[Amendment] paleknight nuke

[Frostdrop1 1843]

It's ironic that Malflame/dragonsflame was pretty good against Eiola but this change would make such things honestly the worst option. That's a massive a change in power dynamics that feels entirely overlooked.

[nepir 472]

As it stands, the horse is a very fair thing. I wasn’t even aware Paleknights were allowed on them—it makes no sense. (You’ll still find me OOCly riding to places; I’m not walking my happy ass across the map, thanks but no thanks.)

 

As for making Paleknights more fragile to bladed weapons: it's been said before, but... what? I get that you want anyone who runs into a Paleknight or Palelord to be able to deal damage, but can we also acknowledge that Paleknights/Lords can’t escape? It's a “stand your ground” kind of combat. If bladed weapons become effective, I’m going to have people trying to stab me with daggers or shoot me with arrows and claiming it breaks me. That’s what this amendment opens Paleknights up to.

Again, we’re talking about entities that can’t really dodge and can only somewhat block attacks. Sometimes preparation is needed—not just from the Paleknight, but also from Adventurer or Guard #9 with a backstory that fits on a paper napkin.  

[lemonke 6014]

15 minutes ago, nepir said:

As it stands, the horse is a very fair thing. I wasn’t even aware Paleknights were allowed on them—it makes no sense. (You’ll still find me OOCly riding to places; I’m not walking my happy ass across the map, thanks but no thanks.)

 

As for making Paleknights more fragile to bladed weapons: it's been said before, but... what? I get that you want anyone who runs into a Paleknight or Palelord to be able to deal damage, but can we also acknowledge that Paleknights/Lords can’t escape? It's a “stand your ground” kind of combat. If bladed weapons become effective, I’m going to have people trying to stab me with daggers or shoot me with arrows and claiming it breaks me. That’s what this amendment opens Paleknights up to.

Again, we’re talking about entities that can’t really dodge and can only somewhat block attacks. Sometimes preparation is needed—not just from the Paleknight, but also from Adventurer or Guard #9 with a backstory that fits on a paper napkin.  

He changed the blade part btw. I believe it was removed

[nepir 472]

1 minute ago, lemonke said:

He changed the blade part btw. I believe it was removed

in that case scratch that part of my rant.

[Toddbringer 159]

I cant say I have any understanding as to a solid majority of these "balancing adjustments." Blade damage certainly wouldn't have any significant effect on a stone, more liable to break the weapon than to even be a threat before it breaks. I see no reason to have changed this, as the nature of combatting an Eidola has been fine enough thus far- a giant made of stone that lacks any real ability to flee or make great movements over lengthy stretches with any significant speed. If you're to crush a wall, you bring a hammer, or you flee/go around, it cant exactly give chase.

Incapability of riding a horse makes sense, in a combat context, though the last thing I would ask a player to do is constantly walk everywhere. And no need for a rock to wear any form of significant protection. I feel an aesthetic choice of donning some form of cloth/fabric or other shouldn't be out of the question, though I've never seen one wear armor. If such was the case, I agree, protective plates for what is in effect a golem would be unreasonable. 

On Aesthetics, I cannot comprehend the idea that an Eidola's enhancements should require a T3 mystic, or moreover soul fragments. An oversight, I would call it, that for things such as Knight's Woe or Apparition Cradle, that souls are already required to make use of such combative implements, as stated in the original lore page. The use of additional fragments is unnecessary at best. Similarly, Ghost lantern is entirely noncombative, and requires Zero fragments to cast- putting a price on what is no more than an aesthetic choice, higher than the already necessary Mystic to augment them. Even further, to give Lords no more than an additional foot in height, limit vestigial body parts, etc, seems a strange overcorrection. 

Overall, there is an overwhelming agreement though, that both Paleknight/Lord lore, just as well as Mystic lore has been misinterpreted due to a latent lack of understanding, some levels of vagueness, and a gap in unilateral ST cohesiveness that have pushed some to going above, or even below, what they are capable of within the confines of the text and the lore. 

[NightcastorKitty 2780]

Blades shouldn't work against paleknights. Unless you want to damage the shit out of your blade. 

[meowmaxer 766]

I already changed the blade part guys …

 

9 hours ago, Toddbringer said:

I cant say I have any understanding as to a solid majority of these "balancing adjustments." Blade damage certainly wouldn't have any significant effect on a stone, more liable to break the weapon than to even be a threat before it breaks. I see no reason to have changed this, as the nature of combatting an Eidola has been fine enough thus far- a giant made of stone that lacks any real ability to flee or make great movements over lengthy stretches with any significant speed. If you're to crush a wall, you bring a hammer, or you flee/go around, it cant exactly give chase.

Incapability of riding a horse makes sense, in a combat context, though the last thing I would ask a player to do is constantly walk everywhere. And no need for a rock to wear any form of significant protection. I feel an aesthetic choice of donning some form of cloth/fabric or other shouldn't be out of the question, though I've never seen one wear armor. If such was the case, I agree, protective plates for what is in effect a golem would be unreasonable. 

On Aesthetics, I cannot comprehend the idea that an Eidola's enhancements should require a T3 mystic, or moreover soul fragments. An oversight, I would call it, that for things such as Knight's Woe or Apparition Cradle, that souls are already required to make use of such combative implements, as stated in the original lore page. The use of additional fragments is unnecessary at best. Similarly, Ghost lantern is entirely noncombative, and requires Zero fragments to cast- putting a price on what is no more than an aesthetic choice, higher than the already necessary Mystic to augment them. Even further, to give Lords no more than an additional foot in height, limit vestigial body parts, etc, seems a strange overcorrection. 

Overall, there is an overwhelming agreement though, that both Paleknight/Lord lore, just as well as Mystic lore has been misinterpreted due to a latent lack of understanding, some levels of vagueness, and a gap in unilateral ST cohesiveness that have pushed some to going above, or even below, what they are capable of within the confines of the text and the lore. 

Augments have 0 cost to them in current lore, and a soul fragment is a relatively meager cost. I do see how things such as Ghost Lantern and Knight’s Woe shouldn’t cost a fragment, even if they still have combative uses. Ghost Lantern forces phantoms out of invisibility, while Knight’s Woe is a non-fatal version of saturation . For Palelords, they’d be 2ft taller at max height than a Paleknight. Multiple limbs for are stupid, as palelords are statues. And if a Palelord really wants more than 2 arms / legs, they could make a MArt with their ritual. 

[Chimeraof1999 1191]

I know my take on stuff is dog shit but if stone man get attacked by sword, sword should be damaged by stone man

[FlemishSupremacy 6115]

On 6/10/2025 at 9:41 PM, meowmaxer said:

Palelords take damage in the same way that an Eidola does but contain more water, meaning that it will take a few extra emotes for them to die. 

Please also redline what "a few extra emotes" means

[Holyland 3650]

didn't he say he removed the sword stuff guys

you actually only need two seconds to check the amendment itself rather than what the outdated comments are saying 

sheep mindset

[meowmaxer 766]

5 hours ago, FlemishSupremacy said:

Please also redline what "a few extra emotes" means

good catch, did so 

[Islamadon 9158]

Amendments/Additions implemented into main lore post. Thank you for your submission. Moving to correct subforum to prevent redundancy and clutter.