoying to actually hit the Infernal for everyone else.

Someone here once said Infernals aren't quite playing a different game from everyone else in 3e. While I see the point being made in terms of Initiative management, I also feel the fact that a combat-focused Lore Infernal is possible at all and that the Essence/Willpower avenues of attack have been maintained is a pretty positive outcome for versatility.

2/2

>>97662694
>Preview for Abyssals companion: https://theonyxpath.com/riders-from-the-sunless-lands-preview-1-the-shape-of-the-underworld/
So any opinions on this? It's stylistically a bit too tryhard poetic for me, and I'm still not a fan of vague references to the Old Laws, nor of the concept of primal afterlives. Magical underworl rivers and ritual magic related to them seems cool, though.

>>97669402
I think it's fine for Lunars to be monsters who happen to - mostly - be on the side of heroes. In terms of aesthetics and inspirations, that is, not in the sense that Lunars should be obligated to be morally more monstrous than other Exalts.

Does the average mortal have any defining intimacies, or do trivial characters lack that sort of conviction in ideals/pinciples? They're just average people right, they're not crusaders, they just want to do their job and sleep etc.

>>97670612
>opinions on this?
I feel vindicated in finding 2e prose far superior to 3e prose. It's not even a bad idea in CONCEPT, it's just delivered in such a dull, uninspiring way that somehow manages to simultaneously be too overdetailed about things that don't matter and too vague about things that should that I also feel the writers' bias in favour of Sidereals (and to a lesser extent, Infernals) is hampering their ability to make the other splats nearly as interesting.

They want to make the Old Laws out to be a big deal but I can't get invested into them because the books are extremely vague on what the Old Laws even are, or why they should matter in the here and now; for all intents and purposes, they're basically less evocative and interesting Shinma without the pretence of symbolising anything meaningful. I wish each of the rivers had as much description and history as, say, the Behemoth in Submission from Compass: Malfeas. Tell me about the struggles, the superstitions, the great passion-plays and struggles over these waterways instead of just going "and sometimes ghost pirates are a problem". The Sea of Shadows would be more interesting in concept if there was more of a point to going there at all because otherwise it just exchanges pre-3e Yu-Shan's problem of being socially inaccessible for being environmentally inaccessible with no compelling hook. I wish there was some kind of folklore or myth to why calling a waterway even WORKS other than "it just does and everyone knows this okay, no don't bring up the possibility of rival ghost kingdoms trying to drown each other"

More 3e roasting to follow.

>>97670612
The writing for the Fallen Spear Imperium reminds me of the writing for settings in Age of Sigmar. "Here lies the Bloodred Jaggedblade kingdom, founded by the Bloodpriestess Slashwound Backstabba. In the Bloodied Year of the Bloodbag, fivescore and seven rivers of incarnadine were spilt from the random army that killed the other random army only to be killed by a third random army. The most popular festival is the Bloodbowlathon where the Bloodied Bloodbabes play against the Gory Goresisters". It uses a lot of words to say nothing. It talks about armies, wars and doctrines in the abstract when I'd like to know more about the power players and the unique resources.

It feels simultaneously performative and shallow. For all the talk about 3e trying to focus more on character moments, I found the squabbling of the demon stakeholders in Compass: Malfeas' sodalities both more compelling and human than these faceless caricatures of random undead bloodthirsty. Bloody blood blood blood shut the fuck up I fucking get it, they're the Blood Guys.

I was more won over by the fucking Devil-Stars than this shit, and I still think the Devil-Stars excerpt needs more detail.

>>97670767
Based on how defining intimacies are shown to be shit like the reason why Raksi is willing to raze much of civilisation or Ligier's conviction that he has no equal, yeah I think most mortals just lack them as a means of self-preservation.

Except for like, the village madman who thinks demons shit in his bathwater (they do) or the odd heroic mortal who did something heroic enough to deserve the term.

>>97670612
>I'm still not a fan of vague references to the Old Laws, nor of the concept of primal afterlives. Magical underworl rivers and ritual magic related to them seems cool, though.
Also yeah I agree with this. 3e already kind of walked back the idea of the Underworld existing before the Neverborn so as far as I'm concerned the Underworld started with them, which makes the idea it's somehow "defiled" instead of inherently ghastly and forlorn uncompelling. I'm fine with the idea that the prehuman dead have their own places but that's not inherently different to cultures flocking to similar sites.

If anything I'm frustrated there isn't MORE on river ritual magic, notwithstanding the fact that this is an excerpt. I'm not optimistic there will be more though, I've learned the only way to be pleasantly surprised by 3e (mainly Infernals and to a lesser extent Sidereals. And even then, in terms of prose Infernals is mostly just the writers trying to copy Tanith Lee's homework and then dilute it to be less hardcore) is to keep my expectations at rock bottom and expect the worst.

>>97670767
Most mortal probably just have a Defining Intimacy of "Please let me live my life in peace or "It is what it is" or some something like that. Something defining theor worldview and life goals, but not something that'd be suited to drive anyone to any great deeds.

>>97670796
>>97670808
I agree that it needs more detail, though I think I still prefer both that preview and Underworld material in 3E Abyssals over the previous editions' Underworld overall. Since that is just the first preview of the book, I hope there'll be something more detailed on the rivers, at least. As a minor thing that bugs me, didn't 3E writers use to complain about 2E over-categorizing things into neat little boxes? Because that's kind of what that preview's dominion/wasteland/waterway division, or having afterlives be their own distinct category of places instead of just writing in a bunch of weird and spooky Underworld locations without such strict and explicit categorization, feels like to me: neat little boxes that make the setting feel, maybe not smaller as such, but less organic.

>>97670833
>3e already kind of walked back the idea of the Underworld existing before the Neverborn so as far as I'm concerned the Underworld started with them, which makes the idea it's somehow "defiled" instead of inherently ghastly and forlorn uncompelling.
Yeah. I think that Exalted's Underworld being inherently a fucked up place that shouldn't exist is the one thing that's actually pretty interesting about it. Underworld hasn't actually been very interesting in any edition, I think, but considering how common afterlives that are just good and proper and the way things should work are in both fantasy and mythology, one that doesn't really have a place in the natural order of things and exists as symptom and side effect of things being broken is actually kind of fresh and neat. No doubt there are other settings doing something similar, but even if it's not unique, it's still pretty distinct. I feel like Old Laws and afterlives mess with that and make the Underworld feel more generic. To be honest, when it comes to afterlives, my problem is mostly with that term and nothing else. Places in the Underworld drawing in specific kinds of souls or souls that died in specific kinds of circumstances is, in itself, fine with me.

>>97666640
This is very similar in effect to an Essence 4 Integrity charm. So I'm guessing an Artifact 3 that emulates Mountain-Crossing Leap would be fine.

>>97671589
And since DBs can make them, that solves the Wyld Hunt's weakness to solar jumpers.

>>97670862
Certainly, if we're comparing it to the 2e Underworld then just like Lunars, the bar is set so low that there is a certain inevitable incremental progress. I just have extreme "3e writes in a performative yet bland way and calls it progress" fatigue.

>neat little boxes?
Yeah. This isn't the only example because 3e frequently confuses extreme brevity with wit, imo 2e actually has more mystery simply because it's more proactive about tossing out plot hooks while 3e writes like the player will slap the ST for talking too long.

>>97670885
Exactly. I've gotten a strong feeling from the 3e Underworld that their current direction is desperately wanting to turn it more into a generic Hades/Narake-style mythological underworld, but they're also unwilling to commit to the worldbuilding you'd actually need to either retcon the Underworld's creation from the Neverborn's descent OR do the legwork to explain how it could have organically evolved from a nightmarish deathscape to a more cohesive set of afterlives. It's all just shallow vibes-best writing where they put a big sword on a mountain and just go "well, ghosts like climbing here". And I think the big sword on the mountain is one of the better written locales too. But I also can't help but feel 75% of the Underworld just feels weirdly disconnected from itself, while Stygia is blatantly where they envision all the PCs going to hobnob with ghosts and shit.

2e's Underworld may have been desolate and resulted in some nonsensical accretions of ghosts, but at least it had a few memorable random encounters. Random encounters with full statblocks. I still can't get over the fact that 3e's PC statblocks are notionally incomplete but we don't have a book for comprehensive general spirit Charms, so everyone fighting Octavian or whoever is technically fighting on easy mode.

>>97666676
The only even remotely similar thing I can think of is the Dematerialised Form Devil-Body power for Infernals, and even then it makes them /slightly/ material until their next turn-foes are just at a -3 penalty to make attack or Awareness rolls at them until the Infernal's next turn.

Way to go, evocations. Way to impress everyone by just being nonsensically more powerful than actual Charm effects for no good reason. Reminds me of those Evocations that make Solar Charms cost no motes.

>>97671617
Pray that Wyld Hunt never runs into a circle with a Twilight whose hobby is making silly hats for his circle which give them all access to Burning Sky Apocalypse Strike (except it doesn't hurt allies. And resets every round. And is considered a supplemental Charm)

Why is it called a "Wyld Hunt" anyway? Setting aside 3e's nonsensical definition of a Wyld Hunt, wouldn't a name like "Golden Hunt" make more sense? Wyld Hunt makes it sound like the Dragonblooded either operate in opposition or conjunction with the Wyld.

>>97673365
I've been thinking about the Underworld and how to find a balance between it being an unnatural mess of a place - which it should be - and there being something salvageable and worthwhile in it - which should also be the case, because why the fuck would anyone give a fuck about the Underworld or want to interact with it if it wasn't? The best answer to that I've been found is that the Underworld should thematically be about humans dealing with, making the best of and even finding beauty in monstrous, terrible circumstances. 'Humans' here meaning ghosts, obviously. How human ghosts should be is a different discussion, I personally think that they should mostly be weirder than just regular dudes but dead, but they're still human at their core and in their origin. What I mean is that I don't want the Underworld to be too shitdark for anyone to actually spend any meaningful amount of time there if they have a choice, because why bother spending wordcount on it if it was, but I'd like the core idea to be something along the lines of "this place shouldn't exist, but it does and no amount of weeping about how unnatural it is will chance that, so what are you going to do about it?" Like, ghosts shouldn't exist, either, but they do, and completely regardless of what the natural order of things might be, a ghost preferring to not give up his very fundamental identity to reincarnate when lingering on as more or less himself is, if not a no-brainer, if not the right thing to do, then at least very much understandable and very much human. These dudes who really should've moved on already trying to make something worthwhile out of their unnatural second chance at life, or at least at "life", is what interests me in terms of writing Underworld societies. Now, I've had a fair bit to drink and it's late enough where I live that I should be getting to sleep, so I'm not sure how clearly I expressed my thoughts here. I'll see tomorrow if I can or need to elaborate on this.

>>97673473
Because Wyld Hunt is not just about hunting Solars, it's about hunting the Anathema. Lunars have historically been more common targets than Solars, and Lunars did use to operate from the Wyld back in the Shogunate days,

>>97673551
Man, that just feels even more pointless in 3e now the devs are divorcing Lunars from the Wyld.

>>97673536
I can vibe like that. The Underworld being fundamentally horrific, malevolent, even unknowable, but powerful ghosts and the patterns and grave goods they bring setting a kind of order upon it that the Neverborn cannot bring themselves to entirely erase while encased in their nightmares/occupied with destroying Creation (fuck 3e's stupid "the Neverborn are unconscious BUT not so unconscious they can't do everything they did in canon" half measure, either affirm the ultimate impotence of the Neverborn as well as their malice like the 3e Yozis or just concede they actually are unconscious and have the Deathlords running the show, I hate this stupid attempt to have their cake and eat it). At the same time you could have other vested interests like the more lucid Hekatonkhieres, dead Behemoths that aren't deathly enough to count as those and prehuman civilisations trying to make a decent civilisation but one incompatible with humanity and thus coming into conflict with the more traditional ancestral spirits. You could even have some Deathlords (who canonically drag their feet about actually ending the world) tacitly supporting or opposing the factions therein; I could see the 2e Lover being perversely a kind of cultural patron of sorts. In 3e, I guess the Heron fits the bill best even though they still seem to want to railroad her into being a kind of underdog Deathlord so it's not clear how much influence she could actually project.

>>97673536
>How human ghosts should be is a different discussion, I personally think that they should mostly be weirder than just regular dudes but dead, but they're still human at their core and in their origin.
I would say that ghosts are universally traumatized humans each with some kind of mad obsession. They feel no pain nor hunger nor thirst nor the drive to reproduce nor the constant pressure of age.

Each qualifier has a radical effect, but beneath it all they're still human. In many ways they're the best parts of humans isolated from the bad parts of being human.

>>97673580
>the more lucid Hekatonkhieres
Hekatonkhiere are in a really weird place in the setting. Nothing's actually keeping them in the Labyrinth. They're all free to walk Creation. They've just never wanted to, presumably through some combination of ancient plots, not recovering essence in Creation, and natural selection during the First Age. It's still really weird that summoning them is a thing and yet they're not being used - like, why is Summon Hekatonkhiere a spell when you can just walk down to talk to them and convince them to come up?

>>97674040
Yeah in hindsight it's blatantly clear they just wanted Big Tough Random Undead Encounters. You could argue that being technically undead, they're all a bit too set in their ways to roam Creation when they could be solipsistically lamenting their agonising demise, but Ancestor Cults and the Twin Monarchs of Stygia sure show that death and decrepitude aren't necessarily the end. So in effect, Hekatonkhieres just exist to make the Underworld (and some remote parts of Creation) even more unappealing to visit unless the ST puts some valuable loot there that just happens to be lodged in one's asscheek.

>It's still really weird that summoning them is a thing
To be fair there aren't many Void Circle necromancers out there, the ones that exist generally don't need an UNPREDICTABLE shambling mega-powerful monster with a binding of limited duration (as opposed to a permanently subjugated rotting kaiju), and I assume anyone who knows Hekatonkhieres exist in the Age of Sorrows would still vastly prefer to summon them because it's much more reassuring to have the mad undead god-monster on a mystic leash than to try to reason with Mardukth's fucking dead fetish that doesn't even have a face to talk at. Like seriously, how are you going to convince the pile of death sludge that hates Exalts that assaulting the Realm or hunting Lunars or whatever is in it's best interest without being already powerful enough to beat it's ass? And that's optimistically assuming the Hekatonkhiere is sane enough to even understand what you're saying. And speaks the same language.

>>97674607
>shambling mega-powerful monster
On the one hand yes letting those run rampant over your empires sounds bad, but on the other hand what hekatonkhiere do we actually have?

Every hekatonkhiere I found actually looking:
>Loras, Death Sun. Basically Exalted. Looking for quests.
>Floating Head Scavenger's pretty chill, he's protecting a nomad ghost tribe from wyld mutants.
>The Dweller in the Chase breaths loudly.
>Orcinus Rex is a tame and loyal submersible city.
>The Infinite Prison is a teleporting prison doing the will of the Neverborn.
>Elnuet is the only actual mad shambler and it's 3e.
Of them only the 3e one is just a dumb monster. The Prison's sadistic and the Dweller's mysterious and the Floating Head Scavenger's doing body horror but all of them seem pretty up for negotiations and sane enough to hold to terms. I'm pretty sure if you just walked up to Loras and asked him to help do literally anything he'd be up for it, and I'd give him good odds against most 3CD even if he is only Essence 6.

>>97675239
Did you miss Vodak up in Compass: The North? He's an asshole.

...I admit most are a lot tamer than I remembered, though. I seem to have filled in the malice of the Hekatonkhieres quite a bit in my head.

>>97675248
>Did you miss Vodak up in Compass: The North? He's an asshole.
Yes. I completely forgot about him and wasn't paging through every book, just Underworld-relevant ones.

I have a cursed urge to make a dragonblooded who's a last dragonborn reference and am only held back by not being sure how to go about it.

>>97675886
What's last dragonborn?

>>97660287
The most baffling thing about autists arguing against those sorts of changes is I'm pretty sure 90% of people first opening the Lunar splat assume that's what the splat is already about. Then they get disappointed by the lackluster lore.

>>97677056
Against what changes, exactly?

>>97677064
Follow the reply chain, anon.

>>97677111
This discussion includes both >>97660051, which contains fairly unobjectionable ideas that nobody ITT has argued against, and posts suggesting that Lunars need a more fundamental rework. If you meant >>97660051, I don't think those ideas are controversial, at least not on /exg/, or the only controversy is whether they're enough and go far enough.

>>97669807
Think like the closest thing I've seen to actual fantasy Lunar inspiration was the Wolfhound novels, which as a central aspect of the setting had animal totem clans whose peoples who'd inherited some supernatural aspects of their ancestor beasts. The MC, being the last of the Grey Hounds, over the course of the series started tapping into the ancestral connection more and more for superhuman feats and occasional shapeshifting, with the promise that eventually he'd turn fully into the Grey Hound and repeat the totemic cycle.

A super quick googling failed me, does anyone have any images of Lytek? 2e comics are fine.

>>97677168
Check page 144 of 2E's Compass of celestial Directions: Yu-Shan. I believe the rightmost god pictured on that page is Lytek.

File: 1772841250771464.jpg (1.69 MB, 1988x3056)

1.69 MB JPG

>>97677159
There's also romantasy mmcs, but they have a tendency of only having 2/3 forms.
The many animal forms is incredible rare.

Pic not related.

I remember hearing about more than one Craft rewrite for 3E. Is there one /exg/ would particularly recommend?

>>97675999

Skyrim, anon. The Skyrim protagonist.

>>97679119
Well, considering how different Elder Scrolls dragonborn are from Exalted's Dragon-Blooded, I don't think it'd work great. Not to say that you can't have a Skyrim reference in Exalted, but I think some sort of a Celestial Exalt would be a better fit.

>>97678961
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Pgj4L-Rmv2BK3efYhq6JAJx63WTI4k2q0IrlTi3KDZk/
Pretty decent. You could go with sandact's too.

>>97679495
Thanks, I'll check both that and Sandact's rewrite out. I was reading 3E Infernals Charms, which I overall really like, but the Craft Charms giving you gold points or white points or letting you turn one kind of Craft xp into another kind reminded me of the baseline Craft system being really shit.

File: Exalted Nun.jpg (113 KB, 1280x1280)

113 KB JPG

>>97656235
How do 2e and 3e Infernals compare? And who’s your favorite signature Infernal of each edition and why (also, why make new signature Infernals when there are so few max to begin with)?

>>97682457
2e Infernals were so good they had to fundamentally re-write the entire game to make make everyone else even stand a chance