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

[Medvekoma 1966]

4 hours ago, Mephistophelian said:

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.

 

Meant the latter. I'll look over where "coming from the void" may have been mentioned; if there is such a line, it's an overlook / error.

 

Expulsion is literally burning away active mana, as you described.

 

4 hours ago, Mephistophelian said:

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.

 

It can always be changed. The idea was for the spell to draw from the pool of unprogrammed mana and bind it to the programmed mana for a larger effect. It could easily be replaced with empowerment simply leaving a spell non-exhausting, the empowered target's spell drawing from the overcharge instead of their own mana pool.

 

If you have any suggestions, they are always welcome.

 

4 hours ago, Mephistophelian said:

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?

 

All I can say is: magic.

 

As in, a form of spell. Can't really be more specific because there isn't a concise lore published on soul, didn't want to get more specific because lore submission guidelines advised against it.

 

"Passive mana is capable of being manipulated or changed, though this is an ability that only magics can do."

The line I interpreted to make it possible.

 

"Souls can only directly manipulate passive mana produced by themselves."

The line I interpreted to make it more sense. One can't directly manipulate drained mana, only move it about with other magics.

 

Kind-of understood it as one is only able to program active mana converted from one's own passive mana.

 

4 hours ago, Mephistophelian said:

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?

 

They shouldn't occur when there's lots of active mana in one spot, they should occur when the void "reclaims" lots of unprogrammed active mana. The idea comes from the fact that in most fantasy worlds, and as far as I know in LOTC as well, mana gems and obelisks shatter if damaged. EG, they lose their integrity, mana escapes to the void and an implosion occurs.

 

So, yeah. If mana gems or obelisks are damaged, they should - according to the implosion theory - implode and crack. Like the spiderweb pattern on an iPhone if it falls on its corner. Pretty sure it's like that even now.

 

4 hours ago, Mephistophelian said:

How does one abjure an abjuration?

 

Depends. Counterspell can be counterspelled. An implosion can be counterspelled to get a full overcharge (literally lassoing the puff of mana someone sent to you from their own lassoed puff of mana). Empowerment can be absorbed almost instantaneously into an overcharge. Mana draining someone with an overcharge steals their overcharge instead. A distortion field eats up another abjurer's overcharge as a mana source.

 

4 hours ago, Mephistophelian said:

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?

 

Must have missworded it or not phrased it right. It's supposed to be as exhausting as any other magic. An implosion as exhausting as a ward, a counterspell less-so.

 

Maintaining the temporary mana pool should be exhausting as well. Nobody should be able to keep them up for a long time. It isn't a "buff you eat up" kind-of mechanic, more so a "use up as soon as you can" one.

 

4 hours ago, Mephistophelian said:

Is this a voidal magic?

 

Yes, form of alteration. Could even be called "mana-alteration" to calm all the MUH ABJURATION transfigurationists. Unless of course LM decide to actually add / build on this magic but make it a dark one due to draining & all.

 

4 hours ago, Mephistophelian said:

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.

 

There's two anti-magic spells in the write-up.

 

Counterspells cannot be used in succession. You counter a spell, you have to rid yourself of the overcharge before countering the next. This is the most prominent difference to Fi-magic, I think, since it just expels a cloud that drains all magic. Along with that, counterspell can't do anything with enchantments and runes. It can tap into a construct, but it doesn't disable it.

 

Distortion field gives fi-like capabilities to the mage temporarily, while also leaving them extremely vulnerable. The field can also be overcharged, or can fade when it doesn't absorb anything. Fi does neither.

 

And none of the capabilities affect dark creatures. As far as I know, tempered fi and even normal fi affect some of the creatures.

 

4 hours ago, Mephistophelian said:

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?

 

I haven't written exact spell re-directs into the lore because of the active-mana-programming-soul-limit thing. An overcharge isn't an infinite pool, it's nothing of too much significance. A full overcharge has mana equivalent to the fuel of a moderate to strong spell.

 

When empowering others, I assumed the spell would "draw" and "attract" some of the wild, unprogrammed active mana swirling about, contained by the abjurer. Not all of it, and not for any effect other than making the spell wider - usually more effective.

 

Let's say you could raise the tier of a cast spell by one? Making a bolt of fire into an actual fireball, or a fireball into one that has a small explosion to it.

 

4 hours ago, Mephistophelian said:

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

 

 

I'd say yes, but only with a magic circle, and with no point to it apart from creating larger distortion fields. Larger implosions don't really do much more, since the magnitude has a diminishing return. Draining together ... could work, but pointless. Empowering someone would create such an overcharge around a person any magic they'd cast would go wild and crazy. Countering spells is more effective individually, since the common temporary pool would still be capped to an amount of spells equal to the amount of abjurers involved.

 

And with all the active mana floating about, you'd have a far larger risk of the circle going bad with horrors and stuff.

 

Interaction between two abjurers, I think I mentioned that. They can transfer an overcharge from one to the other with empowerment.

 

4 hours ago, Mephistophelian said:

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

 

Nothing. The spell keeps on flying / remains active, while the small amount of mana they spent on their attempt to intercept is wasted.

 

I'd imagine it like missing the enemy ship with your grappling hook because you threw it too high or low. You lost your hook, but nothing more.

 

4 hours ago, Mephistophelian said:

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?

 

Unsure if it's powerful or not. I welcome any suggestions for the distortion field. I originally wanted it to break down spells into active mana and send them back to their casters, with no effect on constructs / enchants, only mana gems. You think that'd work better?

 

And the way it should be less powerful is the vulnerability of the mage maintaining it, along with the chance to either stop casting magic at it and let it fade away, or the chance to overload it and get rid of the mage rather easily.

 

4 hours ago, Mephistophelian said:

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

 

Sorry I took your questions last ;p Originally wrote up my answers to it, but then clicked "newest reply" and lost it all, so had to re-write after answering all the others.

 

[Aelesh 319]

4 minutes ago, Medvekoma said:

They shouldn't occur when there's lots of active mana in one spot, they should occur when the void "reclaims" lots of unprogrammed active mana.

 

You seem to be under the impression that mana somehow 'returns' to the Void after it is used, or perhaps, that mana has come from the Void in the beginning. This is not true. Mana exists only in the 'real world', in the souls of descendants and as passive mana in the structure of the world around them. 'Un-programmed active mana' will not go to the Void when it is no longer in use, it will simply dissipate into the surroundings as aura, the 'smoke of mana' as it has been called many a time.

[Medvekoma 1966]

Just now, Aelesh said:

mana has come from the Void in the beginning

 

Wherever did I imply such?

 

Just now, Aelesh said:

'Un-programmed active mana' will not go to the Void when it is no longer in use, it will simply dissipate into the surroundings as aura, the 'smoke of mana' as it has been called many a time.

 

The question is, what happens if there's a large concentration of it outside an aura? One of the books in the Dragur library gave the core idea for implosion.

 

What happens when you break a mana gem? Where does the active mana seep from there?

[Mr. Etan 2856]

Just now, Medvekoma said:

 

 

What happens when you break a mana gem? Where does the active mana seep from there?

 

Burns away as aura and the gem becomes inactive.

[Aelesh 319]

You used the word 'reclaims', suggesting that the mana had come from the Void in the beginning; if it had not come from the Void in the beginning, you should have used the word 'claims', not 'reclaims' suggesting that at one point the Void controlled it.

 

And, what my friend above just said; a broken mana gem just allows it's mana to escape, become aura, whilst the gem becomes inactive.

 

EDIT: also, the question 'what happens if there's a large concentration of it outside an aura?' is strange - from that phraseology, you seem to suggest that aura is mana, or that they are at least comparable? I may be misinterpreting this, so feel free to explain.

[Medvekoma 1966]

Just now, Tox said:

Burns away as aura and the gem becomes inactive.

 

Just now, Aelesh said:

And, what my friend above just said; a broken mana gem just allows it's mana to escape, become aura, whilst the gem becomes inactive.

 

Does that imply objects are capable of producing aura? What colour will their aura take?

[Aelesh 319]

The aura will be the colour of the caster's whom imbued the mana into the object; that mana also has colour, we simply only see it when it becomes aura.

[Mr. Etan 2856]

Just now, Medvekoma said:

 

 

Does that imply objects are capable of producing aura? What colour will their aura take?

 

[Aelesh 319]

Just now, Tox said:

 

Agreed, monsieur.

[Gladuos 857]

I'm not going to get too deep into this because it'll just end up becoming a fruitless back and forth. All I can say is I don't support any split. It seems to me that you don't really fully grasp how the current abjuration/warding magic works, and you should have spoken with more of its current users before writing an entire rehaul of some kind. I can't support this. -1

[Medvekoma 1966]

9 minutes ago, Aelesh said:

EDIT: also, the question 'what happens if there's a large concentration of it outside an aura?' is strange - from that phraseology, you seem to suggest that aura is mana, or that they are at least comparable? I may be misinterpreting this, so feel free to explain.

 

It was referring to a puff of mana released away from anything that has an aura.

 

5 minutes ago, Aelesh said:

The aura will be the colour of the caster's whom imbued the mana into the object; that mana also has colour, we simply only see it when it becomes aura.

 

If the retained mana in a gem keeps the soul imprint of a mage (the specific substance that marks which soul it was derived from), wouldn't that mean mages would be able to cast straight from mana gems they create, without pre-determining the spell cast when imbuing the gem?

 

As per the states of mana lore, that is.

 

Just now, Gladuos said:

I'm not going to get too deep into this because it'll just end up becoming a fruitless back and forth. All I can say is I don't support any split. It seems to me that you don't really fully grasp how the current abjuration/warding magic works, and you should have spoken with more of its current users before writing an entire rehaul of some kind. I can't support this. -1

 

Once again, skip the ad-hominem part and instead write down what differs. Else it looks like an "I don't like this, you aren't a transfigurationist, don't touch my magic" comment.

[Mr. Etan 2856]

Just now, Medvekoma said:

 

It was referring to a puff of mana released away from anything that has an aura.

 

 

If the retained mana in a gem keeps the soul imprint of a mage (the specific substance that marks which soul it was derived from), wouldn't that mean mages would be able to cast straight from mana gems they create, without pre-determining the spell cast when imbuing the gem?

 

As per the states of mana lore, that is.

 

It doesn't have the soul imprint of a mage, it is literally is just mana.

 

Just now, Medvekoma said:

 

Once again, skip the ad-hominem part and instead write down what differs.

 

I'm sure he doesn't wish to because of how incoherent the back and forth with you get.

[Medvekoma 1966]

Just now, Tox said:

It doesn't have the soul imprint of a mage, it literally is just mana.

 

Then why does it burn in the aura colour of the mage that inserted it?

 

And the point of my inquiries, wouldn't such a lore, taken that you allow using a spell to contain active mana temporarily like a gem, verify half of the lore written?

[Mr. Etan 2856]

Just now, Medvekoma said:

 

Then why does it burn in the aura colour of the mage that inserted it?

 

Every decedent exerts mana in their own aura color, and will hold this color. But in the end all it is, is literally mana.

 

Aesthetics. 

[Medvekoma 1966]

Just now, Tox said:

 

Every decedent exerts mana in their own aura color, and will hold this color. But in the end all it is, is literally mana.

 

Once again, considering the mana lore, wouldn't half of what I've written for abjuration (temporary pool, absorbing spells, expelling spells one way or another) be possible right here, right now with transfiguration?