Jump to content

[✓] Shades


Fitermon
 Share

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Gladuos said:

 

No worries it's nice to get constructive feedback on the matter.

I see your concerns. It's not like summoning an evocated flame. It takes longer and we're literally slicing off a piece of our soul to do it which hampers our ability to use shade magic afterward. The ability is sacrificial in nature and to be honest we'd probably need someone protecting us to successfully get it off. It's not something we can summon on a whim as slicing off a piece of your soul is no easy or quick task.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wendigo said:

No worries it's nice to get constructive feedback on the matter.

I see your concerns. It's not like summoning an evocated flame. It takes longer and we're literally slicing off a piece of our soul to do it which hampers our ability to use shade magic afterward. The ability is sacrificial in nature and to be honest we'd probably need someone protecting us to successfully get it off. It's not something we can summon on a whim as slicing off a piece of your soul is no easy or quick task.Upvo

 

Can you give some examples of how many emotes it takes to cast the caliginous flames? How much can be summoned before exhaustion? Context on just how much it would hurt a deific user?

Link to post
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Gladuos said:

 

Can you give some examples of how many emotes it takes to cast the caliginous flames? How much can be summoned before exhaustion? Context on just how much it would hurt a deific user?

 

 

Once per IRL day at most on average, five times a day maximum. Have to wait a day to "recharge" each use. Depends on how much Amber is put in with the flame, akin to holy fire burning spooks but other way around. Out of these abilities this one may change the most in the future so while the concerns are noted, they will be handled. Don't worry.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have never agreed with the idea that shade based arcanism is automatically harder/stronger than non-shade arcanism. It seems as though while most other magics have additional effects there is no equal boon to arcanism.

 

Also I would reference Celestialism lore on how it mixes sice it was left out here.

 

Besides that there is a contradiction elsewhere in the lore. I believe I read that the substance must stay attached to the shade but how can it also take on a gaseous form? It seems to me that you would just be burning off amber.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sir K Andruske said:

I have never agreed with the idea that shade based arcanism is automatically harder/stronger than non-shade arcanism. It seems as though while most other magics have additional effects there is no equal boon to arcanism.

 

Also I would reference Celestialism lore on how it mixes sice it was left out here.

 

Besides that there is a contradiction elsewhere in the lore. I believe I read that the substance must stay attached to the shade but how can it also take on a gaseous form? It seems to me that you would just be burning off amber.

 

1. Edited, slipped by when reviewing that section.

2. Will discuss with you, for now leaving as Incompatible given understanding of the magic.

3. This is allowed, yes, but it isn't to just let Shades make a gaseous amber cloud with more tendrils dangling on the edge of the cloud. "Rule of Stupid" applies

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Fitermon said:

1. Edited, slipped by when reviewing that section.

2. Will discuss with you, for now leaving as Incompatible given understanding of the magic.

3. This is allowed, yes, but it isn't to just let Shades make a gaseous amber cloud with more tendrils dangling on the edge of the cloud. "Rule of Stupid" applies

 

 

https://www.lordofthecraft.net/forums/topic/155763-✓-magic-addition-celestialism-additions-clarifications/

 

Technically it is “incompatible” but there is an event clause albeit it might need slight altering. I worked with Tsu on it. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Sir K Andruske said:

 

https://www.lordofthecraft.net/forums/topic/155763-✓-magic-addition-celestialism-additions-clarifications/

 

Technically it is “incompatible” but there is an event clause albeit it might need slight altering. I worked with Tsu on it. 

 

 

 

I'm just going to be honest, this is already a long as all hell lore submission. I am really not in the mood to write up a whole additional section to it right now or any time soon, so I'm going to go and just mark it as incompatible with exceptions. After the rewrite is accepted, denied, et cetera... We can go about working on a long-term solution depending on the final result of Shade lore. I doubt it'll be the end of the earth given the relatively small player base of Shades (around 15 players) and the smaller number of Celestials (like, 5 of you?) so yeah. Incompatible with exception, and we can discuss the "exception" later or just make it regularly possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Fitermon said:

 

I'm just going to be honest, this is already a long as all hell lore submission. I am really not in the mood to write up a whole additional section to it right now or any time soon, so I'm going to go and just mark it as incompatible with exceptions. After the rewrite is accepted, denied, et cetera... We can go about working on a long-term solution depending on the final result of Shade lore. I doubt it'll be the end of the earth given the relatively small player base of Shades (around 15 players) and the smaller number of Celestials (like, 5 of you?) so yeah. Incompatible with exception, and we can discuss the "exception" later or just make it regularly possible.

 

 

Why do you need to write up lore for it? I am saying lore is already accepted for it. Hence why I posted a link to accepted lore xD like idk if you took a look but there is a section on shades. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sir K Andruske said:

 

Why do you need to write up lore for it? I am saying lore is already accepted for it. Hence why I posted a link to accepted lore xD like idk if you took a look but there is a section on shades. 

 

Because needing a shade gem JUST for Celestialism is frankly kind of dumb to have as the only exception. It should be more black and white, not only possible with a shade gem for some reason. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Sir K Andruske said:

 

Shades auras are not corrupted, just their souls. I don't know why we'd need a shade gem to bind a familiar. That lore piece doesn't seem relevant anymore as we don't use aura anymore but mana to create amber.

Link to post
Share on other sites

**** that, im not reading all that, ive heard everything for the most part

 

sure, sounds great.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for submitting your piece! This is now under review and you can expect a verdict in two weeks or so. Votes have slowed due to holidays, 6.0 release, and finals/Winter Break and they will resume back to their normal pace of 1 week once things have settled down, I apologize for the inconvenience.

Link to post
Share on other sites

HOLY **** I AM FINALLY DONE

 

Here's my notepad:

 

- Sometimes info given is redundant- for example the full explanation on remedial healing is given in the beginning when mentioning .
- Similarly, in abilities the guides+redlines often repeat what is said in the foregoing lore piece. I understand this is because G/RL is a mandatory part of lore writing, so perhaps you can shorten the lore pieces foregoing to be more focused on flavor and less on explaining the rules, as it is redundant.
- The amber weaponry ability should be closer to the ambercraft section.
- You really like the word 'stygian'
- The calligulous flame ability seems to exist more as a scale balancer against Aengulfire and less consistent with the theme of amber-related magics. I'm guessing you're set on this ability so my suggestion is to double down on the flame being a continuous release of amber dust particles coming forth from the shade, which I think is mostly what you meant anyway.
- The idea of needing multiple slots for Shade magic is a good concept, especially considering how shade magic enhances other subtypes.
- I like the mental setbacks of shades, the hallucinations and whatnot. It makes sense in this context that a shade's mind cannot be entered as well. It would be cool if people actually RP'd this disadvantage at inopportune moments for them. In general, people will stake their claim to the abilities granted to them by lore but play the downsides only as an afterthought. Perhaps a stricter when-and-where on hallucinations, mental decay, etc, can be come up with? On the other hand though, better not to make the piece any longer.
- Curing: Basically that's a LOT of T4 mages needed.
- Thank you for not including a Foretaker "forced unattunement" clause. I hate those.
- Foretakes: So a destroyed shade gem means you can never be a foretaker?
- More broadly question about the above: How does the "new" shade gem described near the beginning to the lore link up with the Foretaker's relation to the soul gem near the end of the lore.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This lore is pending, you will be contacted regarding the issues raised by the lore team so you may fix it. You have 2 weeks to make the changes, beginning from when you are contacted. Once you have edited your piece, send me a forum PM and your piece will be reviewed to ensure the changes have been made.

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...