In second edition there was some kind of difference for 'charms' and 'innate abilty', though I'm not sure what it did myself.
 
It was for combo rules in 2E though I'm not sure how relevant they are in 3E.
I'm certain there will be places where a charm text or ability description keys off of "Charms" and this will come up.

Excellencies count against charm dice caps, are specifically called out as not counting for "Any X Charms" prereqs, but are never referred to explicitly as Charms that I noticed. So the answer is a big ???
 
I'm certain there will be places where a charm text or ability description keys off of "Charms" and this will come up.

Excellencies count against charm dice caps, are specifically called out as not counting for "Any X Charms" prereqs, but are never referred to explicitly as Charms that I noticed. So the answer is a big ???
They have a single example, Excellent Solar Larceny, written up as a charm, so excellencies are clearly charms, just special ones that you can get for free.
 
Actually, they only are sometimes.

Some things have "X Charms" as a prereq, some things have "X non-Excellency Charms" as prereq.

Hah, consistency, what is that?

(Emphasis in original)
Prerequisite Charms explanation said:
If a Charm lists another Charm (or Charms) as its prerequisite, the character must already know all of those Charms before they are able to learn the Charm claiming them as prerequisites. If a Charm designates a number of non-specific prerequisite Charms, Excellencies never count toward this total.
 
Chloe, I'm sorry if I came off like that, but the impression I was always getting from people when arguing over this charm was less 'this charm is badly worded and should be modified to prevent a reading the Devs weren't going for' and more 'you have no valid basis to make this reading, whatsoever'.

Followed by me trying to explain why I felt like my reading had sufficient justification, even if it wasn't the only possible reading a person could make.

No, that's not what anyone actually said. What people are pointing out is that "hey look strat nuke" is an entirely reasonable, easy, straightforward, blindingly simple reading of the Charm. Which makes it broken/bad (because this status is conferred because that reading is possible), which means it should be fixed, meaning, the text should be changed such that reading it as a stealth nuke you can get at chargen with which to blow shit off the map with right away is not possible.

Whether or not you can interpret the same text as "not a strat nuke!" has nothing to do with this. It's completely irrelevant. You certainly have a basis for making your lenient reading, otherwise you wouldn't be making it. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the above observation that the charm is broken, is the thing. Going on and on about how your interpretation is technically possible is not actually addressing the problem in any way.

Example. Say the probability that some random gaming group anywhere picks the thing up and goes "lul nukes" is... 75% (just to pull an arbitrary statistic out my ass to demonstrate, which seems descriptive by this thread's participants), because the text is so very easy to read that way. I, Bob, decide to read the Charm in a lenient way, falling into the 25% of groups that don't. Does my doing so change the probability of groups getting "lul nukes"? No. What does do so (ie, does fix the problem) is changing the text so there is a 0% (or as close as reasonably possible) chance of doing so.

Your argument is as completely unrelated to the problem as "I can fix it!" is to "It's broken!" in the classic rule zero fallacy argument. It's as irrelevant as the Chewbacca defense. You're attacking windmills, dude.
 
Last edited:
Actually, they only are sometimes.

Some things have "X Charms" as a prereq, some things have "X non-Excellency Charms" as prereq.

Yeah, that's likely just a writing error when compiling the doc, given how only Eyes of the Unconquered Sun specific non-Excellency while the other ones didn't bother, ala nottthepenguins' post.

Your argument is as completely unrelated to the problem as "I can fix it!" is to "It's broken!" in the classic rule zero fallacy argument. You're attacking windmills, dude.

I agree they should change the text, then, if only to avoid long arguments like this one. I thought Oberoni Fallacy was 'it's not broken because you could fix it/ignore it.' Not so much 'different people can read the same charm differently' which is an issue in terms of vagueness more than anything else.
 
I agree they should change the text, then, if only to avoid long arguments like this one. I thought Oberoni Fallacy was 'it's not broken because you could fix it/ignore it.' Not so much 'different people can read the same charm differently' which is an issue in terms of vagueness more than anything else.

...

The Rule Zero fallacy is a fallacy because "I can fix it" has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with "it is broken", so the argument "I can fix it, therefore it is not broken" is nonsense.
 
...

The Rule Zero fallacy is a fallacy because "I can fix it" has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with "it is broken", so the argument "I can fix it, therefore it is not broken" is nonsense.

I agree they should change the text, then, if only to avoid long arguments like this one.

I just wanted to ask for some clarification about Rule Zero Fallacy, because the last time it was 'hey this is very much LIKE Rule 0 Fallacy.'

Who gives a shit? I don't disagree the text should be changed. Chill.
 
I just wanted to ask for some clarification about Rule Zero Fallacy, because the last time it was 'hey this is very much LIKE Rule 0 Fallacy.'

Yes. It is. Because whether or not we can possibly find a non-broken reading of a Charm has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the Charm is broken (ie, has obvious readings that are broken). The logic is equally fallacious.

Who gives a shit? I don't disagree the text should be changed. Chill.

/facepalm
 
So, I just realized something.
There Is No Wind nullifies all penalties to an Archery attack but wound and multiple action penalties.
Called Shots, as written on page 158, just cause an external penalty.
Who needs Accuracy Without Distance, you can pull any trick shot with just 3m. Also, ranged disarms. No -4 external penalty, just a regular attack roll.
(Now if only there were more examples of called shots to use...)

Noticed this because I want to write some Solar Melee charms for my character, and figured a disarming charm could be a good start. I'm also considering a Heaven Thunder Hammer-esque effect (though without the follow-up effects), a charm that lets you make a mundane weapon act like orichalcum (I'm thinking 1-2m committed for the scene), and a Defend Other-based Overdrive.
Wait, is TINW Martial? Cuz that could be pretty useful.

There are already ways to make Defend Other fill your overdrive as a solar. Finals Sunset Stance + Shrike to mote charm (forget the name), for example.

Meditation on War is awesome, but it's a siddie charm and it's probably best to let them have that bit of awesome to themselves. They have so little as is.
 
Wait, is TINW Martial? Cuz that could be pretty useful.

There are already ways to make Defend Other fill your overdrive as a solar. Finals Sunset Stance + Shrike to mote charm (forget the name), for example.

Meditation on War is awesome, but it's a siddie charm and it's probably best to let them have that bit of awesome to themselves. They have so little as is.
Only Martial: Thrown, so it's not compatible with Melee.

The charm I'm working does hit the Defend Other action, but the return for standard attacks is worse.
As of right now, you can get a lot of motes from a flurry (you get 1m + onslaught penalty), though. Like, a flurry of 3 attacks that are all blocked gives you 1+(1+1)+(1+2)=6 motes, which means it takes a 3 attack flurry to reach parity in mote gain with Meditation on War. I might switch that bit to only work when defending characters you have a positive intimacy toward, though. I specifically want the charm to encourage protecting the subjects of positive intimacies.
 
Only Martial: Thrown, so it's not compatible with Melee.

The charm I'm working does hit the Defend Other action, but the return for standard attacks is worse.
As of right now, you can get a lot of motes from a flurry (you get 1m + onslaught penalty), though. Like, a flurry of 3 attacks that are all blocked gives you 1+(1+1)+(1+2)=6 motes, which means it takes a 3 attack flurry to reach parity in mote gain with Meditation on War. I might switch that bit to only work when defending characters you have a positive intimacy toward, though. I specifically want the charm to encourage protecting the subjects of positive intimacies.

Ah, so long as you're using a different mechanic, i have no objections. The part of MOW that was the most kicking was the ability to donate OD motes to students, anyway. Synchs so very nicely with Throne Shadow and Crane styles, as well as Training Mandate.
 
Ah, so long as you're using a different mechanic, i have no objections. The part of MOW that was the most kicking was the ability to donate OD motes to students, anyway. Synchs so very nicely with Throne Shadow and Crane styles, as well as Training Mandate.
I considered having it allow offensive motes be used to enhance Defend Other actions when defending the subject of a positive intimacy, but figured that might be a bit too far, since it already makes Defend Other a DV -0 action. Maybe an Essence 4 or 5 upgrade to its effects?
The point is basically to allow a Solar to say "no, these are my people, you can't hurt them".

The disarming charm I mentioned earlier, version 1:
Swords Fly Like Swallows
Cost:
3m (+1m) Duration: Instant Type: Reflexive (Step 1)
Keywords: Combo-OK, Martial-Ready
Mins: Melee 4, Essence 2
Prerequisite Charms: One Weapon, Two Blows?*
This charm enhances a disarm attempt. The -2 external penalty for the called shot is negated, and against opponents that cannot use essence automatically succeeds, throwing the weapon (Melee) yards. Against opponents that can use essence, it instead adds (Essence) automatic successes to the attack roll. Additionally, the weapon is thrown (Essence + Successes) yards instead of (Successes) feet.

At Essence 3+, Lawgivers can use this charm to prevent their foes from trivially retrieving their weapons. By spending an additional mote, she can ensure the weapon sticks in the scenery, preventing magic from removing it. This does not make picking it up more difficult, merely forces her opponent to physically pick up the weapon and not call it to hand with magic.

* There's not really a place in any of the Melee charm trees that feels appropriate. It's not a defensive effect, it's not a damage-booster, it's not letting you throw out a bunch of attacks.
Suggestions for improving balance and wording are appreciated.
 
Just from a quick glance, it seems odd that the charm is vastly better vs essence users as opposed to non-essence users.

Also, the extra successes seems like a tad much, especially once you factor in how dangerous getting disarmed is.
 
Just from a quick glance, it seems odd that the charm is vastly better vs essence users as opposed to non-essence users.

Also, the extra successes seems like a tad much, especially once you factor in how dangerous getting disarmed is.
Eh, I can fix that by just making the distance non-essence users' weapons are thrown to (Melee + Successes) yards and just have it prevent the roll to hang on to the weapon (but still require a hit; just realized it auto-hits, which was unintentional). Keep in mind that essence users generally have better DVs and get to subtract a (Wits + wielding ability) roll from the attack. So if I have an Essence 4 character that rolls 9 successes (+4 makes that 13) against a DV of 7 supplemented by a (Wits + Melee) roll with 8 dice (so ~4 successes), I'm going to throw their weapon 6 yards.

Against a non-essence users (who somehow has equal stats), I'd throw the weapon 5 yards (11 yards with the modification).
... So, yeah, making that change, at least.
 
One thing I kind of dislike about this edition is how there are caste based rewards for Solar xp. I feel like it forces people to act like their caste, even when their character would act differently. For instance, a Solar general should hand off all inspirational duties to the Zenith, even though his Social stats may be better, because otherwise they both get less Solar Experience. Or a Night that's honorable and doesn't do the things that would get him Solar xp because he's playing his charcter as a warrior who strikes from the shadows rather than a thief or criminal.
 
One thing I kind of dislike about this edition is how there are caste based rewards for Solar xp. I feel like it forces people to act like their caste, even when their character would act differently. For instance, a Solar general should hand off all inspirational duties to the Zenith, even though his Social stats may be better, because otherwise they both get less Solar Experience. Or a Night that's honorable and doesn't do the things that would get him Solar xp because he's playing his charcter as a warrior who strikes from the shadows rather than a thief or criminal.

In the second case, if he thinks of himself primarily as a warrior rather than a spy, then he might be better suited to being a Dawn Caste.

And remember the first criteria for earning Solar Exp for the first- the Zenith and the Dawn can earn that Solar xp for inspiring the army together.

Remember, you get that two exp for a role bonus, two exp for an Expression bonus, and that's it.
 
Back
Top