Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="HeavenShallBurn" data-source="post: 3256050" data-attributes="member: 39593">I'm considering restricting the Flurry to attacks, movement, immediate, and free actions.  Which would prevent the flurrying of spells altogether, something that's also done with Spells in Exalted where they can't be flurried at all.  I did reconsider the time reducing factor of BAB and restricted it solely to attacks where it seemed appropriate.Regarding the action resolution within a tick, I've generally found immediate resolution better than letting the action hang in time with a resolution later.  It's too easy to miss an action when you don't resolve them as they happen.  Also just like D&D the tick is elastic as well and can stretch or compress a bit depending on what actions are happening as it's an arbitrary measure.  If you ignore the Exalted specific mechanics and concentrate on the pacing of the combat this <a href="http://wiki.white-wolf.com/exalted/index.php/Second_Edition_Combat_201" target="_blank">http://wiki.white-wolf.com/exalted/index.php/Second_Edition_Combat_201</a> is a good example of the timing aspect of combat under a BattleQue.  One of the things it does is draw combat out in time, rather than the six-second round being the basic unit of time and most combat lasting only a few of those combat will seem to last much longer and be more active.Regarding the Flurry action, I don't want to restrict it too heavily because I'm trying to create fluidity and restricting it too much would leave you with a system essentially no different than the existing one just in a different time-scale.  This means that it can be abused but that should be discouraged by the penalties to the BAB or skill-check and by the increased action time you start flurrying really high numbers of actions together.  (It relies on the player not to actively try to break the system, but ultimately if the players are doing that it doesn't matter what system you're using it stops being fun.  If you try to mechanically prevent players from breaking the system you just end up making it too static and rigid.)From your examples at the beginning, the goblin horde is just the place flurrying is supposed to shine.  But instead of flurrying all twelve into a single tick you spread it over several smaller flurries.  As an example Kill'Me(1st lvl Fighter) launches into a vicious assault, striking down four of the goblins the first tick(base 4+1 per extra attack) then spends the next seven ticks avoiding the blows of his enemies and catching his breath from the effort.  On tick 8 he resumes his attack this time lashing out and splattering the entrails of five of the hideous little goblins across the walls(base 4+1 per extra attack) and strain of it forces him onto the defensive for eight ticks.  The morale of the remaining goblins is broken and they began to back away down the corridor. On tick 16 enraged by their cowardice he chases the yellow little creatures and cuts them down like wheat(flurry Run(5)+3 attacks=8 ticks) but must now catch his breath before resuming the battle.As to your example of the rogue and shutting the door I'd call shutting a door (Not An Action).As to the flurrying based on Two-Weapon Fighting tree, I think that is overy harsh, but I would adjust the Two-Weapon Fighting path to reduce Flurry penalties.$#@ Now I'm going to have to shift the example combat down one post.EDIT:  I'm considering two changes.  The first is allowing Total Defense to be aborted after the first tick but not for an Aim or another Guard.  The second is adding an AC penalty to Flurrying equal to the Action Time penalty.</blockquote>

Verification