MORE CECELYNE LAW CHARMS!

Natural Law
Cost: (+3m)
Mins:Essence 3
Type:
Keywords
:Obvious
Duration: 1 Scene
Prerequisite Charms: Counter-Pronouncement Of Enthymemic Law

The laws of Cecelyne are not guaranteed by the will of the people. Rather they are woven into the very fabric of creation. To go against them is no mere heresy, it is impossible. Whenever the Infernal uses this charm's prerequisite, they may pay an extra 4ms to activate this charm.

Natural Law adds an external penalty to all prescribed actions equal to the Infernal's (Essence + Lore). Should a charm be used which removes extrernal penalties this creats a roll off.

(Will add this to my earlier post tonight so it doesn't need to be threadmarked)

Bad idea. Messing with difficulties is something very iffy to do, and when it's forcing someone to need a minimum of 3 and up to 10 extra successes to do X thing (where X thing is anything you say is illegal), it gets really overpowered. At the very least this needs the Shaping keyword so that Exalts can say "no, you don't get to devalue/make inapplicable my entire character concept with one charm".

EDIT:

Also, the forced roll-off, what is actually getting rolled here, on both sides? Are they just rolling essence, essence+Lore, essence+Lore vs essence+(whatever skill is being used that would be illegal)...
 
Last edited:
Bad idea. Messing with difficulties is something very iffy to do, and when it's forcing someone to need a minimum of 3 and up to 10 extra successes to do X thing (where X thing is anything you say is illegal), it gets really overpowered. At the very least this needs the Shaping keyword so that Exalts can say "no, you don't get to devalue/make inapplicable my entire character concept with one charm".

EDIT:

Also, the forced roll-off, what is actually getting rolled here, on both sides? Are they just rolling essence, essence+Lore, essence+Lore vs essence+(whatever skill is being used that would be illegal)...
So I'm not the best at crunch, having never gotten to actually play the game. Does this change at all if I make it clearer that it effects everyone in the area? The Infernal and his allies are just as effected as everyone else.

And yeah it's Essence + more vs Essence + whatever is illegal. I'll make that more clear in the next edit of the charm
 
Last edited:
Slayer Caste Infernal. Put that rage to good use.

But anyway; has anyone else noticed something? We're talking about 3E, and the conversation is positive! Like, outside of a few blind-optimists I don't think this has happened in ages...
And if it stays that way for a week, I'll join the optimists in their opinion of the new authors.
 
So I'm not the best at crunch, having never gotten to actually play the game. Does this change at all if I make it clearer that it effects everyone in the area? The Infernal and his allies are just as effected as everyone else.

And yeah it's Essence + more vs Essence + whatever is illegal. I'll make that more clear in the next edit of the charm
The base idea is interesting, but laws saying stuff like "attacking myself and my allies is illegal" can be created using CPEL, which turns your charm into an easily -8 external penalty for anyone attacking them but does nothing to the Infernal and their allies.
That's not a good mechanic.
 
The base idea is interesting, but laws saying stuff like "attacking myself and my allies is illegal" can be created using CPEL, which turns your charm into an easily -8 external penalty for anyone attacking them but does nothing to the Infernal and their allies.
That's not a good mechanic.
So as someone bad at crunch, is it the penalty aspect is the strength of the penalty?
 
So as someone bad at crunch, is it the penalty aspect is the strength of the penalty?
Both. Penalties are really strong: -1 is enough to make a huge difference. Minus 4 or more basically is the same as an Elder melee focused exalt fighting newly Exalted who isn't significantly combat focused. But even the penalty itself is stupidly strong. The charm, including the roll off part, basically seems to read "you cannot be opposed by anyone".
 
Both. Penalties are really strong: -1 is enough to make a huge difference. Minus 4 or more basically is the same as an Elder melee focused exalt fighting newly Exalted who isn't significantly combat focused. But even the penalty itself is stupidly strong. The charm, including the roll off part, basically seems to read "you cannot be opposed by anyone".
Are penalties stronger than equivalent buffs? Is a -3 to your opponent better than a +3 to yourself? If so is there a rough equivalency? Is a penalty twice as strong, three times etc?

EDI:Thinking of making the mores commuted, would that help?
 
Last edited:
Are penalties stronger than equivalent buffs? Is a -3 to your opponent better than a +3 to yourself? If so is there a rough equivalency? Is a penalty twice as strong, three times etc?

Okay, you're running into the problem that you haven't taken the time to do probability tables (or find one). But the short version is, the storyteller d10 for Exalted is an obfuscated coinflip; if the target number was 6-10 and you didn't double 10s, you'd roll 5+ about 50% of the time and get 1 success on any of those dice. The adjustment then, is that with 7+ being a success and 10s counting as 2s, the probability is still effectively 50/50 of getting a success on a single die. Now, probabilistically, it takes 2 dice to average out 1 success- this is why Excellences are costed the way they are, 1m = 1d and 2m = 1 autosux and 1 autosux = 2d. In *practice*, it's better to assume that you need three dice to guarantee 1 success.

So, from here, every point of difficulty, DV, penalty, is basically asking the defender to roll 2-3 more dice. A DV of 5 can be beaten by an attack roll of 10... but you really want 15+ dice just to be sure.

Now, part of why penalties exist is that they add texture to the game environment- both as Charm powers and scene-based hazards or complications; and they exist to be mitigated by Charms as to underscore how Exalted don't suffer from petty inconveniences. Like, in an actual situation where you expect say, mortal soldiers to roll their pools, they can get likely 2-3 successes on 6 or 7d; that's fine. Remember also that their opponents likely only have a meaningful DV of 1-2.

Really, think about this- your standard mortal thug or hired mercenary likely has a dead average pool for a 'professional'. My Twilight has Dex 2, Melee 3, Specialty +3, and Defense +1, added together and /2 and +1 bonus to her post-calculated PDV; She's not optimized at all. And her parry DV is five. Dex 5, Melee 5 would kick her up to a base PDV of seven.
Her Dodge DV is 3- most mortals don't even have an effective Dodge DV, due to armor mobility penalties.

Assuming she doesn't do anything crazy like flurry, her DV is going to more or less sit at 5-6 until someone tries to do something about her DV outright like unexpected attacks or coordination. To beat that DV, her attacker needs something like 12 dice, preferably 15-18d.

So what I'm trying to underscore here, is that every time you raise difficulty, apply an external penalty, and so on, you are either demanding the defender have a penalty negator, or a dice pool equal to [Total Difficulty + Penalties *2 or 3].

Now, on the flipside, sometimes you WANT severe penalties, because these things exist to guide players towards niches or upsell their prowess. 2e's Durability of Oak Meditation exists primarily to underscore that an Exalt can, at least on a point-defense basis, no sell most mortal attacks.
 
Last edited:
Are penalties stronger than equivalent buffs? Is a -3 to your opponent better than a +3 to yourself? If so is there a rough equivalency? Is a penalty twice as strong, three times etc?
Penalties don't interact with the dice cap. I mean, technically internal penalties do, because you can't go less than [Essence] Dice, but the key is that you can only add so many dice from charms. You can keep stacking penalties. So if two combatants are roughly equal(in that the fight isn't a blow out either way), allowing one side to subtract most successes from the other is a massive advantage. There's no real equivalency, at least in terms of abilities that can leverage them.

If you made the penalty only apply to one roll then it might be balanced, as at that point it's basically costed and acts as a perfect defense. Right now for 16 motes you have a circle wide psuedo-2/7 filter that lasts a scene(it's not quite a perfect, things that allow you to hit without a roll still work and Unblockable/Undodgeable can sometimes work as all they need to do at that point is roll successes equal to 1+[penalty], though that becomes less possible as essence increases).

EDI:Thinking of making the mores commuted, would that help?
Actually, I misread the charm and thought they were. So, no, that wouldn't really help at all.
 
Last edited:
So, question on Arms of the Chosen.

I'm considering picking it up because I'm hearing good things about it, but I'm wondering about something. On drivethru, it says that it's an Advanced PDF and there will be errata so you'll get a coupon for the PoD. Firstly, is this text only or is it fully furbished with all the layout and art? Secondly, how exactly is the errata applied?
 
So, question on Arms of the Chosen.

I'm considering picking it up because I'm hearing good things about it, but I'm wondering about something. On drivethru, it says that it's an Advanced PDF and there will be errata so you'll get a coupon for the PoD. Firstly, is this text only or is it fully furbished with all the layout and art? Secondly, how exactly is the errata applied?

From what I've heard, a couple of 3e's craft charms were updated, as they didn't get changed in time to take into account the evocation system that was released. Past that I can't say as I don't have the book either.
 
So, question on Arms of the Chosen.

I'm considering picking it up because I'm hearing good things about it, but I'm wondering about something. On drivethru, it says that it's an Advanced PDF and there will be errata so you'll get a coupon for the PoD. Firstly, is this text only or is it fully furbished with all the layout and art? Secondly, how exactly is the errata applied?

It's fully furnished with layout and art, and there's a couple of Charms changed like @Shyft said.

I'm slightly disappointed it's not a complete Craft rewrite, but the rest of the book's excellent. The guidelines for making custom artifacts may not be in-depth- it's mostly how to construct the Evocation tree rather than in-depth mechanics or whatever- but the book has lots of artifacts at all dot levels to balance against, and there's not a single artifact in the book that I found boring. If I hadn't been positive about Evocations before, this would have co

It's a really fucking good book, you should get it.

EDIT: Also like it cites Sailor Moon as inspiration in a way that makes perfect sense and fits perfectly.
 
Last edited:
So, question on Arms of the Chosen.

I'm considering picking it up because I'm hearing good things about it, but I'm wondering about something. On drivethru, it says that it's an Advanced PDF and there will be errata so you'll get a coupon for the PoD. Firstly, is this text only or is it fully furbished with all the layout and art? Secondly, how exactly is the errata applied?

Advanced PDF is the finished product, it just goes through a round of crowdsourced proofing before it can be purchased POD.

The text is fully furbished. There is a thread on the Onyx Path Forums where you and any others can point out errors they find, and in about three weeks, they'll go back and fix those, then make it available for POD purchase.
 
Last edited:
The base idea is interesting, but laws saying stuff like "attacking myself and my allies is illegal" can be created using CPEL, which turns your charm into an easily -8 external penalty for anyone attacking them but does nothing to the Infernal and their allies.
That's not a good mechanic.

The first thing is that it absolutely needs a 'viewpoint-neutral' requirement. Any law that is imposed if Cecelyne is a crit must be viewpoint-neutral. You can't ban people from attacking you, specifically. You can ban them from attacking, period. Or maybe you just ban them from attacking with swords. Or you ban them from attacking with artifact weapons. Or you ban them from attacking with Charms.

The second is that I think in the crit-Cecelyne perspective, the ability to impose new law on people, rather than just fuck around and abuse the current legal paradigm for Fun And Profit, should be higher up in her tree. I'd argue that you should be required, at least initially, to find some obscure law on the books before being able to use this, so it's a 'prepare the battlefield' charm versus 'I spontaneously decree a thing.' Crit-Cecelyne's legal combat charms, IMO, should look like actual lawyering-by the time you're actually fighting, or arguing, the outcome is almost completely determined. The fact that these charms would be applicable to both regular and social combat and generally fucking with societies at the same time make up for their limited use in fights.

So you'd start off with a charm that lets you spend hours and hours researching for an arcane law on the books to fuck with the other guy and then you can show them that this law exists and then declare its truth, causing an internal penalty because they are weak and foolish and believe the law has value rather than being a political prize. Then you'd get an upgrade which would allow you to inflict external penalties, eventually, because the nature of Creation is to exult the strong and the place of the weak is to serve, and this ancient law rules all laws and customs. At high essence, you'd eventually get a permanent upgrade ("I AM THE LAW") where you have internalized that the law belongs to the powerful, and as the powerful, you can declare what law you will and the weak will suffer as they must.

Between those, you'd probably have upgrade charms which let you broaden the amount of bullshit extrapolation you can achieve.
 
Last edited:
Now that we are back on the topic, I wanted ask about number 3. Aren't there laws which make you do an action instead of preventing it? The draft springs to mind

It should be proscriptive/prescriptive. The law must either tell you to do something or not do something. It can't make a vague statement of intent or feeling. "Slavery is bad" is not a law, because that's a declaration of intent. "Slavery is bad, and thus the act of owning slaves is illegal" is a law. "Slavery is bad, and thus you are rewarded if you report slaveowners" is also a law.
 
It should be proscriptive/prescriptive. The law must either tell you to do something or not do something. It can't make a vague statement of intent or feeling. "Slavery is bad" is not a law, because that's a declaration of intent. "Slavery is bad, and thus the act of owning slaves is illegal" is a law. "Slavery is bad, and thus you are rewarded if you report slaveowners" is also a law.
Thanks, that clears it up
 
Last edited:
Back
Top