Jump to content

[✗] [Magic Submission] Abjuration - Complete Re-write in its Own School


Medvekoma
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just now, Aelsioln said:

 

I had an answer written out in response to skimming over the lore and literally deleted it the moment I saw this. As someone who has only spent about a month learning transfiguration I'm honestly confused how you could ever come to this conclusion.

 

The three "sub-schools" in transfiguration flow together beautifully if you think about the main focus on the magic. Changing things.

 

What does transmutation do? It changes things, you can literally reshape even recolor or heat/cool various materials and items. 

 

What does enchanting do? It changes things, you make it so ordinary items now have a new purpose. A new use. Suddenly that boring broom can be enchanted to sweep a floor by you simply tapping on it. Or that ring can now put an illusion over the hand of one wearing it. They're different items now. They've been changed. 

 

What does warding do? It changes things, you've blocked a spell. You've changed how it worked. The spell can only be blocked if you understood how it works and thus you weave your mana so that when the spell hits it is changed. It is stopped. 

 

What does abjuration do? It changes things, you're literally changing a mana anchor by disrupting it with your own mana. Again, you have to understand how it works in order to do so. Just like you have to understand a material before you can change it. 

 

Now, on to what I'd actually seen from just skimming over this before I got a headache and had to stop. 

 

We don’t need more offensive magics when we already have a lot of them. Especially from something that has specifically been non-offensive up until now. You don't abjure a spell to harm someone. 

 

Abjuration and wards are similar, both defenses against other magics, so why wouldn’t they be teamed up? Its just that one is a directly sent puff while the other is more like a woven shield. 

 

Just because you haven’t personally seen something used doesn’t mean it isn’t. I don’t see blood magic used yet I’m not going to assume it never is because I know there is a ton of rp that I don’t witness. Contrary to your claim I see abjuration used quite often. More than I see wards or warding actually. People like it as a quick solution that uses less mana than a ward. I personally just recently learned how to use abjuration and warding and plan on messing with any mage I can find using that very magic (abjuration that is).

 

How does sending a puff of mana at someone suddenly translate into draining them or causing pain? This seems like a bit of a wide step.

 

Also why would absorbing too much make someone implode? Why not explode? Why not merely pass out or fall over due to too much energy? 

 

“I’ve been actively roleplaying a pyromancer and I dislike the simplicity of their magic.” 
Okay 1) you’re not a pyromancer. You don’t control flames. You evoke them. You’re a fire evocationist. 2) if you find any magic simple you’re not exploring your magic enough. Fire evocation isn’t purely offensive either, get creative. Honestly as someone who used to use fire evocation this genuinely hurt to read.

 

“Or they may try and overcharge themselves as much as they can in order to drain the opponent’s mana and inflict damage.” 
Why would draining mana inflict damage? Mages use up their mana all the time all it does is wear you out or kill you if you really overdo it. I’ve never seen a mage have damage inflicted or even pain from merely running low on mana. 

 

And as I said, that's as far as I got before I got a headache and decided to look over replies instead. 

 

All in all, a huge -1 from me. Skimming this over gave me a feeling that you don't fully understand transfiguration as the magic it currently is but want one part of it without learning the rest. I'd personally recommend having a character learn it or asking someone to explain the magic. Genuinely not trying to be rude here, that's my honest opinion after what I've read. This is an unneeded change that would just further bloat up our current magic system. Transfiguration and abjuration are fine how they currently exist.

What she said.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps the most unique ability that abjuration had and no longer has was the ability to catch spells and counterspell them back.

 

Fire Evocationist slings a fireball

Abjurationist abjures the spell and redirects it sending it back as an ice spike.

 

Personally that ability speaks to me.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm throwing a -1 at this. This magic just serves to make someone a more potent anti-mage. I know you can say that this magic only has a few anti-magic parts, but overall the magic itself is a magic counter. We already have Fi.

Link to post
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Aelsioln said:

What does transmutation do? It changes things, you can literally reshape even recolor or heat/cool various materials and items. 

 

What does enchanting do? It changes things, you make it so ordinary items now have a new purpose. A new use. Suddenly that boring broom can be enchanted to sweep a floor by you simply tapping on it. Or that ring can now put an illusion over the hand of one wearing it. They're different items now. They've been changed. 

 

What does warding do? It changes things, you've blocked a spell. You've changed how it worked. The spell can only be blocked if you understood how it works and thus you weave your mana so that when the spell hits it is changed. It is stopped. 

 

What does abjuration do? It changes things, you're literally changing a mana anchor by disrupting it with your own mana. Again, you have to understand how it works in order to do so. Just like you have to understand a material before you can change it. 

 

What does clerical healing do? It changes things as well, and as far as I know learning anatomy is a core part of learning clerical healing.

 

What does illusion do? Same principles.

 

What does void translocation do?

 

You can even argue necromancy is nothing more than the transfiguration of life-force.

 

Magic is about changing things. You could group almost everything under transfiguration by reasoning that they "change things".

 

At the same time, enchanting is an Elven alternative to runesmithing, heating items is a core element in fire evocation and blocking spells is the idea behind fi-magic. 

 

Why not group all the evocations together with conjuration and create a new school? In theory, all they do is create and shape material from the void in exchange for mana. They are still different sub-schools because together they'd be a superinflated monstrosity and because apart they are somewhat balanced.

 

Why not group all the mental magics together? Why not group voidal translocation and shifting together? You get the dance.

 

And by-the-by, if you say transfiguration has "changing things" as its core goal, why not change spells? Why drain mana into the void, where you could transfigure them mid-flight, smoking away a ball of fire or turning a thrown rock into mud?

 

35 minutes ago, Aelsioln said:

We don’t need more offensive magics when we already have a lot of them. Especially from something that has specifically been non-offensive up until now. You don't abjure a spell to harm someone. 

 

No, nothing in the submission refers to such either. And what are the offensive magics? Most of the time it's either elemental evocation or arcanism.

 

35 minutes ago, Aelsioln said:

I personally just recently learned how to use abjuration and warding and plan on messing with any mage I can find using that very magic (abjuration that is).

 

Many mentioned duplicity in magic as a core problem. Isn't such an issue right there, right now? 

 

35 minutes ago, Aelsioln said:

How does sending a puff of mana at someone suddenly translate into draining them or causing pain? This seems like a bit of a wide step.

 

Nothing in the thread refers to draining with a puff of magic. Causing pain is a different thing, explained by implosion.

 

35 minutes ago, Aelsioln said:

Also why would absorbing too much make someone implode? Why not explode? Why not merely pass out or fall over due to too much energy? 

 

Idea was given by an Aegis or Asulon book in the Dragur library. Implosion seems more logical when a large quantity of mana departs to the void.

 

35 minutes ago, Aelsioln said:

Why would draining mana inflict damage? Mages use up their mana all the time all it does is wear you out or kill you if you really overdo it. I’ve never seen a mage have damage inflicted or even pain from merely running low on mana. 

 

Bad wording will correct it.

 

_____________________________________________

 

14 minutes ago, Sir K Andruske said:

Perhaps the most unique ability that abjuration had and no longer has was the ability to catch spells and counterspell them back.

 

Fire Evocationist slings a fireball

Abjurationist abjures the spell and redirects it sending it back as an ice spike.

 

Personally that ability speaks to me.  

 

I was looking into that, but the most recently published lore on mana doesn't let that happen. Perhaps with some creative transfiguration, but as far as I know there's limits on that as well. Right now, you program your spell when you transform it from passive to active mana, et cetera.

 

The idea that you drain the spell of its active mana and use that as retaliation is a workaround that's kind-of compatible with current lore. I don't think LM would take "reprogramming of active mana" lightly.

 

_____________________________________________

 

10 minutes ago, DISCOLIQUID said:

I'm throwing a -1 at this. This magic just serves to make someone a more potent anti-mage. I know you can say that this magic only has a few anti-magic parts, but overall the magic itself is a magic counter. We already have Fi.

 

It does not make one more potent than a transfigurationist currently is, or even without abjuration could be. Draining mana affects both mages and non-mages, the very same way. It's merely an explanation for an offensive kind of magic that does not burn or puncture the enemies, but exhausts them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Necromancy isn't the transmutation of life-force. It's the movement of it, the energy itself isn't altered. Just an FYI. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Aerial "The Wroth" Kebabu said:

Necromancy isn't the transmutation of life-force. It's the movement of it, the energy itself isn't altered. Just an FYI. 

 

Considering that point, then neither is abjuration/warding a form of transmutation, since they merely leak mana back to the void instead of transmuting the spell, the mana remains active mana, its purpose unaltered as well, merely re-directed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow.

 

Well, I've read through your lore (very briefly) and I have a few things to point out and a few questions to ask.

 

First off, I notice how you say active mana 'returns to the void' and passive mana 'comes from the void' (or something of the sort, I won't scroll all the way back to find the exact wording). I'd just like to point out that active mana simply burns away into aura, and passive mana originates from the soul. If you were referring to how wards affect spells (and thus the mana in them) then you would be right in terms of your description of active mana.

 

Second, I notice you have included 'Empowerment' which is, from my understanding, using active mana created by someone else to somehow power an individual's spell. Not only does this not make sense (because external active mana is somehow fuelling and empowering someone's spelll), but it also borders on the use of blood magic, which has this ability as one of its very few set abilities.

 

Mana-draining doesn't make sense with the lore I wrote, either. How does one remove passive mana from an individual's soul, change this passive mana into active mana and then toss this active mana into their temporary pool?

 

Alright, now for my questions. I hope you can answer them all :)

 

Why do implosions occur when lots of active mana is in one spot? Does this mean powerful mana gems or mana obelisks are now supposed to implode?

 

How does one abjure an abjuration?

 

Why does abjuration exhaust its user so little, if warding is quite exhausting to the person doing the warding? I understand you will reply with "abjurationists have their temporary mana pool" but to that I ask: Why is it so easy to maintain a temporary mana pool, especially if you are trying to keep active mana (that isn't yours) from burning away into aura?

 

Is this a voidal magic?

 

Fi magic can counter any magic without trouble, but that is all it can do. Your magic can counter any magic, but one must simply know the magic beforehand. Your magic can also do a lot more than counter any magic. With all this in mind, what are the drawbacks to having such a power? As far as I can tell, self-implosions are the only one.

 

When redirecting a spell, could the abjurationist empower it to be incredibly powerful, using all the active mana in their temporary mana pool? If not, why?

 

Can the effects of abjurationists be stacked if multiple users of the magic are using it in one spot?

 

What happens if the abjurationist doesn't know the spell/magic they are trying to remove the active mana from?

 

Regarding the previous question, is a distortion field indiscriminate (because it affects all active mana in it)? If so, do you think it is ok to make an ability that is like Fi magic (indiscriminatory blocking of magic) but so much more powerful?

 

I hope that's not too much! I may have more questions when I read it over more thoroughly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Medvekoma said:

What does clerical healing do? It changes things as well, and as far as I know learning anatomy is a core part of learning clerical healing.

 

What does illusion do? Same principles.

 

What does void translocation do?

 

You can even argue necromancy is nothing more than the transfiguration of life-force.

 

I'm sorry but... You're making it sound even more like you know nothing about magic here. 

Clerical healing doesn't change things, it RESTORES back to how it naturally was. That's why if someone was born deaf or mute a cleric can't heal that but if they were stabbed then that can be healed. Because that stab wound isn't supposed to be there. Though hey, you got one part right there at least, they do need to learn anatomy or rather... They need to know how the body is supposed to be. How it works. Since otherwise they wouldn't know what it needs to be restored to.

Illusions don't change anything, they're just that. ILLUSIONS. They fade away leaving nothing behind afterwards. 

Void translocation moves things into the little void pocket but doesn't change them. They pop in and out exactly the same way. 

As aerial said necromancy MOVES lifeforce but doesn't change it at all. 

 

 

3 hours ago, Medvekoma said:

Magic is about changing things. You could group almost everything under transfiguration by reasoning that they "change things".

 

So no, magic is NOT about changing things unless you're talking about transfiguration. Hence it being often referred to or explained as actually changing things in the world around the mage. The magic is literally in the ALTERATION subtype and is the only one in said subtype that actually changes the item in question instead of merely moving it. 

 

85f0d83c1a6842c4b992a03161e51747.png 

 

 

3 hours ago, Medvekoma said:

At the same time, enchanting is an Elven alternative to runesmithing, heating items is a core element in fire evocation and blocking spells is the idea behind fi-magic. 

 

...Since when is enchanting an elven thing? I've seen dwarves and humans use it just as much. Heck, the first enchanter I ever even saw on the server, and who I actually sometimes poke to question, played a human. Also fire evocation simply makes fire. Can you make some fire hotter than others? Yeah. Can you warm something by putting fire around or near it? Sure though it might burn or outright catch on fire while you do so depending on what the item is. But I wouldn't call heating items a "core element" considering the core element is well.... Evoking fire? That's why its called fire evocation? 

 

 

3 hours ago, Medvekoma said:

Why not group all the evocations together with conjuration and create a new school? In theory, all they do is create and shape material from the void in exchange for mana. They are still different sub-schools because together they'd be a superinflated monstrosity and because apart they are somewhat balanced.

 

Because each element is different and requires different knowledge to evoke? Just because you know fire evocation don't mean you can instantly learn how to evoke air next. You'd have to learn about the new element and start from tiny steps. Conjuration meanwhile requires knowing about the plant or animal you want to conjure up. As in you have to completely dissect whatever it is first. Thus you have to find one first to dissect. You don't just create outta thin air. They're not kept apart just because you think they'd be too inflated together. They're kept apart because they're literally different things. You however, are wanting to separate a magic from others of its same type. Taking a changing magic from other changing magics. 

 

 

3 hours ago, Medvekoma said:

Why not group all the mental magics together? Why not group voidal translocation and shifting together? You get the dance.

 

I'm actually a big supporter for combining mental magic and cognitism because both are magics involving the mind. Both deal with mental illusions. As I told an LM even, if I can **** with someone else's head why can't I **** with my own? The two would flow together wonderfully. 

 

As for voidal translocation and shifting, again different magics. Different processes. One is moving OBJECTS into the void and leaving them there until you want to take it out again. The other is moving YOURSELF through the void in a mere moment to pop back out a few feet away. Think of it like a void pocket/storage and blinking/teleporting. Not. The. Same. Want you to repeat after me there. 

They're not the same. 

 

Abjuration and warding however are the same. Both use mana to change and thus disrupt a spell. Just abjuration is a low mana costing and directed shot while warding is a woven shield that takes more mana and is often enchanted onto objects. 

 

 

3 hours ago, Medvekoma said:

And by-the-by, if you say transfiguration has "changing things" as its core goal, why not change spells? Why drain mana into the void, where you could transfigure them mid-flight, smoking away a ball of fire or turning a thrown rock into mud?

 

Transfiguration does have changing spells. Warding and abjuration are how you change spells by disrupting them. However you can't change things mid-flight because A) you don't have enough time if its already in flight towards your head. B) The mana anchor don't work like that if you read the transfiguration guide. 

 

To quote Kalamoot: "a mana-anchor is simply the invisible connection from the Void, to the spell we’re casting. This connection holds the spell in our world, it breaks when we use up our mana, or when we sever the connection. We make a connection, we tap into the Void, we use mana to draw our spell into the real world. But there is also another detail, when mana is used, it is given a task. When a typical mage uses let's say fire evocation, he makes a fireball. In this fireball is a portion of invisible mana (This mana is literally the anchor), which has been tasked with holding that fireball in the real world for as long as it's fueled with mana, or is dispersed by another means." 

 

In other words, mage connects to void. Mage forms spell there. Mage pulls spell from void into our realm leaving a mana anchor to connect it to the void still. Mana anchor makes sure that the mana stays in the form/spell the mage wanted until it either runs outta mana or is sent away somehow. 

 

So you can't change a cast spell, such as an evoked rock into mud, because the mana anchor is literally focusing on holding that rock as a rock. It wants to keep it a rock. And guess what? If you mess with the mana anchor trying to change said rock into mud you're either gonna not succeed at all or best case scenario you're gonna break the mana anchor in which case spell goes bye bye. No more rock at all. 

 

 

3 hours ago, Medvekoma said:

No, nothing in the submission refers to such either. And what are the offensive magics? Most of the time it's either elemental evocation or arcanism.

 

"Core abilities:
 Weaken / Exhaust enemies gradually over time
 Inflict direct pain"

 

Mhm, nothing offensive there, nothing in the submission referring to it being offensive at all there. 

 

As for offensive magics? 

Lets make a list.

  • Transfiguration can be offensive, enchant a weapon or reshape something into a weapon. 
  • Telekinesis can be offensive, float an arrow or other projectile at someone (my favorite is throwing mugs).
  • Void Translocation? Yup, drop something heavy on someone's head or pull out a loaded crossbow.
  • Void Shifting? Pop up behind someone and stab them? I assume that's possible at least.
  • Evocations are obvious, including arcane evocation.
  • Conjuration, make bear/wolves/insert any predator here that you've studied. 
  • Familiar binding is another yup considering they're usually used to defend the mage in a fight or against danger. 
  • Which means golemancy goes here too. 
  • Don't even get me started on dark arts or deity magic.

I've always considered a key point in magic being the more creative the user the more uses the magic has. If you're creative enough any magic could be offensive which is why we don't need any more who's core abilities are causing "direct pain" especially when the abjuration you're drawing this from doesn't cause any pain. It literally just makes a spell go poof. You're the one changing that to suddenly be offensive.

 

 

3 hours ago, Medvekoma said:

Many mentioned duplicity in magic as a core problem. Isn't such an issue right there, right now? 

 

Trying to shame me for how my character is? That's just my mage, she's a *****. She's all about duplicity, deception. She will act sweet to your face but talk horrible about you behind you. She'd rather stab someone in the back than to give them a fair fight. Thus she's the type of person who if she saw a mage and was in the right sorta mood you bet she wouldn't waste any time before trying to abjure any spell they were using literally just to mess with them. She'd act completely innocent afterwards too because that's how she is. She isn't like that because she's a mage either, even as a little kid she was a brat. Even as a cleric she was a horrible person. Same with her time as a druid.

 

If you meant duplicity as in there being two magics to mess with other spells well A) how would your submission help that at all? And B) if you learned transfiguration you'd know the differences between abjuration and warding. Hence my previous suggestion that you learn it or have someone explain it to you. I recommend Fitermon or Tahmas personally as they're the ones who have been explaining it to me since I started learning the magic on my mage.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This has to be the silliest thing I've ever read, do you even know anything about Transfiguration? Half of this stuff wouldn't be possible and it's way too close to Fi' Magic. Wards and Abjurations are simply disruption/alteration of the connection between a spell and mana, you cant make more out of it. Why don't we leave something that doesn't need a buff alone for once?

 

Why don't you stop trying to fix things that aren't broken.

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Tox said:

Why don't you stop trying to fix things that aren't broken.

 

It's called research and it's what got you the wheel and your economic growth.

 

19 minutes ago, Tox said:

Half of this stuff wouldn't be possible and it's way too close to Fi' Magic.

 

Magic wouldn't be possible without approved lore, as far as I know. It's possible because of LM approval.

 

In what point is it too close to Fi-magic, where current transfiguration isn't?

_____________________________

 

3 hours ago, Aelsioln said:

In other words, mage connects to void. Mage forms spell there. Mage pulls spell from void into our realm leaving a mana anchor to connect it to the void still. Mana anchor makes sure that the mana stays in the form/spell the mage wanted until it either runs outta mana or is sent away somehow. 

 

You referenced an outdated guide from early 2014 whereas the most recently published lore on mana is from September, 2016. Nothing is transfigurated with a ward or abjuration, it's active mana drained away.

 

3 hours ago, Aelsioln said:

If you're creative enough any magic could be offensive which is why we don't need any more who's core abilities are causing "direct pain" especially when the abjuration you're drawing this from doesn't cause any pain. It literally just makes a spell go poof. You're the one changing that to suddenly be offensive.

 

Abjuration is the opposite of conjuration. It's the name of a magic school in numerous fantasy worlds, including d&d. It isn't a name made up by the author of transfiguration lore to refer to a magic puff that intercepts a spell.

 

3 hours ago, Aelsioln said:

Trying to shame me for how my character is? That's just my mage, she's a *****. She's all about duplicity, deception. She will act sweet to your face but talk horrible about you behind you. She'd rather stab someone in the back than to give them a fair fight. Thus she's the type of person who if she saw a mage and was in the right sorta mood you bet she wouldn't waste any time before trying to abjure any spell they were using literally just to mess with them. She'd act completely innocent afterwards too because that's how she is. She isn't like that because she's a mage either, even as a little kid she was a brat. Even as a cleric she was a horrible person. Same with her time as a druid.

 

I ... didn't mean that. I don't know your character.

 

3 hours ago, Aelsioln said:

And B) if you learned transfiguration you'd know the differences between abjuration and warding

 

I know the differences. No need for an ad-hominem attack, if the differences were so apparent and different to what I interpreted in my thread you could just quote the relevant parts and explain.

 

All in all, my argument still stands:

 

1. Alteration is a group of spells focused around changing things.

2. Alteration has sub-schools based around different themes

3. While voidal translocation and voidal shifting are kept distinct (despite both sending pre-programmed quantum information through the void to re-appear later at a different place), transfiguration encompasses literal transfiguration, enchanting, warding and abjuration.

(At the same time, evocations are kept separate for balancing issues. A transfigurationist studies far more kinds of materials than an elemental evoker would, even if they studied all five schools of elemental evocation. The argument that "they have to concentrate on one" doesn't quite stand)

4. The point of this thread isn't to rip up transfiguration and remove half its abilities. It's the elaboration of one part of it, which can be replaced by other parts.

5. By duplication I referred to transfiguration's threefold ability to deflect magic through enchanted wards, conjured wards and abjuration. It's rather weird to see all the transfigurationists comment on this thread, calling out the magic to be too close to Fi-magic, whereas they are completely fine with it being part of their larger school with less limitations.

 

_______________________________

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Medvekoma said:

 

It's called research and it's what got you the wheel and your economic growth.

 

 

Magic wouldn't be possible without approved lore, as far as I know. It's possible because of LM approval.

 

 

I can agree with you, both magic and research / Development can happen, yes.

 

But the point I'm simply trying to make is this: Wards and Abjurations do not need a buff, and a lot of the current Transfiguration will agree with this statement: Don't detach any of the sub schools of transfiguration, Please.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Tox said:

Don't detach any of the sub schools of transfiguration, Please.

 

It's not even a sub-school, merely a spell within a sub-school.

 

And this is what I kind-of noticed indeed. (As far as I counted) all respondants so far were users of transfiguration. Of all the negative comments, all (without exception) came from transfigurationists as well. And the very first comment I received when the link was shared over skype was:

 

"AND YOU LEAVE ABJURATION IN TRANSFIG WHERE IT IS"

 

I see little point in keeping magic-monstrosities floating about, and I shared this concern with @Sir K Andruske in PM before, and on his own magic submission thread. While you make one magic unique and detailed, you draw away from the others which leave them less-unique and less detailed due to the decreasing amount of contributions.

 

The utilities and abilities provided by transfiguration + arcanism right now equal to the utilities and abilities provided by runesmithing, weak fi-magic, either of the elemental evocations; with general transmutation, conjured weapons and shielding added to the mix. Transfiguration is the only widely available item-crafting arcane magic (next to the rare, technically racial-bound runesmithing), and the only available anti-magic apart from Fi, next to the transmutation element itself (which can ultimately lend you the power of some evocations).

 

Do you, as a transfigurationist, agree with the spectrum of utility the magic encompasses compared to other schools?

Link to post
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Medvekoma said:

The utilities and abilities provided by transfiguration + arcanism right now equal to the utilities and abilities provided by runesmithing, weak fi-magic, either of the elemental evocations; with general transmutation, conjured weapons and shielding added to the mix. Transfiguration is the only widely available item-crafting arcane magic (next to the rare, technically racial-bound runesmithing), and the only available anti-magic apart from Fi, next to the transmutation element itself (which can ultimately lend you the power of some evocations).

 

Do you, as a transfigurationist, agree with the spectrum of utility the magic encompasses compared to other schools?

 

Transfiguration is broken into 3 Sub schools, Transmutation, Enchanting, and Warding.

(So yes, It is a sub school.)

 

The only "Utility" you get out of Transfiguration is Enchanting, in which is the ability to simply imbue a spell into an object, typically with a set of commands and a mana gem to empower it. Transmutation isn't even a valid utility besides using it to forge something or alter property's simply.

 

It looks complex, but it's rather simple and something that doesn't out weigh any other magic. 

 

 

If you want to use Enchanting for a combative purpose, especially when it comes to imbuing a combative magic into something, you are far better off learning a different evocation than doing such as Enchantments are slow, and typically if you use a powerful spell, it kills the mana gem after use rendering your 'Utility' Useless.

 

Runesmithing is actually a lot more utility than enchanting in many ways, you can make massive golems and powerful devices that enchanting can't even do. Everything has it's own special snowflake to it so..

 

I literally do not see how this "Takes from other magics".

 

Also your comment on Arcanism where you can do conjured weapons?

Yeah, typically conjured weaponry is extremely hard to do and is not very useful compared to a natural blade, the only time it becomes useful is that weird light saber lore stuff, in which isn't even commonly used. 

 

To answer your question:

No, I do not agree, these magics have their own advantages and greatness over Transfiguration.

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Medvekoma said:

What does illusion do? Same principles.

Illusion does not change things. It precisely does the opposite. All it does it mess with a person's mind, making them experience things that are not there. If you want to get sciencey, one could say it stimulates the correct signals in the brain to cause the sensory glands to react in certain ways. But largely, nothing is changed. The brain still functions as normal, you are just making it see what you want. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...