The rules are sufficiently (and, I think, deliberately) ambiguous in this matter that I don't think there's much to be said from an official perspective.
Personally, I feel that Exalted's "no backsies" principle is best supported here by permanently terminating workings anchored to things that die. Put a working on the land where a city is built, and it will linger even if the city is destroyed, but if the city grows the working will not spread with it; put the working on the city itself and it will grow with the city, but if the city is razed and its people put to the sword, the working is permanently ended, no matter if a new city is raised amid the ruins.
Also, I think it's hard to argue that there have been so many sorcerous workings that you literally can't pick out the active ones from the layers upon layers of old ones. AESS explicitly lets you analyze the functions of workings you see. Even if having a lot of them piled up makes them more difficult to study — which is not inherent to the concept — your character has Occult 5 and can figure these things out. And your Storyteller's ruling pretty much means that putting up worldwide Solar 3 workings would render AESS useless to everyone, which seems counterproductive.
(If you have access to Roger Zelazny's The Changing Land, it has some very good examples of how All-Encompassing Sorcerer's Sight might function on an in-fiction level.)
Originally posted by Elkovash
FYI. Since the first function of HgD doesn't interact with a DV ( it strikes away damage successes long after Defence has been a factor) that specific function doesn't interact with Reflexive charm rules. The question would remain if you could use that function without a Melee weapon at hand.
The other two functions directly involve Defence (allowing it to apply in specific circumstances) and thus interact with the stated reflexive rule and thus can only be used with Melee.
That was my understanding.
Ugh, you're right. While there's flavor text that suggests parrying, I see nothing in the first function of HGD that mandates the use of the Exalt's Parry. Unless I'm misreading, this means that by the book, you could use your Evasion, get hit, and then activate HGD.
For my own table, I plan to house rule this as enhancing your Parry Defense and thus being Melee-only. But unless someone more knowledgeable corrects me, I have to acknowledge this as a house rule.
Originally posted by Andrew D
So Heavenly Guardian Defense is also a brawl/martial arts charm?
You can't apply your Parry from a brawling weapon to Heavenly Guardian Defense, just like you can't create a Brawl-based attack with One Weapon, Two Blows. But you can parry a Brawl-based attack with Heavenly Guardian Defense, just like you can trigger your Melee attack from One Weapon, Two Blows off of a prior Brawl attack.
If that doesn't answer your question, please clarify and I'll do my best to answer based on the information available to me.
Originally posted by Leetsepeak
If you think about it, it makes sense in a sort of cool way. You can get your one-two punch of your flame piece and your cutlass in the blink of an eye using this Charm. You can also punch somebody real hard with your off-hand and follow up with an attempt to impale somebody in your blade, that kind of thing.
If you were say a mortal doing this, it might not mechanically make much sense.
In real-life armed melee combat, it is A Thing for combatants to find themselves too close together to use their weapons effectively. I'm not as hip to the mechanics of actual combat as I am to, say, fencing. But in cinematic combat between mortals, it should make perfect sense to deliver an unarmed blow in close quarters, then follow it up with a step back into optimal melee range and swinging away with your weapon.
(this is not really about One Weapon, Two Blows anymore tho)
Originally posted by Andrew D
I'm not really convinced that I'm "house ruling" here, though.
Extrapolation from examples is not a rule.
If you can cite a rule saying that the Melee attack generated by One Weapon, Two Blows can only be triggered by another Melee attack, I would be glad to see it! But I haven't seen one.
If a Storyteller wants to implement house rules and their players are happy with that, the Onyx Path ninjas won't sneak into your house and burn your corebook. But insisting that the rules on Charm-Ability interaction don't say what they say, or that there aren't actually any such rules and thus combing through the Charm list for patterns is the only way to reverse-engineer such rules, just seems weird to me.
Originally posted by BjornTheFellhanded
The name of the charm is one weapon two blows. As an ST, I would (house)rule that the attack has to be made with the same weapon. though I admit that the charm text doesn't seem to specify that.
You certainly have that prerogative as the Storyteller, but it's important to remember that Charm names are largely for flavor. By the same logic, you can refuse to allow the use of Summon the Loyal Steel with an orichalcum daiklave because it contains no steel, or rule that Ghost-Eating Technique actually requires you to chew up the spirit and swallow it.
Originally posted by Bronze Tiger
In general I understand that Charms must enhance or create rolls of the abilities they come from, unless otherwise stated. Where this gets a little fuzzy to me is the aforementioned Charm and I want to get some feedback on it and others like it.
One Weapon, Two Blows - Charm states that after making a withering attack that lowered an opponent initiative from a value great to a value less than the Solar's own that this Charm can then be used to make another attack. I know the new attack has to be made with Melee, but does the first one? I can see mechanical arguments both ways, visually I think it works to have it allow for any ability to trigger it, and I haven't found anything to help me clarify this in the rules.
Also thanks ahead of time for anyone that helps
Here are the restrictions that I am aware of from the Ex3 corebook (p. 252):
- "Simple Charms generally create actions using their governing Ability, unless otherwise indicated."
- "Supplemental Charms can generally only benefit rolls using the Ability they’re listed under, unless otherwise stated."
One Weapon, Two Blows is a Reflexive Charm that creates a new attack action, one that's distinct from the attack that triggers it. This does not fall under either of the above restrictions, and as such, it can follow an attack that used any Ability.
If I missed anything, I'm sure someone will let me know.
Originally posted by TheCountAlucard
Not every supernatural power need be expressed as a Charm. In fact, a number already aren't.
This is worth reiterating.
A good example is The Burning Name — a blatantly supernatural ability that isn't a Charm and
which doesn't require an Essence pool.
Originally posted by Ferryman
Oh I know. But people still do that, don't they? They don't just decide "Oh I'm not going to love this person because it won't last forever." After all, Ayesha Ura's decision to do something similar has been previously cited as an example of exceptionally alienating and abnormal behavior.
My understanding of the body of myth-narratives that form the foundations of Exalted is that mortal endeavors are not portrayed as pointless simply because people die, and relationships are not to be avoided just because they will eventually end. I recently lost a beloved pet. He had been my constant companion for about twelve years. It was absolutely devastating. Yet, I knew when I adopted him that I would outlive him. That, and the knowledge that his eventual passage would be painful, didn't stop me from loving him as much as I did. I still feel broken, yes, but what I wanted was more time with him, not less. I wouldn't go back and avoid the pain by avoiding the love that makes it hurt so keenly now.
I know that my wife could be hit by a bus tomorrow. One of us is going to endure the death of the other at some point, it's true, but that won't stop us from loving each other now. That's crazy talk.
The idea that one should only invest in forever because anything less is pointless strikes me as just as absurd in Exalted as it does in real life. It ignores all the complexities of real human experience in favor of a one-dimensional fear of loss. I can only imagine an Exalted character that adheres to such a philosophy as being the opposite of heroic: an object lesson in futility, tragedy, and nihilism. I suppose you could sketch out a half-decent Abyssal antagonist from that, but only for the sake of roundly defeating him and consigning his loathsome philosophy to the ash-heap.
Oh, yes. To be clear, I was agreeing with your original post, and I agree with all of this as well — except for the intensity of the last couple of sentences, where I am inclined to Isator's perspective.
Originally posted by Ferryman
Good god that is a bleak point of view. Fortunately I don't think the themes of Exalted support it in the least.
It's an issue that comes up in real life (sans the "immortal" part) when falling in love with someone who is significantly older or who suffers from a terminal illness.
The feats of strength table was accurate for the original yeddim design. The reason the map scale changed at the start of 1e was so they would have room to make the yeddim bigger.
The ingénue's weakness is grief. Some trauma in its past renders its memory and history abominable to it. It may follow any number of paths—servitude, rebellion, self-indulgence, self-mortification—but the goal is always the same: to involve itself so deeply in the present that it has no time to remember the past.
In the summoning contest, the sorcerer plays on this weakness, forcing the demon to dwell upon the pain it spends its life struggling to escape. Then, when a new history empty of trauma is laid out before it, the creature willingly flees into the labyrinth of its bindings.
Originally posted by Isator Levi
Now I'm thinking that something to put up against the idea of bound demons or elementals following the spirit of their orders has them spending time in a bit of confusion over what the spirit of their orders actually was.
In all fairness, if the summoner has a specific intent behind that wording, the summoned creatures should understand it. In this case, I'm pretty sure this is a case of the summoner meaning "human beings" and trying to be overly specific — likely out of the belief that they'll have their wording twisted by the elementals / the ST.
also technically humans have two souls and thus do not have "a soul" and are thus fair game for the elementals to interact with
tee hee hee