[✗] [Amendment] Transfiguration

[KamikazeReaper 457]

2 hours ago, Deer__ said:

I think another good solution would be to split Abjuration and the rest of tfig into two separate magics that take one slot each. In the process, rewrite abjuration because it's SO useless. At this point if all of abjuration got shot and we just had the other half of tfig that would also be sick.

honestly, yeah make the mage pick

[Xarkly 17299]

5 hours ago, BakedPotato said:

people who chose to take up transfiguration for the cool flavor rp it can produce outside of combat get heavily punished for doing so. There is no reason for transfiguration to continue being a two slotted magic.

 

This is the issue I'd take.

 

I wouldn't want to see LotC further develop into minmax magic culture where people are inclined to weigh out what are the strongest synergies of combinable magics. While I can definitely appreciate where people are coming from in regards Transfiguration being the "worst" magic, buffing it to fit into the current magical power meta is definitely a bandaid solution - I would much rather see the utility/flavour niche developed more to promote non-minmax aspects of magic RP/culture than further compound that issue.

[BakedPotato 1020]

5 minutes ago, Xarkly said:

wouldn't want to see LotC further develop into minmax magic culture where people are inclined to weigh out what are the strongest synergies of combinable magics. While I can definitely appreciate where people are coming from in regards Transfiguration being the "worst" magic, buffing it to fit into the current magical power meta is definitely a bandaid solution - I would much rather see the utility/flavour niche developed more to promote non-minmax aspects of magic RP/culture than further compound that issue.

it's not about minmax culture or the best magics, anyone picking water evocation or transfiguration (even if its one slot) aren't doing it for the build. It's about the fact that a fun, non-combative magic, is two slots when it isn't worthy of being two slots. Thats like saying house magic and culimancy should be two slots to prevent minmax culture. I love utility and flavor magic, but flavor magic shouldn't consume multiple slots. This isn't buffing it to fit the current magical power meta, it's making it so those who don't want to minmax and enjoy the flavor rp that comes with transfiguration aren't overly punished in doing so. There are far better one slot and two slot options for both flavor and combat that a transfigurationist could take up instead, but people find transfiguration fun. Should all flavor magic such as bardmancy and house magic costs more slots so people have to further outweigh the cost of enjoying rp?

[Laeonathan 5889]

After reading what Xarkly said, I fully agree with him. 

 

Minmaxing magic really has gone crazy as of late, and if you wanna be a cool flavourful artificer you should commit to it.

 

Its not like a transfig mage is defenseless and nobody ever picks the magic

 

transfig brings a lot cool spells and certainly deserves 2 slots, instead of catering to the minmax id look into getting transfig more cool lore interaction through artificery

[Xarkly 17299]

9 minutes ago, BakedPotato said:

it's not about minmax culture or the best magics, anyone picking water evocation or transfiguration (even if its one slot) aren't doing it for the build. It's about the fact that a fun, non-combative magic, is two slots when it isn't worthy of being two slots. Thats like saying house magic and culimancy should be two slots to prevent minmax culture. I love utility and flavor magic, but flavor magic shouldn't consume multiple slots. This isn't buffing it to fit the current magical power meta, it's making it so those who don't want to minmax and enjoy the flavor rp that comes with transfiguration aren't overly punished in doing so. There are far better one slot and two slot options for both flavor and combat that a transfigurationist could take up instead, but people find transfiguration fun. Should all flavor magic such as bardmancy and house magic costs more slots so people have to further outweigh the cost of enjoying rp?

 

My concern moreso comes from a scepticism about how we communally determine what 'worth' a slot is.

 

It's not necessarily for a topic for this discussion, but I have my own hot-takes on magic slots in general and that slots should be more limited than they are currently. When it comes to the 'worth' of a slot, I don't think it's a crazy stretch to say a lot of players will equate that worth to power, especially in a combative sense. There's nothing wrong with this in theory - it's OK for a character to want to be strong - but the way magic & CAs work on LotC currently does feature a lot of imbalanced magic that serves to not only overshadow other areas of non-combat magic, but with a lot of non-magic players who interact with them.

 

Magic should be a different way to play the server, but it shouldn't be the optimal.

 

This is just a tiny bit of background for what I'm trying to say here -- I don't think this proposed amendment comes from a bad place and your justifications are fairly valid, I just think it feeds into the wider issue of opening more slots for people to pursue other more "worthy" magic rather than developing these niches more to provide a different and substantive style of roleplay, rather than enabling many of the players who get into magic for the wrong reason. I just think it's something that needs to be increasingly borne in mind as we address the state of magic on the server. 

[sam33497 7356]

1 hour ago, Xarkly said:

 

My concern moreso comes from a scepticism about how we communally determine what 'worth' a slot is.

 

It's not necessarily for a topic for this discussion, but I have my own hot-takes on magic slots in general and that slots should be more limited than they are currently. When it comes to the 'worth' of a slot, I don't think it's a crazy stretch to say a lot of players will equate that worth to power, especially in a combative sense. There's nothing wrong with this in theory - it's OK for a character to want to be strong - but the way magic & CAs work on LotC currently does feature a lot of imbalanced magic that serves to not only overshadow other areas of non-combat magic, but with a lot of non-magic players who interact with them.

 

Magic should be a different way to play the server, but it shouldn't be the optimal.

 

This is just a tiny bit of background for what I'm trying to say here -- I don't think this proposed amendment comes from a bad place and your justifications are fairly valid, I just think it feeds into the wider issue of opening more slots for people to pursue other more "worthy" magic rather than developing these niches more to provide a different and substantive style of roleplay, rather than enabling many of the players who get into magic for the wrong reason. I just think it's something that needs to be increasingly borne in mind as we address the state of magic on the server. 

bro had to lock in and change fonts

[Direswift 296]

4 hours ago, Xarkly said:

 

My concern moreso comes from a scepticism about how we communally determine what 'worth' a slot is.

 

It's not necessarily for a topic for this discussion, but I have my own hot-takes on magic slots in general and that slots should be more limited than they are currently. When it comes to the 'worth' of a slot, I don't think it's a crazy stretch to say a lot of players will equate that worth to power, especially in a combative sense. There's nothing wrong with this in theory - it's OK for a character to want to be strong - but the way magic & CAs work on LotC currently does feature a lot of imbalanced magic that serves to not only overshadow other areas of non-combat magic, but with a lot of non-magic players who interact with them.

 

Magic should be a different way to play the server, but it shouldn't be the optimal.

 

This is just a tiny bit of background for what I'm trying to say here -- I don't think this proposed amendment comes from a bad place and your justifications are fairly valid, I just think it feeds into the wider issue of opening more slots for people to pursue other more "worthy" magic rather than developing these niches more to provide a different and substantive style of roleplay, rather than enabling many of the players who get into magic for the wrong reason. I just think it's something that needs to be increasingly borne in mind as we address the state of magic on the server. 

With transfig being as it currently is, it only encourages power gaming, cause why would anyone take transfig thats 2 slots, when you get almost nothing out of it. The only benefit that comes from transfig rn is Marts, atronaches, and artificers. Reading the comments here I think the best fix for transfig would be to shelve the magic, turn abjuration into its own magic, and what mr ethan said. Give combative enchanting to the artificer feat. While all mages the ability to enchant potent enchants 

 

But if that doesn't happen, there is no reason for the magic to cost 2. It discourages fun crafting rp, and will push lotc furthure into a power game culture, imo

[JuliusAakerlund 2402]

I feel as though the majority of the arguments for removing abjuration (and making it its own magic) or giving other magicks enchantments show a clear leaning towards minmaxing. But, let's be as good faith as possible here. Say we do split up the magic. Now enchanting is just available to everyone, pretty much guaranteeing that any buffs or changes would have to be met with heavy consideration. If we give combative enchanting to the artificer feat it would be just about the same. There is also a valid argument to be made here that splitting the magic up would also just mean more magics to learn, and more time to put into aquiring these abilities. (magic is already hard enough as it is for new players to get into)

 

As it currently stands Transfiguration is very attractive to the type of person it is meant to attract. All in all I would be more than happy to spend the time, slots and effort required to not only get it but master it. There are a ton of interesting things you can do with it and in all honesty the scopes and limitations is just player creativity.

[PrimnyaQuorum 3999]

This doesn't seem to actually address the core issues within Transfiguration - how it's 4 sub-magics within 1 magic (Voidal Feeling, Transmutation, Enchanting, Abjuration & Warding), how Abjuration & Warding/Enchanting really need something of a rework or re-balancing. Like others have said, it seems like a short-term solution - if Enchanting or Abjuration & Warding are addressed in the future, what then? 

 

To me, the issues with Transfiguration lie within the Sub-Magics within it, not Transfiguration itself. Making it 1-slot instead of 2-slot doesn't solve any problems it has and only raises more down the road. Also, it does seem a bit min-maxing: People should be picking up magic because of roleplay and what their character decides, not because of what is or isn't the most optimal. Transfiguration is in a pretty poor state since Abjuration & Warding and Enchanting are in a poor state, but again - this isn't fixing that, it's just allowing characters with transfiguration to compensate by getting another magic slot back. 

[Direswift 296]

7 hours ago, JuliusAakerlund said:

I feel as though the majority of the arguments for removing abjuration (and making it its own magic) or giving other magicks enchantments show a clear leaning towards minmaxing. But, let's be as good faith as possible here. Say we do split up the magic. Now enchanting is just available to everyone, pretty much guaranteeing that any buffs or changes would have to be met with heavy consideration. If we give combative enchanting to the artificer feat it would be just about the same. 

I disagree that giving artificers the ability to create combative enchants would cause min maxing, doing so locks the player out of becoming a scion or void stalker. IMO void stalker is the strongest voidal feat in terms of power, meaning that the player would be giving up power for crafting RP. as it stands right now, my VS could become an enchanter and be "Minmaxed"

I agree with everything else you said though, and should this lore come to pass, heavy consideration to buffing or changing enchants is not a bad thing.

[Islamadon 9158]

This lore has been denied. You will be sent a forum PM regarding the reasons for denial within the next 24 hours.