Jump to content

[✗] [Amendment] Ironwood's Creation


Aehkaj
 Share

Recommended Posts

Current Lore and Redline:

The ironwood appliance is soaked in a special chemical mixture which both prevents natural rot and makes the wood resistant to fire. It must soak in the substance for a week before it can be removed. At this point, the ironwood tool is completely done and free to use.

  • Ikurnamon does not require an Alchemy FA to create, nor does its chemical mixture.

  • The Chemical mixture consists of - [1] Earth Sign, [1] Air Sign, [4] Vigor Symbols, [2] Endurance Symbols, [2] Balance Symbols and [3] Agility Symbols.

 

Proposed Change: Change the Alchemy to Mundane Botany

The ironwood appliance is soaked in a special oil which both prevents natural rot and makes the wood resistant to fire. It must soak in the substance for a week before it can be removed. At this point, the ironwood tool is completely done and free to use.

  • The oil consists of Lard, [1] Chimelilly, [1] Alabaster Leaf, [2] Blood Lotus, [1] Aqua Nymph, [1] Elf’s Hair Vine, and [1] Jailor’s Moss.

    • These herbs are placeholder just as an idea behind a recipe that's botanical while somewhat matching he original cost of reagents for the mixture.

 

Purpose: It is absolutely nonsensical  to allow people to preform alchemic processes without the alchemy feat. It is best for lore to change so it removes Alchemy. The idea of still having to make a treatment bath for the material is good, but it should be done with a basic oil made with proper ingredients through botany, similar to how anyone can make a tippen’s salve with proper knowledge.

 

Changelog:

removed the original Option A to make the material require alchemy if LT preferred alchemy be involved in the creation of the wood. It seemed to be focused over the Botany Option.

Edited by Aehkaj
No reason to keep the original first option as people hyper focused on it and not what was explained as the preferred option.
Link to post
Share on other sites

"bUt tHaT dOeSn'T mAkE aNy SeNsE!!"

Link to post
Share on other sites

this is like someone being able to write in a language they don't even know for comic books, and SPECIFICALLY comic books

Good patch

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's almost like the lore was originally intended to not involve alchemy at all, but someone decided to arbitrarily make this cultural piece that had been around for years require an alchemical process. 

Here's an idea: remove the requirement for alchemy at all. It didn't exist before. Doesn't really need to exist now. If ST want it to require herbs they should just list out the herbs it requires, not an alchemical recipe. People don't need to understand alchemy to know that over centuries of experimentation, this specific set of herbs worked with this effect on this very specific plant.

Beyond that, alchemy was added in the first place because it was being ST signed. Ironwood is no longer ST signed. Therefore, a completely moot point and absolutely unnecessary. It is a cultural, aesthetic material equivalent to iron.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have any clever comments to add, other than we need to stop locking stuff behind app after app, after app unless it's really OP.

 

I understand the issue with symbols, though that has been answered already. Perhaps the more sensible alternative is "Hey, this is just wood as strong as iron, remove the symbol requirement."

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, DragonofTaters said:

Beyond that, alchemy was added in the first place because it was being ST signed. Ironwood is no longer ST signed. Therefore, a completely moot point and absolutely unnecessary. It is a cultural, aesthetic material equivalent to iron.

a lot of alchemy items are not ST signed but still apply the alchemical process that REQUIRE the FA itself.

 

This argument Is moot itself since most alchemical items that are player signed still need the FA itself.

 

36 minutes ago, Aehkaj said:

The oil consists of Lard, [1] Chimelilly, [1] Alabaster Leaf, [2] Blood Lotus, [1] Aqua Nymph, [1] Elf’s Hair Vine, and [1] Jailor’s Moss.

Have you thought of Jailor moss?

 

all in all a not so bad amendment. I don’t think people should do something alchemical without actually learning the actual alchemy. If it’s gonna be common knowledge for alchemy/smithy then leave it as just common for alchemists.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, DragonofTaters said:

It's almost like the lore was originally intended to not involve alchemy at all, but someone decided to arbitrarily make this cultural piece that had been around for years require an alchemical process. 

Here's an idea: remove the requirement for alchemy at all. It didn't exist before. Doesn't really need to exist now. If ST want it to require herbs they should just list out the herbs it requires, not an alchemical recipe. People don't need to understand alchemy to know that over centuries of experimentation, this specific set of herbs worked with this effect on this very specific plant.

Beyond that, alchemy was added in the first place because it was being ST signed. Ironwood is no longer ST signed. Therefore, a completely moot point and absolutely unnecessary. It is a cultural, aesthetic material equivalent to iron.

 

The point of this amendment is to look at the fact that it requires an alchemical process but also says you don’t need alchemy which makes no sense. Point A is one fix for this but I do state that the second option is preferable since it uses mundane botany for the same effect.

 

19 minutes ago, Lirinya said:

I don't have any clever comments to add, other than we need to stop locking stuff behind app after app, after app unless it's really OP.

 

I understand the issue with symbols, though that has been answered already. Perhaps the more sensible alternative is "Hey, this is just wood as strong as iron, remove the symbol requirement."

 

Option B amends the issue with symbols while still keeping the idea that you need some sort of treatment to make wood resistant to rot and fire. 

 

7 minutes ago, TeawithFrisket said:

 

Have you thought of Jailor moss?

 

Jailor’s Moss is literally in the ingredient list I added I do not understand what you are asking.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Aehkaj said:

Jailor’s Moss is literally in the ingredient list I added I do not understand what you are asking.

messah blind, jar jar give -1

Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, TeawithFrisket said:

all in all a not so bad amendment. I don’t think people should do something alchemical without actually learning the actual alchemy. If it’s gonna be common knowledge for alchemy/smithy then leave it as just common for alchemists.

 

I didn't add this on in my first reply because I missed it but it shouldn't be common knowledge for alchemists as Ironwood is still considered something you must be taught IRPly to craft.

 

The preferable choice IS to remove Alchemy from its creation entirely, swapping it over to using mundane botany to create the treatment for the Ironwood. I do believe there was a misunderstanding with Option A, which I simply added as the alternative since in the end Alchemy should need the Feat.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I support option B, no more alchemy in ancient woodworking.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I also support option B. Alchemy is so pervasive and yet locked behind a feat that not knowing it severely inhibits characters from being able to do cool crafting RP. Of course, my issues with Alchemy as a whole are a different conversation.

The Redlines here are contradictive to the rest of server rulings, let's change them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really see a point of locking a very deep cultural piece suddenly behind an app. just for the sake of a few flavorful words of how the process is done. But that's just me. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NightcastorKitty said:

I don't really see a point of locking a very deep cultural piece suddenly behind an app. just for the sake of a few flavorful words of how the process is done. But that's just me. 

 

This is why I listed the second option as well as explaining it as the preferable option. The current lore IS something that would logically require the ability to preform Alchemy. The second option replaces that with normal botany while still retaining the process of how Ironwood is made.

Non Alchemists shouldn’t be preforming extractions, identifying Signs and Symbols, and mixing concoctions. That requires the feat, so why does Ironwood have that in its current state?

Link to post
Share on other sites

@TeawithFrisketMy point was that the lore up until last year has never involved alchemy or a need for it. It was a choice made by ST to justify Ironwood having an ST signature. I am aware that a huge portion of alchemy is playersigned. But this was the reason it was added into this particular lore piece. It doesn’t make sense, it is unnecessary, and it is bizarre when an alchemy FA is not required for Ironwood creation.

 

The cultural rp surrounding Ironwood has long involved botany being involved. There was no set lore recipe, it could be rp’d however, but it’s part of the culture around Ironwood to include. ST took that and hyped it up to justify the greentag items were getting.
 

The culture regarding it, even after the alchemy change, didn’t change to alchemical rp. It kept it botanical. The specific plants needed were just added into rp, but nothing about symbols and signs.

 

It should be returned to what it was. A botanical recipe, that meshes with the culture of the lore itself and the playerbase it came from. There is no reason for alchemy to be involved whatsoever. @Aehkaj I do appreciate the clarification on that. Having an alchemy FA as option A gave the impression that was the one that was wanted most. Which, with that perspective, shows a big discord between the rp culture and significance to rp that the lore has, and the groups who recently were taught Ironwood specifically for the sake of making special items to sell. 

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...