Medvekoma

Wow, first degree price discrimination!

BLM

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?

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?

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. 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.

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

Wherever did I imply such? 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?

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

It's not even a sub-school, merely a spell within a sub-school. And this is what I kind-of noticed indeed. (As far as I counted) all respondants so far were users of transfiguration. Of all the negative comments, all (without exception) came from transfigurationists as well. And the very first comment I received when the link was shared over skype was: "AND YOU LEAVE ABJURATION IN TRANSFIG WHERE IT IS" I see little point in keeping magic-monstrosities floating about, and I shared this concern with @Sir K Andruske in PM before, and on his own magic submission thread. While you make one magic unique and detailed, you draw away from the others which leave them less-unique and less detailed due to the decreasing amount of contributions. The utilities and abilities provided by transfiguration + arcanism right now equal to the utilities and abilities provided by runesmithing, weak fi-magic, either of the elemental evocations; with general transmutation, conjured weapons and shielding added to the mix. Transfiguration is the only widely available item-crafting arcane magic (next to the rare, technically racial-bound runesmithing), and the only available anti-magic apart from Fi, next to the transmutation element itself (which can ultimately lend you the power of some evocations). Do you, as a transfigurationist, agree with the spectrum of utility the magic encompasses compared to other schools?

It's called research and it's what got you the wheel and your economic growth. Magic wouldn't be possible without approved lore, as far as I know. It's possible because of LM approval. In what point is it too close to Fi-magic, where current transfiguration isn't? _____________________________ You referenced an outdated guide from early 2014 whereas the most recently published lore on mana is from September, 2016. Nothing is transfigurated with a ward or abjuration, it's active mana drained away. Abjuration is the opposite of conjuration. It's the name of a magic school in numerous fantasy worlds, including d&d. It isn't a name made up by the author of transfiguration lore to refer to a magic puff that intercepts a spell. I ... didn't mean that. I don't know your character. I know the differences. No need for an ad-hominem attack, if the differences were so apparent and different to what I interpreted in my thread you could just quote the relevant parts and explain. All in all, my argument still stands: 1. Alteration is a group of spells focused around changing things. 2. Alteration has sub-schools based around different themes 3. While voidal translocation and voidal shifting are kept distinct (despite both sending pre-programmed quantum information through the void to re-appear later at a different place), transfiguration encompasses literal transfiguration, enchanting, warding and abjuration. (At the same time, evocations are kept separate for balancing issues. A transfigurationist studies far more kinds of materials than an elemental evoker would, even if they studied all five schools of elemental evocation. The argument that "they have to concentrate on one" doesn't quite stand) 4. The point of this thread isn't to rip up transfiguration and remove half its abilities. It's the elaboration of one part of it, which can be replaced by other parts. 5. By duplication I referred to transfiguration's threefold ability to deflect magic through enchanted wards, conjured wards and abjuration. It's rather weird to see all the transfigurationists comment on this thread, calling out the magic to be too close to Fi-magic, whereas they are completely fine with it being part of their larger school with less limitations. _______________________________

Considering that point, then neither is abjuration/warding a form of transmutation, since they merely leak mana back to the void instead of transmuting the spell, the mana remains active mana, its purpose unaltered as well, merely re-directed.

What does clerical healing do? It changes things as well, and as far as I know learning anatomy is a core part of learning clerical healing. What does illusion do? Same principles. What does void translocation do? You can even argue necromancy is nothing more than the transfiguration of life-force. Magic is about changing things. You could group almost everything under transfiguration by reasoning that they "change things". At the same time, enchanting is an Elven alternative to runesmithing, heating items is a core element in fire evocation and blocking spells is the idea behind fi-magic. Why not group all the evocations together with conjuration and create a new school? In theory, all they do is create and shape material from the void in exchange for mana. They are still different sub-schools because together they'd be a superinflated monstrosity and because apart they are somewhat balanced. Why not group all the mental magics together? Why not group voidal translocation and shifting together? You get the dance. And by-the-by, if you say transfiguration has "changing things" as its core goal, why not change spells? Why drain mana into the void, where you could transfigure them mid-flight, smoking away a ball of fire or turning a thrown rock into mud? No, nothing in the submission refers to such either. And what are the offensive magics? Most of the time it's either elemental evocation or arcanism. Many mentioned duplicity in magic as a core problem. Isn't such an issue right there, right now? Nothing in the thread refers to draining with a puff of magic. Causing pain is a different thing, explained by implosion. Idea was given by an Aegis or Asulon book in the Dragur library. Implosion seems more logical when a large quantity of mana departs to the void. Bad wording will correct it. _____________________________________________ I was looking into that, but the most recently published lore on mana doesn't let that happen. Perhaps with some creative transfiguration, but as far as I know there's limits on that as well. Right now, you program your spell when you transform it from passive to active mana, et cetera. The idea that you drain the spell of its active mana and use that as retaliation is a workaround that's kind-of compatible with current lore. I don't think LM would take "reprogramming of active mana" lightly. _____________________________________________ It does not make one more potent than a transfigurationist currently is, or even without abjuration could be. Draining mana affects both mages and non-mages, the very same way. It's merely an explanation for an offensive kind of magic that does not burn or puncture the enemies, but exhausts them.

Since the submission would have it added to alteration, any transfigurationist could self-teach it, reasoning that they've been actively using abjuration. For those who have five slots filled, they could keep their wards or learn this in place of another magic. Transfiguration at its core already involves the original idea (transmuting objects, materials) that can be used for offense, defense, support and art. Added to this is the enchanting part, which (as far as I have noticed) lures a lot more people to learn transfiguration than the ... transfiguration part. And to that, wards and abjurations are added as well. One school, capable of negating magic in three ways (conjured wards, enchanted wards, abjurations). It may seem like we think the opposite on that matter, taken the quote from both of us, but I do agree on this very line. However, I feel like a magic subtype cannot be efficiently built upon if it's grouped together with so many other subtypes as well. I'd agree with your notion to expand upon current magic, if magic slots were more limited. EG, 2 magics with a mastery each. But that would require each distinct school to receive the same amount of effort and support you put into arcanism, which I don't think will ever happen. On the other hand, you could take current lores and instead of grouping magics together with little detail for the sub-schools, you could dissect them and have people actually use their five slots. As I mentioned earlier, I'm all for "Combination magics" that can only be picked up if one already knows the pre-requisites. EG, you could easily add abjuration as a mastery for arcanism and transfiguration, since arcanism moulds mana (usage, temporary storage) whereas transfiguration transforms it (drains, absorptions). I'm planning to write up more lore for elemental evocations to catch up to arcanism, but that's for a later date and another lengthy thread. Right here, the goal is to build on abjuration and create a mana-manipulating school that has some offensive, some supporting and some anti-magic capabilities as well. Something interesting and new, at least.

Once again, the anti-magic capabilities are 2/5 of the magic submission, where the core 'anti magic' detail is already present, the submission would merely move it to its own "themed" magic school with a completely new set of mechanics and functions. You could easily argue that the ward-abjuration combination beneath transfiguration is more closer to duplicity than a re-think of abjuration as a de-facto counterspell or absorbtion of spells. Along with that, the way abjuration works right now is much closer, if not almost equal, to Fi-magic. The re-write would alter that. EDIT: added to critique&answers section.

Transfiguration has been inflated into a giant collection of multiple sub-schools that didn't deserve their own schools. Apart from general transfiguration (altering objects) it includes enchanting (which is perhaps its most sought-after subschool), warding and abjuration as well. And I reckon the original reason they were grouped up with a slightly relevant magic is because they didn't deserve their own school. I built something akin to mana-tapping, mana-alteration or the sort on the basic idea of abjuration and some sentences in the mana lore to be large enough for its own school. Better have more magics that are detailed and stronger each than group them together in magical supermonstrosities like transfiguration (enchanting + transfiguration + warding + abjuration) or celestial/arcanism (not yet accepted, with shielding + conjured weapons + arcane projectiles + art + focal point familiars + crystals + mana stones + chaining).

The general bounce-magic-back capability is already available for transfiguration.