/cofd/&/wodg/ Chronicles of Darkness and World of Darkness General

>>47112174
Old Thread Here: >>47096914

I've mentioned before, but I'm going to update Awakening Gambit, and work on a legacy where you splice a beast's horror into your soul.

So, I think that we all agree that the Temporal Sympathy rules, as they are, are terrible, and lead to terrible gameplay where people get retroactively deleted from existence with little-to-no warning.

So, with that being established, the question arises "What do we replace them with?" Here's what I think we should do: We should take the Postcognition spell from 1e and turn it into an Attainment, using the 2e Temporal Sympathy table instead of the 1e one.

File: 1453179890159.png (160KB, 540x540px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 540x540px

Isn't Exceptional Luck (Fate 2) extremely good to have as a rote? It costs no Mana and can apply virtually any buff or debuff you want it to, and some of the conditions and tilts you can create are really strong.

>>47112219
Some might say... It's exceptional.
>>47112214
Fuck you, that's shit.

>>47112204
That sounds pretty cool. I'm assuming it's Mastigos? Have you chosen what extra Arcana it gives yet?

>>47112230
Death, for soul stealing is the current thought. But it might use mind to steal a horror since it's a glorified Goetic.

Do Rotes and Praxes cost one experience each or one experience per level of the spell?

>>47112255
One each.

>>47112255
One experience for each Rote or Praxis.

>>47112240
If I'm reading page 226 of Beast right, it implies that you steal Beast Horrors with the same spell that steals Awakened souls. So Death does look like the best choice.

>>47112227
>Fuck you, that's shit.
I don't think so. In 1e, I played an Acanthus, and it was really strong; you could defeat almost any mystery by just going "I cast Postcognition and watch what happened when the incident occurred". As an Attainment, it gets even stronger, and it seems a lot less broken that Temporal Sympathy is, and about on the same level as, say, being able to see Ghosts in Twilight (Death), or spend a turn focusing to get 9-again on your combat rolls (Forces).

>>47112219
Oh yes my friend.
Plus, as a Rote you can use the Master's reach, allowing you to cast at non-ritual speed, for an extended duration, affecting spellcasting.

So cast Exceptional luck and get its potency in extra dice to your next spell.

For free.
Without Paradox.
Without Mana.
At will.
For 2 dots in an Arcanum and a Rote.

>>47112291
It's a first dot spell, man.

>>47112255
Just a flat 1 EXP, but Praxis' can only be purchased with Arcane experience for spells you've cast at least like a dozen times, while you need to have access to a rote from somewhere like a Grimoire.

>>47112300
Fate abuse is how Destiny happens.

>>47112214
I'd just leave the general mechanics in place but include something like Genius' time travel table for if you want to actually alter anything. Also include a sidebar about that sort of thing attracting unwanted attention very easily. You kill some reasonably high up Seer in a way that sets the organization back and suddenly the Prophet's followers are looking at you, and they've got a Crown that lets them pull bullshit with Time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCw80EmuCuE
Can a time mage create a gun that can kill the past?

>>47112312
Two-dot in 1e. It looks like they changed that in 2e, huh. Well, what else could we replace Temporal Sympathy with, then?

>>47112320 (me)
To be clear, I mean that unveiling and such you should be able to use on the past for free. However other stuff takes ever increasing amounts of mana and willpower the further back you go. With really old stuff taking at least a dot of willpower and a prohibitive amount of mana,

Am I correct in assuming that if you give an Eidolon a mind of its own with Mind 5, other Mages can't steal control of it by marking it with their Nimbus? Psychic Genesis does say that the consciousness is loyal to the Mage after all.

File: 1430724778090.png (1MB, 850x1106px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 850x1106px

>>47112214
No one agrees with you! It's just you! At most they should just specify that it's resisted by the target in the present, instead of implying it.

>>47112316
>Fate abuse is how Destiny happens.

Not by Mage 2e.

>>47112338
Imbued Item Five Dots: 4 dots of Forces for Lethal damage, 1 dot for Temporal Sympathy.

>>47112383
What he meant, is that abusing fate led to 1e destiny. Which we broke.

>>47112392
but does it literally erase whole events from happening. Not killing people in the past. But actually killing time itself.

Psychic Genesis says Sleepwalkers can assist in ritual casting.

Is that just a failing in editing?
Because bar that one merit about them setting up a ritual space I can't see them doing anything in the rules.

I'm I the only person who would abuse the fuck out of Time + Fate if they were an Acanthus to change the near-past in minor, but beneficial ways? Like, a month at most to help cut down on the butterfly effect.

>>47112268
>>47112276
>>47112316

Thanks for the rote and praxis experience cost answer.

Also, do I understand the following correctly about rotes:

All rotes receive available Reach as if cast by a master.

A rote can be cast using a grimoire or by memory. With a grimoire, the spellcasting roll benefits from the rote quality advantage, but it must be cast at you Gnosis Ritual interval x2. A mage need not have purchased the rote with experience to use the grimoire.

If the rote is cast by memory, it must be learned by the mage with experience, it can be upgraded with Reach to be cast instantly, and the mage can use the encoded Rote Mundra skill as one of his Yantras.

If the rote at issue was created by the mage, he may benefit from both the rote quality and Rote Mundra advantages, other mages may not do so.

>>47112424
Have you not paid attention to the last 4 threads?

File: 1462515161288.jpg (45KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 500x500px

Wtf even is WoD?

I play EVE and I know CCP was going to make a game off of it..

What's the tl;Dr? Is it a game or is it a super in depth universe?

Just looking for a brief run down..

>>47112415
That'd need 6 dots. 1 for sympathy, 5 for unmaking time.

>>47112436
Correct.

>>47112463
It's a series of RPGs. Basically, think of our world, but grimmer and more run down, and full of vampires, werewolves, and wizards, among other things.

The new book on wizards was just released, and the last few threads have been filled with arguing about the new rules about how the wizards can now make their spells travel back in time to kill their enemies as babies, or to kill their enemy's parents and prevent their enemy from ever being born, and whether or not this is balanced and/or is capable of being used for a good story.

>>47112443
Everyone is always talking about using it to screw over or kill other people and almost never about ways to make you or your friends life's nicer.

>>47112463
>>47112559
That's CofD, which is like WoD's child. Paradox bought White Wolf from CCP and are going to start putting out new WoD books. Onyx Path is making CofD books though because they licensed it and Paradox doesn't care about it.

CofD is more well regarded around here for various reasons, but WoD is fun as long as you can stand the 90s cheesiness and all the stereotypes.

>>47112612
Oops, meant to quote >>47112510 not >>47112559

>>47112612
>90s cheesiness and all the stereotypes.
thats one of the best parts. That and the metaplot

>>47112612
nWoD, CoD, same thing, it's just corporate branding.

Besides, the first half of what I just said is still true when you're talking about the oWoD anyway. ;)

>>47112422
>47112422 ▶
>Psychic Genesis says Sleepwalkers can assist in ritual casting.
>Is that just a failing in editing?
>Because bar that one merit about them setting up a ritual space I can't see them doing anything in the rules.

Sleepwalkers can act as an environmental Yantra for the casting mage. It's explained under Teamwork in the spellcasting section on p. 119.

>>47112436
Small addendum: if you cast a rote from a grimoire, you can't modify it with Reach at all.

>>47112683
Neat, thanks man.

Must say that I do approve of the obligatory /lgbt/ sidebar in Mage actually being about Mages being more accepting and why as opposed to "look, we're so progressive we have a character with made up pronouns". It does a good job of having it be more integrated and not just be shoving stuff in for points. Not that it wasn't partially for points, but it goes beyond that a good deal, and couches it in terms of the setting as opposed to sudden OOC diatribe on why you're a terrible person if you don't let them into your games.

>>47112174
>Has Mage 2e given you any cool ideas for new Legacies or updated old ones?

I'm working on updating a few canon and homebrew legacies for a chronicle I'm planning (Onikaze, Bene Ashmodai/Clavicaruis, Lords of the Inanimate, Tamers of Fire) but I'm waiting until we get some of the early blog posts/FAQs from Dave before I go beyond some early concepts because I only have two examples of 2e legacies to go on right now.

The rules in Core are pretty good, but there's still a lot of ambiguity surrounding how legacies "should" look, with all 5 Attainments filled out - especially regarding Attainments that don't directly map to spells/practices, or which affect other Attainments granted by arcanum dots (especially Mage Armor).

>>47112214
I want to go back in time and erase you just so we can talk about something else for 10 minutes for fucks sake.

YOU don't like the new rules. Don't pretend like everyone agrees with you. There's been more people arguing with you than on your side, as far as I can tell. Your hypothetical scenario is like the people in 1e who said you could Mind-Bomb the whole world at 3 dots of Mind - it relies entirely on you fundamentally misunderstanding the rules-as-written, yet stubbornly refusing to budge when people point that out to you.

If you don't like them don't use them, but holy christ shut the fuck up.

>>47112766
>Small addendum: if you cast a rote from a grimoire, you can't modify it with Reach at all

You only cannot use Reach to cast the spell instantly and thus avoid the double ritual time requirement when using grimoires (p. 112). The spell otherwise has the normal reach for a Rote and can be spent at the mage's discretion.

Has anyone noticed that Dave's been conspicuously absent from the last number of threads?

I would have thought he would be very active considering he's probably proud of his work and we've waited so long for the book.

I hope he's been quiet because he's diligently working on the errata and FAQ.

>>47112971
You're correct, I misread.

>>47113009
>I hope he's been quiet because he's diligently working on the errata and FAQ.

It's this. He's got that FAQ thread going on the OP forums, plus there are a fair number of little things that are going to have to be fixed in the core before it's ready for print (like, you know, missing any mention of Virtue and Vice in character creation. How they missed that one in editing is beyond me). Plus he's probably working on those blogpost Legacy and Left-Hand Path conversions.

He'll be back once all that stuff is done and the chaos of release dies down. I'm sure he's not interested in getting yelled at about Time magic rules, for instance.

>>47112968
I'm not happy with the new Time rules either, I just don't have much to say about them. I hate changing stuff like that, some I'm just using it as an excuse to create new time related shit for the fun of it. Nothing malicious though, I don't want to screw someone over just because they chose something I don't like.

>>47113129
Just remember, Acanthus are the best moneylenders.

>>47112174
>Has Mage 2e given you any cool ideas for new Legacies or updated old ones?
I really want to bring the Sodality of the Tor into 2e. Especially since it seems like the expanded rules for Legacies would let you make them a lot more useful. As it was in 1e, they felt a lot more flavorful than they were practical.

But I've never even played Mage before, I've just been reading the books in preparation for a game we're starting soon, so I'm not sure I have the experience to do it justice.

>>47113303
>Money
You and your materialism...

Is it worth spending a Rote on a spell that doesn't have a lot of Reach options?

I feel like the Master's Reach is the big appeal of Rotes now, and I'm wondering if it'd be a waste if I took, say, Perfect Timing as one of my starting Rotes. I could reach for instant casting, advanced duration, and... what else? That's only 2 of my 5 free Reaches. I guess I could grab advanced scale, too...

Are Acanthus meant to be the new rulers of the universe, or is it a design flaw?

>>47113473

Don't discount the Mundra bonus.

Spellcasting bonuses aren't always readily available and Yantras are limited by Gnosis. A Mundra can provide up to a quick +6 reflexive bonus (Mundra skill and + 1 for Order skill bonus).

>>47113572

Let's see how your friendly neighborhood Acanthus deals with the Mind 2 Psychic Domination's instant suicide effect when cast by a Mastigos.

>>47113572
I like to think the Devs didn't plan for any one Path to reign supreme over the others.

>>47113473
Hand it out to your buddies more easily, cast it when technically full on spell slots, and various other things. Also maybe talk with the GM about adding some new options on, remember that the ones for core spells are examples, not necessarily everything you can do with Reach.

>>47113473
Advanced Scale. Assuming your stereotypical 5 person Cabal hitting advanced scale takes it from a -4 penalty to affect all of them to -0. Also potency is nice when facing enemy mages.

>>47113656
>I like to think the Devs didn't plan for any one Path to reign supreme over the others.

Some things aren't planned. That's what playtesting is supposed to correct.

Nevertheless, I don't believe Arcanthus are demonstrably superior to the other Paths, and the Time arguments often amount to "white room" nonsense.

>>47113572
No, they are not. Someone on this thread doesn't know how to read.
That guy is taking ONE line well out of proportion, and ignoring the line explaining how the attainment works.
He is either the guy who use to sprout about mage supremacy all the time, or the guy who would come onto to thread saying hunters are a major supernatural template and claiming mage 2E dev blogs is fanfiction.

So once again no. Acanthus are the masters of what once was and what can be.

Is it possible for a none mage to have a shadow name? Like say a sleepwalker or vampire heavily involved in mage politics?

>>47113764
>one guy
There's at least two or three of us. I know that because there's at least one other person who's been expressing the same issues with the system as I am.

>>47112174
Am I the only one who wants to get rid of Paths altogether and allow players to define those for themselves?

>>47113808
I'd say that "alternate identities" could gain sympathetic connections in a way similar to the way a Shadow Name does, but it wouldn't be exactly the same, since a Mage's Shadow Name is metaphysically connected to their Nimbus.

>>47112443
I was not, what was going on?

>>47113882
Really I thought it was the same person reposting? Well you at least understand that your targeting the person in the present right?

>>47113572
>Are shitposters meant to derail every topic, or is it just an imageboard design flaw?

It's been repeatedly explained why this isn't the case, if you don't get it by this point I don't know what else to tell you.

>>47113898
Read the 1e Mage Chronicler's Guide, it has some good guidelines for doing just that which are still applicable in 2e.

>>47113920
Temporal Sympathy lets you retroactively murder people by casting a spell back in time to kill them when they were a baby, or to kill their parents before they were born, and thereby preventing them from ever being born.

It also lets you do anything else you can do with a spell, by casting the spell back in time. That Seer you're fighting? Fate 4, Time 2, and suddenly he's now a member of your Order, and he's always been a member of your Order ever since he Awakened.

Your buddy got shot to death in a firefight? Use Life and Time to cast a healing spell back into the firefight, to heal his wounds and stop him from dying.

And, of course, the bullshit that happens when your enemies do all these sorts of things to you...

>>47113934
>It's been repeatedly explained why this isn't the case, if you don't get it by this point I don't know what else to tell you.
You can summon your enemies in baby form and crush their heads RAW, how is it not the case?

>>47113918
I just wound the section on Shadow Names for 2E. Holy fuck its a lot more important then 1E.

Your name can change you now!!

>>47113979
>Temporal Sympathy lets you retroactively murder people by casting a spell back in time to kill them when they were a baby, or to kill their parents before they were born, and thereby preventing them from ever being born.
>give them forge destiny as a baby
>they are destined to die screaming and helpless at my hand and they'll shit themselves when it happens

>>47113921
Third guy against Temporal Sympathy here, my issue is more that it allows you to effectively accomplish stuff like ressurection. Let's say an enemy comes by, kills two of your cabal and then you manage to defeat him. Now you use the body for Temporal Sympathy to a few minutes before he attacked and murder him from the future, having a surviving Acanthus means few bad things can happen. Even short term it's powerful.

>>47113983
>>47113979
Explain to me how, during a firefight, you're going to be able to -
>Obtain the right Temporal Sympathy Yantra to cast the spell back in time
>Put together enough Reach to access the Advanced Spell Factors you need to accomplish your spell.
>Make it through the number of turns necessary to cast the spell (because you're going to need too many Yantras to cast in a single round) without getting killed/counterspelled.

The only way something like that Fate 4 Time 2 spell you mentioned could possibly work is as a complex extended ritual cast involving lots of prepwork and creating Sympathetic Yantras... which is totally acceptable since that's plot-arc territory.

Plus you're forgetting that that hypothetical Seer will now, in the present, have the signs of having said spell cast on them, visible to anyone with the right mage sight, including that Mage himself.

>>47113979
You can't kill their parents through their temporal sympathy, temporal sympathy spells can only affect the target that the spell is cast on in the Present. You'd have to track down their parents in the Present first.

>>47114015
I see absolutely nothing wrong wit this, considering you'd need to have at least Time 2 AND high dots in some other applicable arcanum like Life. Seems like exactly the kind of thing a creative Mage SHOULD be able to accomplish.

>>47114015
Your point is somewhat valid, but if that guy attacked your cabal then he at least aware that a time mage is amongst them and can prepare a defense against time meddling.
For not only if he killed but for the cases that both partys survive.

>>47114048
>Explain to me how, during a firefight, you're going to be able to -
You don't have to do it during a firefight, you can do it before a firefight.
Mage = preptime.

But if you wanted you could just summon your older self and have him do it.

>>47113979
Do they get a resistance roll? If yes, then I don't see more problem then the ability to turn enemy into a frog or mind control him.

>>47114098
You can't summon your older self - you are literally just making shit up instead of reading the damn core book.

Having to track down the appropriate Temporal Yantra is balanced.

You still can't instant-cast the spell in the presence of the person you're casting on, meaning you either need Space 2 as well or to manage to make it through at the very least 2 rounds of casting (most likely more given the amount of spell factors you're dealing with, unless you want to eat enough Paradox to kill you).

Read the damn corebook before you start making comments like this. You're confusing new people and that's really shitty of you.

>>47113634
>>47113660
>>47113706
All very relevant. I especially like the point that the Reach options in the book are just examples—I didn't even think about that. Thanks guys.

>>47114162
>You still can't instant-cast the spell in the presence of the person you're casting on,
You're the one who said you had to cast it in the middle of a fight. Why don't YOU stop lying to people and just admit the ability to retroactively abort people with ease is unbalanced as fuck?

>>47114158
They don't get a resistance roll (no spell does). They get to Withstand the spell, which is how all spells that can be resisted are resisted.

It uses their Withstand value against the spell from whenever in the past they're being cast on OR the Withstand value of the sympathetic connection, whichever is higher. So no "oh I'll just cast it on them as a baby because their Resistance stat is low" bullshit because then they get at least Withstand 4 (Withstand 3 from the Weak Temporal Sympathy, +1 because the spell is also Withstood by another factor). That means you have to have at least 5 Potency on the spell to even effect them.

>>47114261
So -10 to cast it, not mentioning other penalties? I think it's safe enough. But that still makes every Time mage worth his salt a mini-archmaster from 1e. I shudder to even think about that actual Time archmasters can do.

>>47114048
>Obtain the right Temporal Sympathy Yantra to cast the spell back in time
He's standing right there; he has Temporal Sympathy to his past self.
>Put together enough Reach to access the Advanced Spell Factors you need to accomplish your spell.
You just need enough to beat the Withstand of the relevant Temporal Sympathy plus one, along with the free Duration it already gets.

>Plus you're forgetting that that hypothetical Seer will now, in the present, have the signs of having said spell cast on them, visible to anyone with the right mage sight, including that Mage himself.

No, he won't. You're casting the spell on past-him, so the Aura will show up on past-him, and since afterwards, he probably won't be present, it'd just look like you cast a spell into thin air for no apparent reason - and if you've got Time 2 and Fate 4, that's probably something you do on a regular basis anyway.

>>47112214
I wish I had Time 2 so I could go back and stop myself from bringing up Temporal Sympathy in the very first thread we had after 2e dropped. I thought I had some legitimate concerns, but now I can't help feeling responsible for some of these ridiculous bullshit arguments that've been thrown around for the last 4 threads.

>>47114261
Correction - make that Withstand 5, unless the caster knows the target's Sympathetic Name.

>>47114229
See
>>47114261

It would be unbalanced if you could "retroactively abort people with ease". Fortunately you can't, so it's all okay.

Maybe actually read the rules before you try and form a critique of them.

>>47114319
Imagine how us non-Mage fans feel about coming into every wodg thread to find it completely hijacked. I guess I'll give it a week or two before the dust settles and we can go back to talking about something other than Mage power-wankery.

>>47114319
Someone else would have noticed the glaring hole eventually.

>>47114335
>It would be unbalanced if you could "retroactively abort people with ease". Fortunately you can't, so it's all okay.
>implying 5 potency is hard to get
just shift its primary focus and you're already most ofthe way there

>>47114306
Copy-pasted from the core book -

>The mage must be casting a spell on the subject as it exists now, cast at sensory range, use a sympathy Yantra, and spend one Mana.

This means two things you said are wrong. First, just being in the presence of the person isn't enough - you need a Temporal Sympathy Yantra which links you to the person & the time you want to target. So better go find a baby rattle he chewed on if you want to target baby-him. Second the spell is cast ON THE TARGET IN THE PRESENT. It just EFFECTS him in the past. So you still leave behind traces of the spell on present-him even if circumstances change as a result of your spell.

Read. The. Book. Before. You. Talk.

Fucki it I'll just drop the damn question on the FAQ!!! Sense this troll here >>47114306 doesn't care enough to question the game enough where it matters.

>>47114381
How can you leave traces on present-him if he died in the past and never existed? Also, if he never existed how can you cast the spell that eliminates him since you never met?

>>47114407
I'm just going to start replying to everything you say with READ THE FUCKING CORE BOOK because it answers literally all of those questions if you'd just actually sit down and read through it rather than shitposting.

>>47114338
As a Mage fan, I apologize.

I just want to talk about how good the new rules are, cool legacy conversions, chronicle ideas, etc... but then this asshole decided to start up the Time argument again.

>>47114381
>So better go find a baby rattle he chewed on if you want to target baby-him.
Sympathetic yantra just need to be related to the target, they don't need to be related to the target's time as a baby
a name is enough, or a lock of hair

>>47114370
>implying 5 potency is hard to get
Kinda? It's -8, so you need to use at least 4 +2 Yantras to offset this penalty, and that's Gnosis 7-8, which is pretty damn high. Not mentioning you need actually to gather those 4 Yantras.

>>47114395
>Fucki it I'll just drop the damn question on the FAQ!!! Sense this troll here >>47114306 doesn't care enough to question the game enough where it matters.
You seem to think it's one person seeing a problem with the ability

You're wrong

>>47114457
If its primary factor its just -2, offset by the sympathetic yantra of their name/hair
and yantra are easy, there's no need to pretend they're hard to acquire

>>47114447
And hey, look, you've got the entire person, standing right over there! One giant, Sympathetic Yantra!

>>47114381
>Second the spell is cast ON THE TARGET IN THE PRESENT. It just EFFECTS him in the past.
No, present-him is just a Sympathetic Yantra that you're using to target past-him.

>>47114426
I dont own the core or play mage, but was wondering as well, would you mind explaining to a newb please?

>>47112366
I agree with him 100%. It's why I've been railing against Temporal Sympathy.

>>47114447
Right, but again - you have to know their Sympathetic name, or get that lock of hair. And Mages are notoriously careful about those sorts of things...

>>47114501
Doesn't count, read the text I copied here -
>The mage must be casting a spell on the subject as it exists now, cast at sensory range, use a sympathy Yantra, and spend one Mana.

I'll also copy this, from the section on Material Sympathy in the Yantras section -
>A mage must use a sympathetic Yantra in order to cast a spell using the Sympathetic Range or Temporal Sympathy Attainments; it does not give any bonus dice when doing so.

You need Material Sympathy IN ADDITION TO the presence of the person you're casting on.

>>47114492
>A mage must use a sympathetic Yantra in order to cast a spell using the Sympathetic Range or Temporal Sympathy Attainments; it does not give any bonus dice when doing so.
Nothing about offsetting any penalty.

>>47114523
No, because that's something you just made up.

>The mage must be casting a spell on the subject as it exists now

Casting the spell. On the subject. As it exists now. The subject in the present is the target of the spell.

Read the fucking core book.

Okay, then again - there is Constant Presence, and you can protect your past aganist being rewritten by. You can cast it constantly, or make it permanent, or make it reflexive... What is the problem again?

>>47114585
I do understand right that it prevents using Withstand values of unborn baby at all?

>>47114528
It's because the caster is uneffected by any potential time paradoxes created by Time magic she casts.

Even if you make a change that would cause you to not be born, you still exist in the present, with memories of your old life - just no-one else remembers.

One of the characters in the Mage Core fiction has had this happen to him, in fact.

>>47114381
>So better go find a baby rattle he chewed on if you want to target baby-him.
Symbolic Yantras are included under Sympathetic Yantras. Symbolic Yantras include drawings.

You have a sympathetic yantra to anything you want by sketching out a stick figure. Non-issue.

>>47114492
Sympathetic Yantras take up one of your Yantra slots, but they don't actually provide any bonus.

>>47114466
One idiot or several. No apparently cared enough about this subject to ask the question officially on the forum.
Or to elaborate on that before people jump on it. The FAQ to get official answers.

>>47114585
>The subject in the present is the target of the spell.
No, you're casting through the subject in the present onto a subject in the past. That's why it says "through time" and "cast on a subject in the past".

The person in the present is a window. All the magic is actually on the past.

>>47114608
>Okay, then again - there is Constant Presence, and you can protect your past aganist being rewritten by. You can cast it constantly, or make it permanent, or make it reflexive... What is the problem again?
Constant Presence is 1) not available to everyone, 2) does not protect the world at large or anyone besides you, 3) is not a guarantee as it only enables a Clash of Wills which you can lose.

You need to defend against this shit forever and win every time. An enemy only ever needs to win once.

>>47112392
>>47112480
Temporal Sympathy is 2 dots, senpai

>>47114687
It's available to everyone who can buy two dots in Time Arcanum, which isn't that high. It also reduces chance to rewrite your past by additional need to win that Clash of Wills. Also for the other world - you can rewrite it back if you survived. It's just as saying "you can't protect everyone from Death magic". No, you can't. So what? You only need to lose once too.

>>47114650
Yea no. If you were my player and tried to pull that I'd slap you. That's fucking rules-lawyery as fuck and you should be ashamed of yourself for even mentioning that as a possibility.

A photo or legitimate drawing of the target would work, but again, try getting either of those of a Mage who you want dead. That's not going to be easy.

>>47114687
Show me how "the spell MUST BE CAST ON THE TARGET AS IT EXISTS NOW" does not imply that the spell is being cast on the target in the present. EVEN IF THE EFFECT IS GOING BACK IN TIME, it's still TARGETING someone in the present, meaning it leaves behind traces.

>>47114628
Here's how the withstand works -

Casting on a Baby (you can't cast on an unborn child don't even think about that) is going to have Weak temporal Sympathy. That's a base withstand of 3. Unless the caster knows the target's Sympathetic Name, that goes up to 4, base.

The Baby probably only has 1 dot in each Resistance, but so long as the spell is Withstood, that still counts. Every additional source of Withstand that's less than the highest adds 1, so now we're at withstand 5.

So you can certainly cast a spell on someone as a baby, but it's not going to be easy.

>>47114687
Maybe don't let enemy mages know who you are, or give them access to your stuff?

You don't have to be a time mage to fuck someone up once they have Sympathy to you. Space mages have always been able to fuck you up that way, Time mages are just getting in on the action now.

>>47114687
If you defend against it even once then you know someone is out to get you.
Then you can investigate, find, and murder back that ass hole.

Also if that person keeps trying they are going to be lossing wisdom real quick, Sense premeditated murder is a wisdom risk till wisdom 3.

>>47114723
>Also for the other world - you can rewrite it back if you survived.
Assuming you know what specifically happened and how specifically to address it, sure. But then you're just a target for Time nuking over and over again until you fail your Clash of Wills roll.

And the moment you fail, you lose forever.

>It's just as saying "you can't protect everyone from Death magic". No, you can't. So what? You only need to lose once too.

Death magic, however, doesn't rewrite reality retroactively. If you get Death nuked, your friends can avenge, resurrect, and mourn you.

>>47112214
Is this the hot new copy pasta?

>>47114261
Okay, so Fate 4 + Time 2 mage is in a gunfight with a Seer, and he's going to try to turn them into a member of the Free Council by retroactively fucking with Fate. He Reaches to get Temporal Sympathy, Sensory Range, and Advanced Duration. He'll be probably be eating some Bashing damage from Paradox, but he figures it's worth it. He gets one free Reach, so he gets 4 Paradox dice, and probably eats one or two successes on those dice as Bashing damage.

He then casts the spell. He gets 4 Potency as the Primary Factor, and he's working against a Medium Temporal Sympathy (Mage as he is now to Mage as he was immediately following Awakening), so that's Withstand 2; a starting mage probably has 2-3 points in Resolve, so he's looking at a Withstand of 3-4. His base dice pool is Fate 4 + Gnosis 3 (the minimum for Fate 4), so he has seven dice, plus Yantra bonuses. He spends two dice to increase Potency by one, two dice to increase Duration to One Day (long enough for the young Awakened to come into contact with someone who can induct them into the Free Council, surely), and as a Mage with 3 Gnosis, he gets 3 Yantras. One is the Sympathetic Yantra, to hit his younger self. One is a silver coin on a necklace, used to represent him flipping his allegiance from one side to another. One is a glass rod, used to project the Mage's power from himself to his opponent. He gets five dice to roll, and almost definitely scores at least one success.

The Seer is now been retroactively turned into a member of the Free Council.

>>47114751
>But then you're just a target for Time nuking over and over again until you fail your Clash of Wills roll.
You can be nuked with any other spell over and over and over too, what's your case?

>If you get Death nuked, your friends can avenge, resurrect, and mourn you.
Your friends can fix their memories about you in Time and make them immune to rewritement. After they notice paradox, they can resurrect you by repairing the past once again, then we gang up on Time mage. Everyone can play that game, you know.

>>47114745
>Yea no. If you were my player and tried to pull that I'd slap you. That's fucking rules-lawyery as fuck and you should be ashamed of yourself for even mentioning that as a possibility.
And if you were my player and tried to do Temporal Sympathy bullshit I'd remove it from the game.

Our houserules are nice, but irrelevant when discussing the game as-is. As-is, drawings are Sympathetic Yantras, and there is no quality requirement.

>Casting on a Baby (you can't cast on an unborn child don't even think about that)
You totally can. I suspect even the tiniest amount of damage would kill an underdeveloped fetus.
>So you can certainly cast a spell on someone as a baby, but it's not going to be easy.
This demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation. It doesn't matter if it's "easy". All you need is a single success and then it's retroactively truth.

>>47114746
If you defend against it even once, you don't actually know that. You'd have to investigate what other people think happened and compare it to what you know happened.

Meanwhile, while you're investigating, they're still Time nuking you. Can you figure it all out and stop them before they beat your Clash of Wills even once?

I doubt it.

>You don't have to be a time mage to fuck someone up once they have Sympathy to you. Space mages have always been able to fuck you up that way, Time mages are just getting in on the action now.
Time is uniquely good at it, and Sympathy is trivial.

>>47114650
Or, since you're an Acanthus, you can just pull out a mirror and use his reflection - bonus points, because it'll double as a Tool Yantra, too.

>>47114832
>You can be nuked with any other spell over and over and over too, what's your case?
I don't have it in me to repeat short sentences for you. I already explained the difference between Time nukes and not-Time nukes.

>Your friends can fix their memories about you in Time and make them immune to rewritement.
No. Once Time is rewritten, the new timeline is lasting truth, non-magical. You don't have friends anymore.

>After they notice paradox, they can resurrect you by repairing the past once again, then we gang up on Time mage.
See above.

>Everyone can play that game, you know.
And anyone who can't play the Time nuke game loses by default, forever.

This is not something to defend.

>>47111639
>>47111646
With this I was thinking of them as a vampire bloodline that has access to a set of Proximi Blessings in place of having a fourth Discipline. Unfortunately their weakness is that they can only feed from people who have one foot in the Supernal, usually the members of other Proximi dynasties.

>>47114720
Imbued Items cost the number of dots in the spell's Arcanum, plus one if they need an Attainment like Temporal Sympathy.

So, taking a gun that shoots people to death in the past, you'd need 4 dots for an Arcanum high-enough leveled to do Lethal damage (probably Fate or Life, to make it look less suspicious to the parents - the baby just dies of SIDS, it happens all the time), plus one dot for Temporal Sympathy.

So, yeah, a 5-dot Merit is all you need to make a gun that causes people to had suffered crib death as babies when you shoot them with it.

>>47114876
>No. Once Time is rewritten, the new timeline is lasting truth, non-magical. You don't have friends anymore.
>Your friends can fix their memories about you in Time and make them immune to rewritement.

Shielding Practice is here for the reason. There is also reason why it require just two dots.

>>47114931
Yes, if you have Time 2, you can try to protect your personal timeline via Constant Presence. This has already been established: a Clash of Wills is insufficient a defense against an enemy that can just keep casting over and over, because he will beat you in the Clash before you track him down.

File: Idiocy at its Finest.gif (514KB, 500x244px) Image search: [Google]

514KB, 500x244px

>>47114844
> You totally can. I suspect even the tiniest amount of damage would kill an underdeveloped fetus.
underdeveloped fetus have no sympathetic links you dumb fuck.

>You'd have to investigate what other people think happened and compare it to what you know happened.
All you have to do is investigate the nimbus of the spell that was cast on you. Then you have several was to trace that back to the caster.

> Can you figure it all out and stop them before they beat your Clash of Wills even once?
If you have the spell at year long or indefinite duration you getva plus 4 to the clash of wills. So yay I think your more likely to succeed. At least long enough to devise a counter.

>>47114917

Incorporating an Attainment in an imbued item does not remove the Attainment's requirements when casting the spell (e.g., sensory range, mana cost, temporal sympathetic Yantra, etc.)

>>47114992
>underdeveloped fetus have no sympathetic links you dumb fuck.
Sure they do. Sketch out a little fetus. Symbolic connections, baby.

>All you have to do is investigate the nimbus of the spell that was cast on you. Then you have several was to trace that back to the caster.
Gotta do more than that.

>If you have the spell at year long or indefinite duration you getva plus 4 to the clash of wills. So yay I think your more likely to succeed. At least long enough to devise a counter.
How long do you think it would take you to investigate and successfully counter? Because I bet that time period has a whole lot of rolls in it.

>>47114975
No. you established this, not we, you.
Because your some troll trying to break a game for shigles.

>>47114975
>personal timeline
I think that friends do count as part of personal timeline, so your friends can protect their timelines and memories by extension.

>before you track him down
I thought we were talking about casting on someone in the combat? Because if not, you will need Sympathetic Yantra, and good luck finding his personal items from childhood.

>>47115000
>The item contains that spell, and a user (even a Sleeper) may trigger the spell if she knows the method of triggering.
"Point the gun, pull the trigger." If you really need a Sympathetic Yantra for it anyway, then just add a reflex sight in as part of the Imbued Item, and say that the image in the scope is the Sympathetic Yantra for it.

>>47115036
That you're a magically literate potato does not make me a troll. It just makes you impressive.

>>47115042
>I think that friends do count as part of personal timeline, so your friends can protect their timelines and memories by extension.
Yes, if your friends indefinitely have Constant Presence up (and so are all Time 2), they have a chance.

Do you think that's a good thing, that every Mage requires Time 2 and indefinite Time shielding spells? Why is that a healthy state of affairs?

>I thought we were talking about casting on someone in the combat? Because if not, you will need Sympathetic Yantra, and good luck finding his personal items from childhood.
I can only say this so many times before I resign myself to the fact I'm talking to people too stupid to function: Symbolic Yantras count for Sympathetic Yantras, and those include drawings. You can create a sympathetic yantra to anyone and anything you want at any time.

Casting Time shenanigans in combat is kind of dumb. I don't know why you'd do that. Do it after fights.

>>47115052

That's not temporal sympathetic Yantra, nor does it meet all the requirement for the Time 2 Attainement.

Yes, even a sleeper can technically use an imbued item. However, all requirements must still be fulfilled.

>>47115032
>Sure they do. Sketch out a little fetus. Symbolic connections, baby.
Dave has literally said that an unborn fetus has no sympathetic link. They don't recognize themselves as being different from the rest of universe or have and understand of the passage of time. The the like doesn't exist yet.
You can target a baby not a fetus.

>Gotta do more than that.
Your right, they gotta use a 1dot time spell question how targeted them. Woe is you.

>How long do you think it would take you to investigate and successfully counter? Because I bet that time period has a whole lot of rolls in it.
Your acting like the mage would take days to investigate whats happening to him.

>Ozzy Thyrsus with Fate
>Suddenly: Drop Bears!

I hope Dave provides an early and detailed FAQ for temporal spells because these discussions have well surpassed the point of unpleasantness and pointlessness, and it's crowding out most every other discussion about the book.

>>47115088
Yes I to am impressed by being a literate magical potato.

>>47115162
Its because there is little else wrong with the book. Some people are desperately trying to find something to bitch about it.

>>47112214
>So, I think that we all agree that the Temporal Sympathy rules, as they are, are terrible, and lead to terrible gameplay where people get retroactively deleted from existence with little-to-no warning.
I think you mean that we generally agree that trying to kill someone through time is hard, easily countered, and can even be fixed after the fact.

>>47115162
I'd like him to explain his intentions about those spells now; it's not like he never visits those generals.

>>47115170
You quoted the wrong post, bro.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBA5niJMzls
For some reason I find the idea of a Silver Arrow Mastigos doing this...rather funny.

>>47115170
>Because this is a universe where you can rewrite the past and define future, obviously. If you don't want that, you'll need to get rid of Time Arcanum altogether.
There is ample middle ground between "Remove Time all together" and "remove Temporal Sympathy".

>>47115142
>Dave has literally said that an unborn fetus has no sympathetic link.
I'm sure they have none by default. But Symbolic Yantras make it quite clear you can create sympathetic links via drawing.

Not that it's relevant. It's more effective to target Mages through non-mage Time shenanigans. You don't try to kill baby Mage or fetal Mage, or even necessarily Mage-Mommy; you make the Mage's great-grandpa get shot one night by a thug on the street.

>Your right, they gotta use a 1dot time spell question how targeted them. Woe is you.
More than that.

>Your acting like the mage would take days to investigate whats happening to him.
Mages are pretty good investigators. They're also pretty good at covering up. The Time Nuker has more prep time to cover his bases, the victim has none. Advantage: Nuker.

>>47115181
Wrong on all counts.

>>47115180
Protip: Don't typo when making literacy comments. You meant to say too and it's.

>>47115088
>Why is that a healthy state of affairs?
Because this is a universe where you can rewrite the past and define future, obviously. If you don't want that, you'll need to get rid of Time Arcanum altogether.

>Symbolic Yantras count for Sympathetic Yantras, and those include drawings.
Well, this is a problem, and more of the problem than Temporal Sympathy, in my opinion.

Noob question: is CoD actually a functional stand-alone game that I could use for playing investigative paranormal games?

>>47111085
>"Every Mage stays in a heavily shielded bunker forever"
Noone is saying that you dipshit.

But your idea that no Mage ever spends time in a Sanctum is absolutely retarded.

If you kill someone in London you can bet your ass of that at least two or three dozen of the 100+ pentacle Mages in the area are either in a protected spot or are paranoid enough to have constant presence active. Who will be more than enough to undo your witless plan.

Between 1/4th and 1/3d of Mages in an average Consilium would be my guess.
Not
>Every Mage
So stop strawmanning.

>>47115233
>Wrong on all counts.
Yes, to people how have zero clue about how Mage and magic works that might seem wrong on all counts.

If you did read the rules, it's right on all counts.

>>47115264
I've read the rules, and you're wrong on all counts.

>>47115264
There is >>47114825 the example. Find holes in it and expose them.

>>47115251
>But your idea that no Mage ever spends time in a Sanctum is absolutely retarded.
No one ever suggested this, you autist garbage.

>>47115181
>I think you mean that we generally agree that trying to kill someone through time is hard,

Not really. A starting character can't do it, but an Arcanum 4, Time 2, Gnosis 3 character can do it pretty easily. I showed you how in >>47114825; you just replace the fate-manipulation spell with a damage-dealing spell; odds are even one point of Lethal damage would be enough to kill a newborn baby.

>easily countered,

You're casting it at Instant speed using a drawing. It really isn't.

>can even be fixed after the fact.
Only if another Mage happens across the baby corpse before the Time aura wears off, and he gets another Time mage to cast a shielding spell or something back in time on the baby.

>>47114825
He then gets shot by the Seer assigned the task of the guy who's now Free Council.

>>47115245
>: is CoD actually a functional stand-alone game that I could use for playing investigative paranormal games?

Absolutely. It includes all the necessary rules and character options, including a monster creation system.

There's even a detailed sample setting - The God Machine Chronicles.

>>47115270
On what?
That they are easily countered? They are, so objectively


>>47115288
They did when they said time shennanigans were untraceable. Look at the last thread if you don't belive me you cretinous, shit eating pile of garbage excement.
So fucking dumb you don't even remember what you wrote, are you?

>>47114914
I'm intrigued, please continue.

>>47115308
>That they are easily countered? They are, so objectively
They are objectively not.

>So fucking dumb you don't even remember what you wrote, are you?
No one said Mages never go in sanctums, you autist garbage. Go do some repetitive motions until you calm down.

>>47114914
That's a cool idea, I'm on board.

You'd have to come up with an explanation as to why they retain the ability to cast even vaguely Supernal magic without a real human soul, but if you came up with something flavorful that'd be an interesting bit of homebrew.

What would be a good Shadow Name for a Moros mage who specializes and Death and a he wants to do is bring his dead family back?

So I have an idea on how to incorporate Avatars in mage the awakening 2E. Something along the lines of a supernal entire was caught up in your awakening and is now bound to your nimbus.
Now its trying to guide you to ascension so it may return to the supernal.

>>47115289
>Not really.
Compared to what?
At the very least your target gets an additional point of Withstand compared you using any other Arcanum. Because you are chosing a vector that gives them an additional withstand rating to apply.
Even worse if using a direct damage spell, which suddenly get Withstand even if they normally don't.
It's objectively harder to damage someone with a spell you send through time than via any other tactic.

"Easy" only compared to not using magic. Hard compared to using any other arcanum.

>>47115289
>You're casting it at Instant speed using a drawing. It really isn't.
So you counter it a week later. If it's a spell someone sent back through time nothing stops you from countering it at your leisure at any later time.

>>47115289
>Only if another Mage happens across the baby corpse before the Time aura wears off, and he gets another Time mage to cast a shielding spell or something back in time on the baby.
Or if another Mage later looks at the timeline and notices someone changed it.
Or if a Mage happened to have Constant Presence active in the now when you cast your trick. In which case they can decide to retroactively fix your attack at any point they wish, even a hundred years later if they feel lazy.
It's pretty objectively the most easily countered of all Arcanas.

You guys, I'm willing to bet that there's at least a few Masters of Time with 5• in the Mysterium merit, and a bit of Space whose job it is to mass timeshield the entire Order. I mean with time to setup you can do all sorts of fun stuff with that. I mean sure there's the risk of one of them going rogue and abusing those connections for something else, but it means the entire order is likely shielded as a matter of course.

>>47115319
I'll be honest, I'm not sure the best way to continue, purely because I'm trying to work out if the Bloodline should be Mixed Blood or if it should stem from a single clan, and that's before I even get into the issues with Making the fourth Discipline a set of Proximus Blessings.

>mfw the other thread wasn't even mine

>>47115370
Azrael.

>>47115331
>No one said Mages never go in sanctums, you autist garbage
Yet they said no Mage would notice the alteration to the timeline. Which, unless you are an idiot, is only possible if you have zero protections from time magic.
So what is it, your retarded shitcunt?

>>47115365
Maybe they were created by Termere liches, or even the creature that made the Termere into breath stealing vampires?
Note I'm not the original poster just someone else interested and tired of the time debate.

>>47115370
"I really wish I was an Acanthus."

Because what you really want is Time and either Fate or Life to do that, not Death and Matter. Because Temporal Sympathy is bullshit.

>>47115370
Funkmaster.

>>47115391
This is not unreasonable to assume given Time's gamebreaking power, but it's also an incredibly stupid state of affairs.

May as well say no one can mess with Time because the first Archmage who mastered it realized it was total bullshit and shuts everyone else down.

(or just remove Temporal Sympathy and let Time otherwise remain unchanged)

>>47115413
No one said Mages never go in sanctums, you autist garbage.

>>47115370
Isis.

>>47115408
I cannot write my YES in big enough font.

Guys let's just ignore the babykiller autist and talk about other Mage/CofD things, it's obvious that noone is going to convince him that he's wrong. He can keep hating Temporal Sympathy all he wants.

>>47115394
I'd keep them single-clan; I tend to shy away from mixed-clan bloodlines unless the concept is inherently related to being somewhere in-between the established clan archetypes.

IMO make them a Mekhet Bloodline and have them be related to a SPECIFIC Proximi family. That way you can work in an explanation as to why this specific family can keep their Blessings after the embrace - maybe they're a Moros family that had some special Archmage fuckery in their backstory? Give them Death, Matter, and Mind as Proximi. Maybe have their Gift be that when they drink from a mortal with a Mana pool they absorb Mana as well, which allows their Vitae to count for using Blessings for a certain amount of time.

>>47115432
>No one said Mages never go in sanctums, you autist garbage.
So how can someone believe that no Mage would notice or be protected from changes to the timline?
You said that
>there's nothing to look for or notice as being off.
Yet, everyone under Constant Presence who knew the attacked Mage will instantly notice something is off.
Sanctums will be protected from Time magic, so "nothing to look for or notice" only works if no Mage ever spends time in a Sanctum.
QED you braindamaged shitfuck.

>>47114825
You also need an addition point of Potency to get past not knowing the subject's sympathetic name. And you still need a source of sympathy (the subject himself doesn't count as a sympathetic Yantra). And while you're spending multiple turns in combat preparing Yantras, your opponent is free to keep casting spells at you.

Not saying what you've stated isn't possible. But these are just a few of the flaws with your scenario that I came up with off the top of my head as soon as I read it. Fucking with time is not as easy as you think it is.

>>47115476
>Guys let's just ignore the babykiller autist and talk about other Mage/CofD things, it's obvious that noone is going to convince him that he's wrong.
That's because he's right, tho

>>47115414
This is also a cool idea - though I'll admit I just love CofD Tremere and want more of them in things.

Maybe the Proximi family they come from is a Tremere-kept family? Then working from >>47115476 maybe their Gift is that when they drink from a person with Mana, they "steal" a tiny bit of Gnosis, enough to temporarily give them the ability to use Blessings?

>>47115381
>
At the very least your target gets an additional point of Withstand compared you using any other Arcanum. Because you are chosing a vector that gives them an additional withstand rating to apply.
You're hitting their Resistance ratings as a baby, though, so you're just rolling vs a Withstand of 4: Temporal Sympathy. Also, since they're a baby, you probably only need a single point of damage to kill them (babies die REALLY easily).

So, if you're fighting, say, a third-degree Master, it's a hell of lot easier to send a spell back in time to kill a baby than it is to blast through all of their defensive spells with a Fireball in the present.

>So you counter it a week later. If it's a spell someone sent back through time nothing stops you from countering it at your leisure at any later time.
If you're killing a baby, the Duration of the spell would be instantaneous; the damage it dealt would be Lasting, and you wouldn't be able to counterspell it like that.

>Or if another Mage later looks at the timeline and notices someone changed it.
How? To them, it's always been like that.

>Or if a Mage happened to have Constant Presence active in the now when you cast your trick.
Doesn't help them; once the spell's worked, the timeline's always been like that to them. Only the spellcaster is protected. Besides, if you're an Acanthus with Fate 2 as well as Time 2, you can set up Contingent spells that trigger when someone tries to undo your baby-killing spells, to kill them when they're babies.

>>47115496
>You also need an addition point of Potency to get past not knowing the subject's sympathetic name.
If you cast it before, you can summon him from before he's awakened and just ask his name or read his mind or take his wallet

>>47115480
>So how can someone believe that no Mage would notice or be protected from changes to the timline?
The changes are non-magical once the intervener returns to the present, which is instantly. There isn't a magical trail to follow. There is magic at exactly one point in time and space: the period where the original spell went off.

That's it. There's nothing else.

>Yet, everyone under Constant Presence who knew the attacked Mage will instantly notice something is off.
Everyone who won the Clash of Wills and had Constant Presence up at the moment will be in a position to notice changes, yes.

>Sanctums will be protected from Time magic, so "nothing to look for or notice" only works if no Mage ever spends time in a Sanctum.
No.

>QED you braindamaged shitfuck.
Autist garbage.

>>47115379
Daimons are Avatar equivalents in Awakening, but unlike Avatars, you don't have to interact with them.

>>47115522
I assume you mean before you met him and got involved in combat with him? In which case, he'll be aware that you've cast a spell on him before he even comes after you (I don't want to have to repeat that spells with Temporal Sympathy are cast ON the present subject to affect their past), and is free to alter his plans accordingly.

Anyone else reading the Free Council LGBT thread on the OPP Mage forums?

It makes me smile to see an honest attempt at being inclusive and progressive condemned for not being inclusive and progressive in the right ways.

One day people will learn to stop pandering.

>>47115516
>You're hitting their Resistance ratings as a baby, though, so you're just rolling vs a Withstand of 4: Temporal Sympathy. Also, since they're a baby, you probably only need a single point of damage to kill them (babies die REALLY easily).
>So, if you're fighting, say, a third-degree Master, it's a hell of lot easier to send a spell back in time to kill a baby than it is to blast through all of their defensive spells with a Fireball in the present.
Only if you are in their presence, in which case they can still counterspell you as normal, see what you are doing, and because they know they are fighting a Time mage (you are standing in their presence after all) they probably have appropriate defenses active. Which is the best case scenario, and leaves no better than any other attack.

If you aren't in their presence, you have to cast sympathetically. Which makes it look really bad for your tactic, because you have to deal with Space based defenses on top of Time based ones. You basically double the number of potential points of failure compared to a simple sympathetic attack.

>>47115516
>If you're killing a baby, the Duration of the spell would be instantaneous; the damage it dealt would be Lasting, and you wouldn't be able to counterspell it like that.
You Postcognition the moment of the attack and counterspell it through T/time. It no harder than the attack itself.

>>47115516
>How? To them, it's always been like that.
A knowing spell of Time should easily fix that.


>>47115516
>Doesn't help them; once the spell's worked, the timeline's always been like that to them
Constant Presence gives that the middlefinger. You meddled with their timeline, even if indirectly, and they are protected from the repercussions.
And because your spell didn't directly attack their timeline you don't even get to CoW their defense, it just works and they know. CoW only applies to direct contests between spells.

>>47115645
>and got involved in combat with him?
We've said repeatedly you wouldn't have to do it during combat, it's much easier to pull off ifyou don't

>>47115458
\\ // ||=======|| ||=======||
\\ // || ||
\\ // || ||
||||| ||=======|| ||=======||
||||| || ||
||||| || ||
||||| ||=======|| ||=======||

>>47115667
>CoW only applies to direct contests between spells.
This is incorrect. Constant Presence always creates a Clash of Wills. It has no concern on "direct contests".

Constant Presence never, ever just works. It always has a chance to fail.

>>47115689
NNNOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!! MY SPACES WERE TAKEN AWAY!!! ITS RUINED!!!

>>47115678
That's not the important part. If you're summoning past-him to learn his sympathetic name, he'll be aware that you've cast a spell on him. If he or any of his cabal have Time •, they'll know immediately that you're trying to fuck with his timeline.

>>47115510
Thats works perhaps they would need to spend mana for every casting. It would be very very costly but well worth it.

>>47115656
>Anyone else reading the Free Council LGBT thread on the OPP Mage forums?

Yes, and now after seeing the FC art and the discussion, I want to create a Village People themed cabal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AO43p2Wqc08

>>47115555
I thought Avatars was a separate entity from the mage?

>>47115700
>Constant Presence never, ever just works. It always has a chance to fail.
Just looked it up, and yes, you are right.
Though because in this specific example it's a defense that will normally have a long duration going up against an instant spell the Constant Presence'd Mage should normally have the edge on dice in that CoW.

>>47115757
I wouldn't give them two "juice" pools.

Say they spend Vitae in the place of Mana, justified by their Curse being that they can only drink from Mages or Proximi; that way all their Vitae has just enough "Mana charge" in it that it works.

It suggests some cool things about the bloodline - they'd have to be really insular and attached to either their "parent family" or a patron Mage in order to feed.

>>47115742
>If you're summoning past-him to learn his sympathetic name, he'll be aware that you've cast a spell on him.
This is not a guarantee.

> If he or any of his cabal have Time •, they'll know immediately that you're trying to fuck with his timeline.
Nor is this. If you do it in their past, pre-Awakening, they obviously cannot detect it, or even notice in the present anything happened to detect.

>>47115788
>Though because in this specific example it's a defense that will normally have a long duration going up against an instant spell the Constant Presence'd Mage should normally have the edge on dice in that CoW.
If you have a long-duration Constant Presence up, yes, it has an advantage on the CoW rolls. This advantage is largely rendered moot by the aggressor's ability to stack everything in his favor before Time nuking in the first place and continually attempting it. Eventually, the roll will go in his favor.

>>47115781
>Village People themed cabal

I'M ALL IN.

>IT'S FUN TO STAY AT THE
L
O
R
E
(house)

>>47115781
The Village People rock and you can never go wrong with them.

Of course, that thread would hate them for having too many white men. Gays only count if they're bisexual MtF demikin.

>>47115811
Sorry misinterpreted the post. Your idea is much better.
But if you want to go the whole dependent thing Daeva wouldvve better.

>>47115824
I really don't want to have to repeat that fact that spells cast with Temporal Sympathy are cast ON THE SUBJECT IN THE PRESENT. You can't reach into someone's past without marking them in the present.

>>47115891
True, though then you have to explain why a Daeva bloodline would get so involved with Mage stuff, which seems to be more the Mekhet's bag.

You could totally make it work either way, though.

>>47115903
There is no mark on them in the present; the spell hits a subject in the past. You do nothing to the present subject.

If I throw a fireball, the magic is in the fireball. There isn't some sort of magic trail on the ground beneath where I chucked it.

>>47115824
Just to be sure we are on the sam page here, the idea is that the target of the dd Time spell will have friends that are protected, right?
So you kill someone via Time, their friends/allies that happen to be protected at that time notice the change to the timline, their Order/Consilium goes into warmode for killing a member, you get a visit from a Sentinel.

You have a point that you retry the killing part if that fails, but the rules make sure that even if you succeed you cannot stop other Mages from finding out. And there will be repercussions.
And once you have been executed by the resident Sentinel, your target's Cabal will probably cast constant presence on your corpse and follow it up with casting a counterspell back in Time to cancel your attack. Result: you are still dead (Constant Presence!), your target is alive.

>>47115845
>>47115878

The lorehouse is *definitely* in the basement of the local YMCA (or the Navy recruiting station).

I'll also take a Village People cabal over abominations like The Game of Geometric Perfection, that awful baseball themed cabal from WOD: Chicago, Mysterium and the fiction anthology.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InBXu-iY7cw

>>47115974
>the idea is that the target of the dd Time spell will have friends that are protected, right?
It is not unlikely. If not friends, allies. The way the game is designed, anyone who knows Time magic is a thing should immediately max it out and permanently keep Constant Presence on.

>So you kill someone via Time, their friends/allies that happen to be protected at that time notice the change to the timline, their Order/Consilium goes into warmode for killing a member, you get a visit from a Sentinel.

This doesn't stop Time from being complete bullshit. If you killed someone with a fireball, all of that happened- except the fireball causes the game less harm and doesn't retroactively rewrite people's memories and lives.

>You have a point that you retry the killing part if that fails, but the rules make sure that even if you succeed you cannot stop other Mages from finding out. And there will be repercussions.
Literally everything has repercussions. Time has no worse repercussions than any other hostile act, and in many ways has better repercussions that are harder to pin down on you.

>And once you have been executed by the resident Sentinel, your target's Cabal will probably cast constant presence on your corpse and follow it up with casting a counterspell back in Time to cancel your attack. Result: you are still dead (Constant Presence!), your target is alive.
Yes, yes, and then your friends undo it and do the same thing.

End result: the game is entirely about Time Magic and shielded bunkers.

*This is not desirable*.

>>47115920
Well I think it might be the termere would prefer the bloodline that naturally attach to others are extremely strong and fast. Even capable of drawing all the attention from others.
That makes one hell of a bodyguard, wouldn't you agree?

Either one would still be quite fitting.

>>47116045
>Yes, yes, and then your friends undo it and do the same thing.
What friends?
If you have friends and you didn't go for the right of Nemesis or an Arcane Duel that means you probably belong to one of the factions opposed to the Pentacle.
In which case the result isn't some kind of back and forth with time magic, the actual result will be all out war between the resident Pentacle and your faction.

Again, if your target isn't present you can add any Space defenses on top of the Time defenses that can make your spell fail.
It's really not much different from the danger Space poses anyway.

>>47115948
You cast the spell on the target, at their present location. It affects the past, but it's hitting them in the present, because there is no difference as far as the Supernal is concerned.

>>47116144
>What friends?
The same friends on your end that helped your target on his end.

>In which case the result isn't some kind of back and forth with time magic, the actual result will be all out war between the resident Pentacle and your faction.
That's already the status quo, and the game as written has that war being performed entirely via retroactive Time nukes.

>>47116173
>because there is no difference as far as the Supernal is concerned.
This is self-evidently false. You would not need Temporal Sympathy if there was no difference, nor would you be able to copy a previous version of a person into the present. Nor does killing someone in the present kill them in the past.

You are demonstrably distinct from your past self. Your spell hits them in the past.

>>47116197
>The same friends on your end that helped your target on his end.
How? What is the situation you are describing, because that doesn't seem to make sense.
I am talking about you being killed for murder, based on the Pentacle's law, by a Sentinel operating in an official capacity.

>>47116197
The status quo is COLD war, not all out war. Mages are so good at killing each other, even the Seers don't want the all out war.
Only the Free Council sometimes want that, and for them that Time tactic isn't any more useful than the attack vectors offered by other Arcana.
If your target isn't present, your tactic just doubles the number of the applicable defensive spells they can use.

>>47116089
>Treme simply says "Kill!".
>His bodyguard blurs, now the two people either side of you are in two pieces.

>>47116256
>How? What is the situation you are describing, because that doesn't seem to make sense.
Any situation where your enemies have friends that can work to counter you is a situation where you have friends that can work to counter them, unless we're positing some individual with absolutely no connections whatever.

>The status quo is COLD war, not all out war.
There's still killing. Otherwise, you don't have any war at all, cold or otherwise.

>If your target isn't present, your tactic just doubles the number of the applicable defensive spells they can use.
Time is much harder to defend against than other spells.

So, better question - who is actually going to run a Mage game?

>>47116333
I've run enough games (non-Mage) that I don't feel like running anything, Mage or otherwise, for a long time. So not me.

>>47116333
I am going to. Have stolen some really creepy ideas about Abyssal incursions, would love to creep out players as well.

>>47116333
>who is actually going to run a Mage game?

I need some more time to grok the new rules and forget 1e. The errata and FAQ will be also be very helpful. I'm really in no mood for needless arguments.

>>47116306
>a situation where you have friends that can work to counter them
Friends that are willing to go to war with a Consilium?
Not really, no. Unless you are a Seer, and even then your colleagues will probably spend more time fighting to get your job once you are dead than helping you.


>>47116306
>There's still killing.
If there is active killing going on there will be active defenses operating at high levels.

>>47116306
>Time is much harder to defend against than other spells.
Can you paint out a specific situation? Like, who and where is the attacker, and what are his allies. Who and where is the targets, what are their allies, what are the kinds of defenses you think they might have active. What happens in the scenario.
Because I still don't see how Time is harder to defend against. All the normal defensive measures apply.

>>47116333

To clarify: I mean on roll20. I've got a Silver Ladder Alchemist I want to try out.

>>47116389
>Not really, no. Unless you are a Seer, and even then your colleagues will probably spend more time fighting to get your job once you are dead than helping you.
So you're asserting Time isn't busted because anyone abusing Time will totally not have help and anyone they abuse it on will be protected by everyone?
>Can you paint out a specific situation?
The specifics are irrelevant. All Arcanum have defenses and consequences through their use, but only Time is self-protecting through lasting timeline changes. Only Time.

>>47116442
>The specifics are irrelevant. All Arcanum have defenses and consequences through their use, but only Time is self-protecting through lasting timeline changes. Only Time.
I don't understand what you mean by self protecting or lasting in this case. Is killing someone via Death not a lasting effect?
What's the self-protection element?

>>47116480
>What's the self-protection element?
It's.. it's literally the words after "self-protecting". I don't know how to talk to you if you don't read.

So wait, instead of elaborate human smuggling operations why don't the Seers just use scrying windows to expose sleepers to the Lower Depths creature they use to make Hollow Ones? There would be a slight risk of Paradox but that beats having to send the poor fools to a secret facility in Africa.

>>47116526
" through lasting timeline changes" is not an explanation.
If I kill someone via Death, it's also a lasting change to the future.

Enough people who matter will protected from any memory effects that you murder will not stay any more secret than if you used death.
If anything using Time makes it more obvious to those protected, because the world around them will show instant and big changes. In contrast, if you use any other Arcanum, it might just be a few weeks before anyone notices that Bob the Mage hasn't shown up in a while.

Any concealing effect those lasting changes might have can best be summed up as "less obvious to most, but really, really much more obvious to a few". Which in the ends leaves that lasting effect as a cosmetic difference at best.
If your timeline change has some unwanted repercussions on other Mages you might even be off worse than if you used any other Arcanum that doesn't suffer from the butterfly effect.

File: owodnwod.jpg (348KB, 800x501px) Image search: [Google]

348KB, 800x501px

>>47112626

>>47116666
>" through lasting timeline changes" is not an explanation.
Yes it is.

>If I kill someone via Death, it's also a lasting change to the future.
But not the past retroactively.

>Enough people who matter will protected from any memory effects that you murder will not stay any more secret than if you used death.
Incorrect.

>If anything using Time makes it more obvious to those protected, because the world around them will show instant and big changes. In contrast, if you use any other Arcanum, it might just be a few weeks before anyone notices that Bob the Mage hasn't shown up in a while.
No, a dead body and a world responding to it is not less obvious than someone simply never having been.

>>47113652
Fate 4 attainment.

>>47115785
http://forum.theonyxpath.com/forum/main-category/main-forum/the-new-world-of-darkness/mage-the-awakening/49474-avatars-in-awakening

Dave's post.

>>47114917
He wants the gun to destroy time itself. Not. Kill. Babies.

>>47113652
A baby-killing time-travelling spell, set up with the Fate 2 Attainment to target anyone who kills him. Since they're dead, they can no longer cast the spell that killed them, and they're back to being alive again.

>>47116857
Well then I have nothing else to say on the matter.

>>47116911
That's worse than homunculous designed to give it creator all the secrets of the universe ahead of time.

>>47116875
Unmaking with hella reach and paradox to erase the past entirely. You'd probably reset the world to the Sundered World.

You'd be better off just having the gun send you back in time, since it wouldn't cause nearly as much Paradox or anything.

File: Confused.png (65KB, 506x500px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 506x500px

>>47116940

File: Gotta have a name.png (204KB, 454x608px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 454x608px

So, everyone here realizes thug can't crib kill in the past without their sympathetic name as well, right? Because that drops it by one, and it's already at weak.

Could someone who died because they astrally projected themself into the Swath on the day of the Trinity Test come back as a Zeka WITHIN the Anima Mundi?

Just to explain what I'm on about, here's a greentext of it.
>Mortal projects themself into the Swath on July 16th 1945.
>They died due to the radiation poisoning

Could they come back as a Zeka that was trapped within the Anima Mundi?

>>47117005
Just read the entry in The Unbidden about Gnomon.

>>47117014
That's for Space Sympathy, not Time Sympathy.

>>47117088
Sympathetic names almost DEFINITELY still apply. They didn't write it twice because, well, word count.

>All these people acting like Acanthus are now impossibly overpowered because of a high level spell with massive resistances, so that means the entire Arcana must be removed
How about you just say that murdering people in the past is impossible, if that's your concern?

This whole argument about solving problems by looking back in time to watch them reminds me of Pushing Daisies, that old show from ABC about the pie maker who could resurrect the dead with one touch and put them back dead again with another. The entire show was about him solving mysteries that were a lot more complicated than just asking someone who killed them.

That's the perfect example of how to do Mage. Got a Moros? Well suddenly you need to get creative with your murder mysteries. Got an Acanthus? Looking back in time should just give more questions instead of answer things. I know how it is. I got thrown for a loop the first time someone used Postcognition. It's why you really need to know what your characters are capable of, and what kind of things they'll think of doing.

On top of the notion that an Acanthus can solve any problem by smothering it in the crib (literally, as the argument seems to be), even if you do allow that, it's ridiculously difficult to do. I think I saw someone do the math as something like 7 Withstand minimum? And they might be able to Clash of Wills? If you're worried about "the caster can repeat it until they get it right" how about making it so that they can only attempt it once?

Everyone is trying to complain about things that are non-issues (do you really think this didn't come up in playtesting? Killing Baby Hitler is Time Travel 101) instead of thinking about why they might be non-issues in the first place, and instead people are taking hammers to the system instead of those tiny little screwdrivers you use for glasses or watches.

>>47117226
One can also introduce bigger numbers in Withstand - 5-6 instead of 3 in Weak Temporal Sympathy, for example.

>>47117320
I'm also like 100% certain that you're using the adult's Resistance Attributes.

>>47117226
Finally, someone reasonable.

>>47116556

I feel that sending them to a facility in Africa is part of the point. If you're the agents of Tyranny, you've gotta flaunt it somehow.

>>47117226
>>47117343
>>47117356
Thank god reasonable people.

>>47117226

Thing is, Acanthus was actually the super powered path to begin with, it's just that everyone got too wrapped up in Mind and Mastigos's blatant power to notice.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SuQGfk9Gmgo
Proof that the Seers are completely right about then nature of Awakening.

>>47117226
>If you're worried about "the caster can repeat it until they get it right" how about making it so that they can only attempt it once?
If we're in houserule territory, I'll just stick with my proposed fix of "there is no Temporal Sympathy".

>(do you really think this didn't come up in playtesting?
I have firsthand experience with how Onyx Path playtests in three different games. They suck at it. Never use playtesting as a defense.

>>47117457
The art style reminds me of this song
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLrdSC9MVb4
>A young boy Awakens as a Mastigos, Moros, or Thyrsus;Or A Changeling Durance

>>47117343
So what's the resistance attribute of Hitler's corpse? Because I'm pretty sure he'd die as an infant thanks to any number of bored Masters of Time. Also can you cast Sustained Presence retroactively on someone else during the time a change was made to get them the memories of the previous timeline?

>>47117606
>Also can you cast Sustained Presence retroactively on someone else during the time a change was made to get them the memories of the previous timeline
Yes, you can cast Constant Presence on someone in the past to let them Clash of Wills any timeline changes made then.

>Reading all this Consilium stuff
Man, I worry that I won't be able to build my city right because my eyes are just glazing over here.

>>47117545
How would removing Temporal Sympathy fix anything? It's sort of necessary for the Time Arcana.

>>47117559
>Tally Hall
Good Taste.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yModCU1OVHY
This is clearly a song about a Thyrsus, just replace all instances of Banana with Magic.

>>47117652
>How would removing Temporal Sympathy fix anything?
The problem with Time is its ability to reach into the past extensively and fuck the game. Temporal Sympathy is what enables that.

>It's sort of necessary for the Time Arcana.
Nah. All the Time spells work without it.

>>47117676
That's not fucking with the game, that's playing it as intended. You also need Temporal Sympathy to do anything meaningful with time. Even simple things like pre- or postcognition requires that. And without the ability to look backwards or forwards in time, Time is nothing.

Don't try to "fix" problems that don't exist. Understand that they're meant to exist in the first place, and you're meant to work around them.

File: image.jpg (17KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 480x360px

>>47115394
The parent path should be Acanthus with Forces as its extra arcane.

>>47117731
>That's not fucking with the game, that's playing it as intended.
Time as intended is bad, then. Let no one accuse OPP of good sense.

>>47117731
Stop, stop. Responding to the troll make him stronger.

>>47117768
This might confuse you, but some people want to play a game about superpowerful wizards and all the problems that come from being a superpowerful wizard. There's a reason that when you become a wizard, you stop going to the barber, and make sure you don't bleed on anything.

>>47117846
Not that any of that matters with Symbolic Yantras.

It also ignores that one can play a superpowerful wizard without letting Time specifically fuck everyone as the God Arcanum.

File: Ordo Hereticus Begets Termination.png (52KB, 192x192px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 192x192px

>>47117883

I'm disappointed, I bought Mage:2e and there is not a single page of Werewolf on Mage anal fisting.

>>47117846

You can do that without out and out time travel. Just have all Time be Wizard Celerity and you've solved most of the Mage balance problem. Getting rid of any kind of instant spellcasting would solve the rest. A Ritual Only magic system would make for a more balanced and more of a horror game.

>>47117883
Symbolic Yantras require more than just a stick figure drawing, and just having a really poor Sympathetic connection doesn't really do much for you. Time isn't a God Arcanum, you just don't want to put in a modicum of effort to work with it, so you'd rather change it. Again, even if you do feel these things are a problem, you can fix them with tweaks, instead of trying to go smashy smashy.
"It requires a Sympathetic Connection of at least Connected to do XYZ"

>>47117967
>Symbolic Yantras require more than just a stick figure drawing
Nope.
>Time isn't a God Arcanum
Nope.
>you just don't want to put in a modicum of effort to work with it
Nope.
>Again, even if you do feel these things are a problem, you can fix them with tweaks, instead of trying to go smashy smashy.
Removing Temporal Sympathy is the tweak.
>"It requires a Sympathetic Connection of at least Connected to do XYZ"
Would make the bullshit more tedious but no less bullshit.

>>47117934
Seems as reasonable of a complaint as every other complaint so far.
What even happen to that guy whining about not being able to heal at 3 Life?

>>47117934

I believe Dave is saving that as bonus content for the blog.

>>47117994
>What even happen to that guy whining about not being able to heal at 3 Life?
He shut up when people started pointing out you can.

>>47117967

If it's a stick figure that you imagine as your target, then how is it not Symbolic? People that claim to practice actual Chaos Magic can make sigils using simple "I Want" sentences scrambled into an symbol. Making a Symbolic Yantra put of a simple stick figure drawing is just as simple a task.

>>47117934
I kind of want a Wolf-Blooded Moros now, he has Patterning in Matter and uses it to change the shape of his weapons.

>>47117991

Would getting rid of Temporal Sympathy change anything else in the game? Still not quite convicted I should scrap it if I run my own Mage game.

>>47118126
It would weaken Time. That's it. If you like Time as it is, that is awful. If, like me, you see Time is ridiculously overpowered and currently the One Arcanum To Rule Them All, weakening it is good.

>>47118044
Why would a stick figure be supernaturally representative of a person?
>• Symbolic sympathy includes indirect representations of the subject — a person’s sympathetic name, drawings, caricatures, or posed and costumed photographs.
A stick figure is not a drawing of a person. I don't care what your mommy told you when she stuck it on the fridge.

>>47118126
>>47118183
It gets rid of a lot of the more interesting applications of Time

Is there a point to taking Prime anymore, now that it's shit?

This is the first time ive seen dumb shitposting so bad its actually prompted me to go get a extension to blacklist.

>>47118417
What are you blacklisting?
>>47118409
You mean now that it's useful?

>The caster of a Rote is considered to have five dots in the highest Arcanum used for purposes of how much free Reach she has.

noice

>>47118409
There are some useful bits & pieces, but with the treatment Forces& Prime got being an Obrimos is definitely a aw deal by Mage standards now

>>47118469
Seems like yet another victim of "that thing was awesome, better neft it into oblivion" in the edition.

>>47118445
Trying to black list dumbass time discussion

>>47118417
No one cares.

>Low Wisdom+Forces
HAHAHAHA! MY HEAD EXPLODED! IT HURTS SO MUCH!

>>47118469

Unless the upcoming FAQ offers a lot of "clarifications." Obrimos definitely did not fare very well with the 2e revisions.

>>47118281

If you see it as the drawing of a specific person, it is. All a symbol needs to work is an image and an idea behind the image. If you absolutely must have something more specific, find a hairstyle or accessory they gave and add it to the stick figure, or put their name on top of the stick figure as a label. Done.

If you cast a beneficial spell (i.e. a spell without a listed Withstand attribute) on somebody who doesn't want it, is the spell Withstood or is it resisted by a Clash of Wills?

>>47118576

Probably Withstood, yeah.

Could non-mages summon Goetic demons?

>>47118617
If they're a Proximus with that spell as a Merit.

>>47118651
Can they take a Merit that lets them bind said Demons?

>>47118651

Proximi are a big disappointment.

Their supernal powers are expensive to purchase and very dangerous and difficult to use.

If you want a retainer or supporting NPC (or a lesser template PC), a basic human with some supernatural merits is a far better value.

>>47118677
Theoretically. a Proximus just gets a list of spells they can acquire as merits. They can include any spells you like.

>>47118737
Actually they have a parent path and one othe arcane.

>>47118718
>a big disappointment.
A running theme of the edition, so natch

>>47118651
I don't really like the Proximi. Couldn't Joe the Occultist find about them?

>>47114825

You cast the spell on them in the present - as such, you need to deal with present-them's Resolve.

The past isn't another land, the past is a part of you. To hit them in the past requires hitting their self in the REAL world, the present. Saying "I hit his past with Time" is like saying "I hit his heart with Life" - you have to contend with whatever resistances the mage as a whole has, not what resistances their individual components have (regardless of whether said component is temporal, biological, chemical, or so on).

>>47118787
>The past isn't another land, the past is a part of you.
The past is separate. That's why you require magic powers to fuck with it. Unlike someone's heart, or their mind, you can't actually engage it.

That's why Temporal Sympathy talks about casting through time, and identifies the subject as being in the past.

>>47118737
So you could have a Proximi Dynasty of Moros with Mind, they use the demons of Thievery they summon and bind to their gauntlets to cast Rotes from outside their Path...by grabbing the spells in mid flight and hurling them at the person who cast them originally.

>>47118841
No. As far as the Supernal concerned, Jimmy the kid and James the adult are the same exact person, just with a few extra years added on. Jimmy is James's past, and is a directly connected part of him. If you want to affect Jimmy, you have to cast a spell on James.

It talks about casting through time once, versus at least two mentions of casting the spell on the subject in the present to affect their past. The one mention of casting through time, odds are, is purely a literary shortcut, considering how everything else in the game works.
Apply logic before you apply stupid house rules, senpai.

>>47118762

In 1e, Proximi Blessings did not risk Paradox.

Now that they do, with few to no means to mitigate, it's one hell of a nerf to the template.

>>47118922
>As far as the Supernal concerned, Jimmy the kid and James the adult are the same exact person, just with a few extra years added on.
This is demonstrably false. If I hit James with a fireball, he does not retroactively burst into flames. They're distinct.

>Apply logic before you apply stupid house rules, senpai.
Logic says "a subject in the past" means a subject in the past, and that "cast through time" means "cast through time".

>>47118718
I actually am a little disappointed by Proximi. They're a lot easier to handle now, but they've gotten a big step down from what they once were. Also, FIVE HOURS for a ritual is a fucking hell of a long time. This is pretty shitty considering my old Proximus character was someone who's foundling status and Blessings lead him to believe he was a superhero. Hard to do that when he can't do most of the things he did now that Paradox is a thing for Proximi, and they have to be even more careful about it. I'm also not too hot about the fact that they can only buy up to 3 dot powers instead of 4.

That said, Proximi can take Supernatural Merits, so even with these drawbacks, they're still better. Especially if you think Persistent Conditions and Curses can be cool.

>>47118936
I figure if I ever make Proximi important, I'll give them a free Reach. Or at least remove the Paradox utterly ruining the spell, and maybe narratively downgrade the effects of the Quiescence/Dissonance. If a Proximus does something magical, it might be remembered as unusual, even if they can't remember the specifics.
If only because that's the kind of thing I like to focus on with my Proximi.

>>47118975
It is not demonstrably false.
The Supernal does not consider time a line. The book explains this with the loom metaphor; the present is the wheel, weaving the fabric of the past, from the unwoven strings of the future. If you want to affect the past, you first have to know which string you're affecting, so you start at the present(which is why you explicitly HAVE TO CAST THE SPELL ON THE SUBJECT IN THE PRESENT), then work your way back to the point you want to affect it.

You cast a spell on your subject in the present, and it affects them in the past.
There is no reason to believe that the attainment would let you cast a spell and then fling it into the past, when the only other spells that let you throw things into the past are at higher dot ratings.
You are casting a spell in the present, on the present, to affect the past.

>>47119137
The attainment specifically and explicitly says "cast through time" and "at a subject in the past". It's unambiguous. It's also unambiguously true that, if I set you on fire with magic now, you don't retroactively get set on fire in your childhood.

Because they're distinct.

Are the affects of Sleeper witnesses on Paradox rolls cumulative? That is, if you're casting a spell in front of a whole crowd, does the Paradox pool gain 8-again AND the rote quality, or just the latter?

>>47119164
>"at a subject in the past"
Nope, it says "at the past of a subject." Do you understand the difference?

>>47119221
Rote action already includes the exploding dice

>>47119226
It also says "The mage must be casting a spell on the subject as it exists now".

File: suffering.png (45KB, 932x592px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 932x592px

God i hope this gets cleared up in the FAQ, if only so the shit posting will stop

>>47119164
No. It's unambiguous that you are CASTING ON THE SUBJECT AS IT CURRENTLY EXISTS IN THE PRESENT.

You have repeatedly been treating choosing the interpretation of the paragraph that allows you to complain more.

>Temporal Sympathy allows a mage to cast a spell through time at the past of a subject.
"This attainment allows you to do things to the past"
>The mage must be casting a spell on the subject as it exists now
"To do so, you are targeting the person in the present"

>>47119221
>>47119233
Rote is, as far as I can tell, the highest "level" something can go, but Rote doesn't explode on anything but 10s.
10-Again→9-Again→8-Again→Rote.
I don't think you can have Rote with 9- or 8-Again.

>>47119221

The dice tricks are not cumulative.

Casting in front of a full crowd grants the entire Paradox dice poll the rote quality, but Not also 8-Again.

File: TemporalSympathy.png (49KB, 442x239px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 442x239px

>>47119164
What the book is unambiguous about is that you have to be casting the spell on the target in the present. You see that word right there, "must"? There's no way around that. You are casting a spell in the present, on the present, to affect the past.

The rest of it is just shorthand, because your spell is still travelling back through the target's timeline to affect them at whatever point in the past you choose. But it's still being cast on the subject, as they exist now. In the present.

>>47119266
>>47119286
Thanks.

>>47117226
Now I want to know why all these Acanthus haven't killed baby Hitler yet. What's protecting him? Or is baby Hitler existing the result of someone meddling with a different timeline, and removing him causes something even worse to happen?

>>47119253

There's nothing to clear up in the FAQ. Proximi Blessings now clearly take at least five hours to initiate or risk Paradox with little chance to mitigate.

Unsurprisingly, some people do not like such a dramatic change from 1e, and do not believe it fixes something that was broken or adds anything to the game. There will be a scattering of complaints. This hardly constitutes shit posting, and certainly not on the level of the Time crap.

>>47119370
Its not the proximi posts im talking about

>>47119370
He was referring to all the posts about Temporal Sympathy he had to hide.

>>47119370
>This hardly constitutes shit posting, and certainly not on the level of the Time crap.
That's what he meant, you doof :V
He was showing all the hidden posts his extension was hiding

>>47119354

My god, the Acanthus are protecting Hitler. That's terrible. How could anyone ever play an Acanthus now?

So, do we need a houserule that anyone with Time 3 or above that doesn't try to kill Hitler suffers -3 to all social rolls with anyone other that neo-Nazi's?

>>47119433
Hitler's under the protection of the Exarchs.

>>47119433
Not all Acanthus, just Seers. It's Prophet's Will.

>>47119354
>>47119433
He's probably being kept safe by the Acanthus Seers. That, or whatever the Time Exarch is.

>>47119433
Well no one was looking, the arcanthus made forty Hitlers. They made 40 hitlers. Thats as many as four tens and thats terrible

>>47119479
It makes sense that Time Exarch would be constantly rewriting Fallen History to make it worse. Interesting. It would be like living in 1984, only with magic instead of state terror.

>>47119479
Prophet. Maybe also Ruin the Exarch of Fate if she feels like it

>>47119497
>the Nazis are the enemy and always were

neat

File: in the past.png (99KB, 688x365px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 688x365px

>>47119226
>>47119266
>>47119303

Do I really need to show the page again? Well, alright. There you go.

>>47119479

Here's a handy Exarch chart.

http://kingofthehill.wikidot.com/exarchs

>>47119253

Wel, someone's gotta ask first in the FAQ thread first. I don't think anyone will, though, because why kill off an great shortcut to 300+ posts?

>>47119561
But that's only stating that you may combine it with Space. Previous sentences clearly says that you do cast on the subject as it exists now.

>>47119596
I think i saw a question about temporal sympathy on the faq thread already

>>47119619
>But that's only stating that you may combine it with Space.
No. Read again. The highlighted portion.

>>47119540
Yeah. It is entirely possible that Hitler actually was a benevolent dictator, who united Europe and began to led it into golden age, and whose Up Above decided it was too good for the Fallen World.

File: u tried.jpg (1KB, 100x100px) Image search: [Google]

1KB, 100x100px

>>47119636
Troll harder fucktard

>>47119572

Ooh, that's handy. Thanks!

>>47119561
I don't think that says what you think it says... You're just making it more complicated and difficult by adding the Sympathetic Range. You're just adding one step of distance between you and what you want to do. It doesn't mean that you're somehow not casting it targeting the person in the present. It just means that you can do it beyond Sensory Range. That changes nothing, it just adds another layer of difficulty. It does not mean that the person who exists currently in this point in time isn't the person that you're affecting.

>>47119636
Have YOU read it? I mean... again, I don't think it says what you think it says.

>>47119596
Link me to the FAQ

>>47119636
Yeah, I read it and it directly contradicts the words before it. So I take the first words instead on second ones.

>>47119666
Blame the book, not me. I didn't write that tripe.
>>47119673
>I don't think that says what you think it says
It says, very clearly, that the subject is in the past. That's what's highlighted. That is why I highlighted it. And why I named the picture in the past.

>>47119675
At least you admit it does indeed say in the past. You're more intellectually honest than these louts. If you're going for the first words, though, the first ones include "cast a spell through time at the past of a subject".

It's established you're hitting someone in the past well before it mentions the present.

>>47119728
"The mage must be casting a spell on the
subject as it exists now, cast at sensory range, use a sympathy Yantra, and spend one Mana."
- Mage the Awakening 2E (page 193)

>>47119772
Right before that: "cast a spell through time at the past of a subject".

Right after it: "a subject in the past".

Two for me, one for you. I'm ahead. Temporal Sympathy is badly done.