Retry penalty - and combat

deathmatchfm:

Incendax:

Even if the rules support using the retry penalty during combat by RAW it is supremely easy to circumvent by describing trying something new with your attack on every stunt you make.

As is what my players would do.

Actually, that's what always happens in combat. Each attack and defense is naturally it's own distinct problem.

Morangias:

Actually, that's what always happens in combat. Each attack and defense is naturally it's own distinct problem.

Absolutely not. While it is always a good idea to mix up your routine, I've seen plenty of people resort to using the same attack over and over again in the hopes that it might succeed.

Incendax:

Morangias:

Actually, that's what always happens in combat. Each attack and defense is naturally it's own distinct problem.

Absolutely not. While it is always a good idea to mix up your routine, I've seen plenty of people resort to using the same attack over and over again in the hopes that it might succeed.

I believe Morangias is saying that, as combat is dynamic, each attack is effectively a different "task." There are no "retries" without the Third Excellency, so the retry penalty is inapplicable.

Segev:

I believe Morangias is saying that, as combat is dynamic, each attack is effectively a different "task." There are no "retries" without the Third Excellency, so the retry penalty is inapplicable.

I disagree.  If you swing your sword and he blocks with a shield, that's one attack.  If next action you just swing again without using adding a single thing, and he just blocks with your shield, it's basically the same task.

In my games, the above thing usually meant a retry penalty.  If on the first action the player backflips over the wall and slices at his foe legs, and his foe proceeds by jumping over the attack, he misses.  If next action, the player jumps backwards and activates Iron Raptor Technique, throwing his weapon, I wouldn't add in a retry penalty.  If the third action he dashed in with a thrust to impale his enemy, I wouldn't add a retry penalty, even if the previous two missed. 

If a player used Blazing Solar Bolt, and the enemy perfects, that's on miss.  If he uses Blazing Solar Bolt again, and the enemy perfects again, then the retry penalty is starting.  None of my players would continually try something that was obviously failing.  It's also easy to take a single guard action or aim action to reset the retry penalty.  Or you could, y'know, stunt.

I'm not saying that this is the way everyone should play, but that it isn't so crazy of an idea.

deathmatchfm:

In my games, the above thing usually meant a retry penalty.  If on the first action the player backflips over the wall and slices at his foe legs, and his foe proceeds by jumping over the attack, he misses.  If next action, the player jumps backwards and activates Iron Raptor Technique, throwing his weapon, I wouldn't add in a retry penalty.  If the third action he dashed in with a thrust to impale his enemy, I wouldn't add a retry penalty, even if the previous two missed. 

Totally get the logic behind this, I wouldn't run it that way as I prefer not stunting to be a position of no penalty / no reward and stunting to be a situation of extra reward. I would worry that by using the version you use a player not being able to stunt would be being shown too much stick, as well as knowing that they aren't getting any carrot.

(To give a context, I don't think I've ever run a combat where the first 40 or 50 ticks always had at least 1 dice stunts and the vast majority of them were two dice stunts, so it isn't something that would be a problem in my games.)

I do wonder quite how many penalties you end up tracking in your combats? From what I think you've said in other threads, multiple penalties aren't uncommon in your games?

Anyway - sorry that a thread that I started just to get clarification of this specific point turned into a more aggresive setup than I had originally hoped for...

existentialleo:

Brain hurtzzz.....thread full of people claiming to use logic, when they sound like fox newscasters.

Death is right, logically. Logically everyone who doesn't use it is wrong.

But everyone can rest easy cause you can ignore it and act like you never noticed. Even though they's be wrong.

 The rest of the people who try to use logic in their argument failed. FAILED.
Go read a book.

Uhh.. what part of a RAW argument is logical? 

molez:

I do wonder quite how many penalties you end up tracking in your combats? From what I think you've said in other threads, multiple penalties aren't uncommon in your games?

It can range from no penalties to a lot of penalties.  I'm good at remembering numbers and such, so I can track the ticks, speed of actions, onslaught penalties, multiple action penalties, DVs, and environmental penalties for about four characters before I need paper.  Usually with my four PCs, their Lunar wives, the Dawn's Dragon-Blooded minions, and my antagonists I challenge them with (I can't get away with using a single enemy) I wind up having to track lots more.

Lioness:

Uhh.. what part of a RAW argument is logical? 

Rules as Written, the retry penalty is surrounded by plenty of text that applies to combat and the penalty itself doesn't say that it doesn't apply to combat.  That's the fact. 

Neph didn't intend for it to be used in combat, but that's only an implication.

I'm still curious, though. In your games, does the retry penalty go away if the character succeeds?

Let's say I "hit the guy and he blocks with his shield" over and over again.

I miss the first three times, but manage to hit out of sheer luck on the fourth time. On my fifth attack, do I still have the retry penalty?

deathmatchfm:

You've successfully twisted my words and used your Exalted-fu to take away any ground I had for why I made a mistake besides "I'm stupid."  Is that the point you were trying to prove?

Not really.  We all make mistakes.  I have made them plenty.  It is more a personal annoyance when people toss around RAW for their reasoning when it doesn't hold up.  Everyone told you its not supposed to be that way.  Rather then just digging your heels in, which just makes some of us try harder, you could have made your point why you thought it was the way it was then listened to the people who were trying to explain it wasn't that way.  No book is perfect but due to some experience with White Wolf and previous editions there are things some of us can help correct.  This is half the point of the forums afterall.

deathmatchfm:

Lioness:

Uhh.. what part of a RAW argument is logical? 

Rules as Written, the retry penalty is surrounded by plenty of text that applies to combat and the penalty itself doesn't say that it doesn't apply to combat.  That's the fact. 

Neph didn't intend for it to be used in combat, but that's only an implication.

Okay I think you misunderstood that, I'm saying RAW arguments in general basically involve switching off the part of your brain that tells you "this doesn't make fucking sense" and citing the part of the rulebook that's in support of what you're doing over and over again. The best argument of this nature I've seen was that the gender pronouns used in spells* are the only gender that the spell can target because there was really nothing in the rules that said otherwise.

*the game was WFRP, but you'll find very few RP games who stop and point out their gender pronouns are for the sake of simplicity and wordcount, not because your gender effects what spells can and can't hurt you. Though a game with that as it's core premise would be amusing.

IMO: The most "logical" thing you did about that whole rule was making it so that aim actions refreshed the penalty, which was a pretty innovative way of handling it that isn't in the RAW.

deathmatchfm:

I disagree.  If you swing your sword and he blocks with a shield, that's one attack.  If next action you just swing again without using adding a single thing, and he just blocks with your shield, it's basically the same task.

No, the penalty is justified by "the fact that the character has tried the only solution". In combat, there is only one solution - hit the guy until he stops moving. When you miss, the solution didn't fail - you failed at this particular try at applying the solution, but the solution is as sound and valid as before. Just because the guy blocked your stab with his shield doesn't mean he will likewise block your next stab.

Stunting, using other Charms, etc isn't trying different solutions, it's the same solution with different visuals. Your combo of five attacks that ignore soak remains a viable solution no matter how many times the enemy blocks/avoids it. In fact, in Exalted combat, any character with but a dint of experience knows every next application of this combo is more likely to finally hit.

Lioness:

Okay I think you misunderstood that, I'm saying RAW arguments in general basically involve switching off the part of your brain that tells you "this doesn't make fucking sense" and citing the part of the rulebook that's in support of what you're doing over and over again. The best argument of this nature I've seen was that the gender pronouns used in spells* are the only gender that the spell can target because there was really nothing in the rules that said otherwise.

Nah, see a better RAW argument would be that casting the spell on the target changed the targets gender to match.  Since rules do what they say they do after all.

Lafing Cat:

Nah, see a better RAW argument would be that casting the spell on the target changed the targets gender to match.  Since rules do what they say they do after all.

A pox and and a blessing be upon you.  I'm now tempted to do that to my players.  Or add it to the list of options for when a spell is flubbed.

By that interpretation, about 90% of Creation's residents would be female. That provides interesting possibilities.