Previous Thread
Previous
Expand All
Collapse All
Ignore Author
Reply
>>f fire swords require Warmie sigils and gweths require Moonie sigils, and the Bard sigil allows EXCITING NEW PERFORMANCE VERBS, then Bards are up the creek without a paddle regarding their sigil being useful.
And?
TG, TG, GL, et al.
"Disagreement with the fundamental plan at this point is akin to supporting Richard III vs the Tudors."
-Raesh
>>tl ; dr the whole point of the rewrite was parity, contrary to your claims.
I don't think you're correct. Parity in crafting as a whole, yes. Parity within each individual crafting discipline, NO.
TG, TG, GL, et al.
"Disagreement with the fundamental plan at this point is akin to supporting Richard III vs the Tudors."
-Raesh
I don't think you're correct. Parity in crafting as a whole, yes. Parity within each individual crafting discipline, NO.
TG, TG, GL, et al.
"Disagreement with the fundamental plan at this point is akin to supporting Richard III vs the Tudors."
-Raesh
I'll be upfront that my primary interest isn't parity, it's maintaining guild identity. So long as enchanting serves as a vehicle for distributing guild spells and abilities to other people, it'll require the appropriate guild(s) to pull the trigger.
To be honest, my preferred way of handling it is to simply not make those kind of enchantments, and instead see a system populated more by unique items. But as long as we're talking about runestones and scrolls and astral guides, we're talking about guild restrictions.
-Armifer
"In our days truth is taken to result from the effacing of the living man behind the mathematical structures that think themselves out in him, rather than he be thinking them." - Emmanuel Levinas
To be honest, my preferred way of handling it is to simply not make those kind of enchantments, and instead see a system populated more by unique items. But as long as we're talking about runestones and scrolls and astral guides, we're talking about guild restrictions.
-Armifer
"In our days truth is taken to result from the effacing of the living man behind the mathematical structures that think themselves out in him, rather than he be thinking them." - Emmanuel Levinas
>>To be honest, my preferred way of handling it is to simply not make those kind of enchantments, and instead see a system populated more by unique items. But as long as we're talking about runestones and scrolls and astral guides, we're talking about guild restrictions.
Could guild-oriented foci not explicitly require someone of that guild to build it? The ritual spell itself would only be used by someone of that guild, but I'm wondering if it would be safe for non-X guild people to provide the foci portion of it.
"You always have to be a know-it-all. And you don't. Know. It. All." - GERSTEINJ2
Could guild-oriented foci not explicitly require someone of that guild to build it? The ritual spell itself would only be used by someone of that guild, but I'm wondering if it would be safe for non-X guild people to provide the foci portion of it.
"You always have to be a know-it-all. And you don't. Know. It. All." - GERSTEINJ2
>>it'll require the appropriate guild(s) to pull the trigger.
So what about something like an invisibility? I, personally, feel like invisibility is a moon mage signature, but that's because a) I've always played one, b) we've had invisibility the longest(?) as a spell, and c) we've got the lock down on enchanting as it exists right now. However, necros and thieves also have (ur)magic invisibility.
I get that an RF rune would require a moonmage, but what about something like a polo cloak or inviso ring? Would there be totally different enchantments for thieves or necros, or would the base enchantment be the same, with the end result varying slightly (mayhaps) based on which guild-specific trigger was pulled during creation?
So what about something like an invisibility? I, personally, feel like invisibility is a moon mage signature, but that's because a) I've always played one, b) we've had invisibility the longest(?) as a spell, and c) we've got the lock down on enchanting as it exists right now. However, necros and thieves also have (ur)magic invisibility.
I get that an RF rune would require a moonmage, but what about something like a polo cloak or inviso ring? Would there be totally different enchantments for thieves or necros, or would the base enchantment be the same, with the end result varying slightly (mayhaps) based on which guild-specific trigger was pulled during creation?
This is what I was curious about as well. Actual spell runes I can see being linked to guild only... since obviously only said guild has knowledge of that spell. But spell like effects like invisibility, or balance adjusters, or even elemental weapon modifiers Im hoping are going to be more generic though perhaps the guilds that specialize in said areas will have special versions they can create (for example like blackfire weapons being made by WMs only.. and yes although this would make me giggle I know that will never happen Im just using it as an example)
~Tezirite Renzar Lorrani
"Power is merely a stepping stone to more power."
~Tezirite Renzar Lorrani
"Power is merely a stepping stone to more power."
The way it was explained earlier was a character would be able to put their guild abilities on an enchanted gizmo that those of different guilds could use.
For example, thieves have an invisibility khri which we would be able to put on an enchanted device. Then when a non-thief used it, they would be using thief khri invisibility strictly. Moonies presumably would be able to put their RF onto an enchanted device for a totally different gizmo (even though both gizmos would accomplish very similar things) that non-moonies could use, etc.
Kaxis
>You tap a hooded huckleberry hound-pelt cloak that you are wearing.
For example, thieves have an invisibility khri which we would be able to put on an enchanted device. Then when a non-thief used it, they would be using thief khri invisibility strictly. Moonies presumably would be able to put their RF onto an enchanted device for a totally different gizmo (even though both gizmos would accomplish very similar things) that non-moonies could use, etc.
Kaxis
>You tap a hooded huckleberry hound-pelt cloak that you are wearing.
>The thing that still worries me about this plan is the possibility that certain guilds get signature enchantments that are much more desirable than other guilds' sets, and the inevitability that desirability of guild enchantment sets will not be equal. I don't want to be locked out or significantly hindered in the enchantment market because I chose the wrong guild fourteen years ago.
Spoiler alert: you're already locked out of those guild abilities. In the event that some of those abilities are available in enchantment form, you won't suddenly gain access to them through enchanting.
However, my sentiment is the same as Armifer's - I'd prefer to see extremely limited amount of guild-specific functionality in the enchanting system. In the areas for which we are thematically or historically motivated to include guild-specific abilities as enchantable items - runes, scrolls, signature spells - we are going to continue to restrict them.
Also, while I appreciate the input in this area, keep in mind that we're still speaking relatively abstractly here. There will be functionality in the system to support guild-specific enchantments. Whether the creator of any given enchantment wishes to restrict its access is not something on which I am passing immediate judgement. Current development targets the creation of the crafting skill, with an eye on providing as much functionality to future enchantment designers as possible. We foresee a need for some guild specificity; thus, guild-specific enchantments will be an available option.
GM Lohkrian
"In art and dream may you proceed with abandon. In life may you proceed with balance and stealth."
Spoiler alert: you're already locked out of those guild abilities. In the event that some of those abilities are available in enchantment form, you won't suddenly gain access to them through enchanting.
However, my sentiment is the same as Armifer's - I'd prefer to see extremely limited amount of guild-specific functionality in the enchanting system. In the areas for which we are thematically or historically motivated to include guild-specific abilities as enchantable items - runes, scrolls, signature spells - we are going to continue to restrict them.
Also, while I appreciate the input in this area, keep in mind that we're still speaking relatively abstractly here. There will be functionality in the system to support guild-specific enchantments. Whether the creator of any given enchantment wishes to restrict its access is not something on which I am passing immediate judgement. Current development targets the creation of the crafting skill, with an eye on providing as much functionality to future enchantment designers as possible. We foresee a need for some guild specificity; thus, guild-specific enchantments will be an available option.
GM Lohkrian
"In art and dream may you proceed with abandon. In life may you proceed with balance and stealth."
>However, necros and thieves also have (ur)magic invisibility.
FYI, Rangers have also had an invisibility spell for a very long time. For something that four seperate guilds can do, I would say there's very little chance it will be guild only. Especially since none of the guilds share a type of magic. You have Lunar, Life, Arcane(?) Magics and Khri.
>we've got the lock down on enchanting as it exists right now
I sincerely doubt this will be used as justification for making anything guild only.
Elemental Lord Opieus, Master Warrior Mage of Elanthia
"For a bunch of radical empiricists, the Philosophers' system relies on a whole lot of faith." ~Armifer
FYI, Rangers have also had an invisibility spell for a very long time. For something that four seperate guilds can do, I would say there's very little chance it will be guild only. Especially since none of the guilds share a type of magic. You have Lunar, Life, Arcane(?) Magics and Khri.
>we've got the lock down on enchanting as it exists right now
I sincerely doubt this will be used as justification for making anything guild only.
Elemental Lord Opieus, Master Warrior Mage of Elanthia
"For a bunch of radical empiricists, the Philosophers' system relies on a whole lot of faith." ~Armifer
<<a) I've always played one, >>
<<b) we've had invisibility the longest(?) as a spell, and >>
<<c) we've got the lock down on enchanting as it exists right now.>>
I understand guild territorialism, I have a strong case of it myself. But none of the things you noted there will have any bearing on future enchanting.
Probably the safest thing to do at this point is just forget everything we know about current lunar enchanting justification. There will be some similarities with new enchanting, maybe even a bit of overlap as with the use of sigils I've heard. But for the most part, the old enchanting we're used to will be junked and an entirely new philosophy will replace it.
Kaxis
>You tap a hooded huckleberry hound-pelt cloak that you are wearing.
<<b) we've had invisibility the longest(?) as a spell, and >>
<<c) we've got the lock down on enchanting as it exists right now.>>
I understand guild territorialism, I have a strong case of it myself. But none of the things you noted there will have any bearing on future enchanting.
Probably the safest thing to do at this point is just forget everything we know about current lunar enchanting justification. There will be some similarities with new enchanting, maybe even a bit of overlap as with the use of sigils I've heard. But for the most part, the old enchanting we're used to will be junked and an entirely new philosophy will replace it.
Kaxis
>You tap a hooded huckleberry hound-pelt cloak that you are wearing.
I can see the <guild> source of the enchantment having an effect on the eventual user however.
I.e. you see 4 wierd-looking runestones on TraderJoes Table. They all give an invisiblity effect.
The first 3 won't hurt you. They're made by Harry Moonmage, Yogi Ranger, and Al Thief. However, if you use the 4th rune made by Bob Necromancer, it makes you invisible, but ... it gives you SO.
And hopefully you'll be able to "focus" on them or something first before actually Using them to see the source <magictype> of the sigil or whatever it will be called.
/---
Oh and last one, DR at any given time has a population of weenies that will criticize at the drop of a hat, don't take things personally it happens to everyone.
Leucius
I.e. you see 4 wierd-looking runestones on TraderJoes Table. They all give an invisiblity effect.
The first 3 won't hurt you. They're made by Harry Moonmage, Yogi Ranger, and Al Thief. However, if you use the 4th rune made by Bob Necromancer, it makes you invisible, but ... it gives you SO.
And hopefully you'll be able to "focus" on them or something first before actually Using them to see the source <magictype> of the sigil or whatever it will be called.
/---
Oh and last one, DR at any given time has a population of weenies that will criticize at the drop of a hat, don't take things personally it happens to everyone.
Leucius
>>Spoiler alert: you're already locked out of those guild abilities. In the event that some of those abilities are available in enchantment form, you won't suddenly gain access to them through enchanting.
I'm not worried about being locked out of those guild abilities and never said I was. I said I was worried about being locked out of the market. In other words, I'm worried about one or a few guilds getting all the really desirable enchantments, to the point that there's not really much point in anyone else choosing it as a career/hobby, or anyone who does is simply never going to be really successful in the market.
If the locked effects for each guild are roughly equal in desirability, I can live with that. If the locked effects simply aren't significantly desirable or have limited markets, I'd be alright with that too, even if it weren't particularly balanced. I would like to see a rough, tenative list of what effects are planned to be locked to whom (knowing that there's no guarantee that all/any will be implemented on first release), so that we can start discussing this early, if possible.
I'm not worried about being locked out of those guild abilities and never said I was. I said I was worried about being locked out of the market. In other words, I'm worried about one or a few guilds getting all the really desirable enchantments, to the point that there's not really much point in anyone else choosing it as a career/hobby, or anyone who does is simply never going to be really successful in the market.
If the locked effects for each guild are roughly equal in desirability, I can live with that. If the locked effects simply aren't significantly desirable or have limited markets, I'd be alright with that too, even if it weren't particularly balanced. I would like to see a rough, tenative list of what effects are planned to be locked to whom (knowing that there's no guarantee that all/any will be implemented on first release), so that we can start discussing this early, if possible.
>>I'm worried about one or a few guilds getting all the really desirable enchantments, to the point that there's not really much point in anyone else choosing it as a career/hobby, or anyone who does is simply never going to be really successful in the market.
Guild only enchantments are going to be a very small percentage of the total enchantments. What the red-names are trying to tell you is that there will be plenty more enchantments beyond guild-abilities to make. So if your particular guild's enchantment isn't the most sought after then there are plenty of other enchantments for you to make and sell.
Guild abilities are not the end-all be-all of enchantments. There will be plenty of other things to make to keep you in the market.
Guild only enchantments are going to be a very small percentage of the total enchantments. What the red-names are trying to tell you is that there will be plenty more enchantments beyond guild-abilities to make. So if your particular guild's enchantment isn't the most sought after then there are plenty of other enchantments for you to make and sell.
Guild abilities are not the end-all be-all of enchantments. There will be plenty of other things to make to keep you in the market.
>>I'm worried about one or a few guilds getting all the really desirable enchantments, to the point that there's not really much point in anyone else choosing it as a career/hobby, or anyone who does is simply never going to be really successful in the market.<<
Equality is bad. I want there to be a huge demand for one or more guild only enchantments. This will provide a niche market for those that are less in demand. You can't be all things to all people, and if you're not happy with the guild you're playing, switch. Variety is the spice of life. I don't want parity in any system, otherwise we're all playing the same character. Some guilds SHOULD have better perks than others, some guilds SHOULD have better abilities than others, some will be better in combat, better in stealth, better in magics, better in lores, better at whatever. That's what keeps this game interesting, not the homogenization of every guild until we're all just a slightly different flavor of vanilla.
Elvis has left the building.
Equality is bad. I want there to be a huge demand for one or more guild only enchantments. This will provide a niche market for those that are less in demand. You can't be all things to all people, and if you're not happy with the guild you're playing, switch. Variety is the spice of life. I don't want parity in any system, otherwise we're all playing the same character. Some guilds SHOULD have better perks than others, some guilds SHOULD have better abilities than others, some will be better in combat, better in stealth, better in magics, better in lores, better at whatever. That's what keeps this game interesting, not the homogenization of every guild until we're all just a slightly different flavor of vanilla.
Elvis has left the building.
>>none of the things you noted there will have any bearing on future enchanting.
I listed those as reasons why invisibility enchantments felt to me, currently, like a moon mage specific item. because currently, it is.
The rest of my post went on to ask how that is going to change in new enchanting. There was no argument of any kind towards trying to hold on to guild specific anything. I was simply asking how invisibility enchantments will work because, as I pointed out in said post, the ability itself is clearly not moon mage specific.
Based on the exp thread about respecs and such, it sounds like the crafts that will be available in 3.0 will be carving, outfitting, and blacksmithing.
When in doubt, http://elanthipedia.org/
When in doubt, http://elanthipedia.org/
So the first post in this thread (pasted below) was from almost three years ago. Just curious if there is any updates regarding this. Has the general concept remained the same or has anything major changed in this? Three years ago it was a few months away from a tangible release. I realize life happens, but I was just curious if this is something that might be happening this year.
Thanks for all the hard work and amazing releases. Just really excited about this one.
********************************
Hey gang. I've been a bit AWOL for awhile, but I wanted to check in and let everyone know where things stand with Enchanting so far.
The bad news is that there hasn't been a ton of technical progress so far, so we're still at least a few months of work away from a tangible release.
The good news is that we've made a lot of conceptual and organizational progress. I've had the chance to spend some substantial time with a couple PCs and get a feel for Kodius' fantastic Forging system and our new Mining gathering system from a player perspective. This experience has informed a couple adjustments to the way we plan to present Enchanting to the players.
A couple observations:
1. Forging benefits greatly from the logical separation between disciplines. I know exactly what I'm getting when I choose a discipline for a career or a hobby. I can be relatively certain that any advances in my area of interest will continue to fall under my chosen discipline(s).
2. Blacksmithing as a support discipline adds a lot of depth to my decisions on technique expenditures.
3. Rare metal drops are an exciting find and add some surprise rewards to mining process.
4. Variability in material choice adds a lot of flexibility and exploration possibility in the forging experience.
In order to try and capitalize on some of these positive aspects from the existing crafting disciplines, we're looking at some conceptual updates to the Enchanting discipline structure. The following is subject to change, but I thought people would appreciate hearing where we're at.
1. Discipline focus adjustment
The biggest shift is that we are no longer segregating enchantments into discipline by their underlying mechanism. This proved too vague to provide any conceptual boundaries between disciplines and meant that players would have no real idea what the enchantments they made would be able to do.
Instead, we will be dividing the enchantments into three logical categories, similar to existing crafting systems. Using some really non-technical terms here:
1. Runecrafting - tools, Founts, runes
2. Binding - Armor / Weapons
3. Invoking - Everything else
Players can expect each of these disciplines to have roughly 3 technique trees, with Binding and Invoking including appropriate enhancing trees, and Runecrafting likely containing the sigil-gathering techniques.
2. Enchantment powering and Founts
Founts are our answer to the enchantment powering variations. Rather than separating an enchantment activation mechanism by discipline, this will now be driven by what we are calling a Fount. A Fount is like an engine for the enchantment that determines how it receives its energy and is activated. Creation of a Fount will be handled by the Runecrafting decision.
3. Rare sigils, enchantment variation
In order to try and gain some of the exciting rare drops and variation found in Forging, we will be modifying the sigil usage slightly. Essentially each recipe will have some required sigils, but then optional sigils can be added to modify the underlying properties of the enchantment. This final sigil performs a similar role to the type of material used in forging and allows the enchanter to choose whether his enchantment wants to focus on duration, power, ease of use, or some other properties. Harder sigils will offer more novel property options, with rare sigils providing slightly more advantageous property configurations.
4. NMUs and enchanting
Rather than omitting NMUs from an entire discipline, we decided that it would be better to control this interaction by providing two crafting mechanisms for enchanters. There will be a tooled creation mechanism and a non-tooled mechanism. Magic users are able to invest in the Imbue spell, which will provide access to certain enchanting mechanics without the restriction of certain stationary structures. The exact details of these two options are still being determined.
Additionally, NMUs will have restricted options with regards to Fount creation. Again, details pending.
I believe these changes should help provide a much stronger cohesiveness to the disciplines and ensure that players are not penalized for picking the "wrong" discipline a few months down the road when the enchantment they want comes out in a different discipline. It should be much more clear what you will be able to do with each choice. We also have disciplines better able to support one another, with the clear segregation of tools and gathering techniques into Runecrafting, but by putting Founts into Runecrafting it also has capabilities as a potent career path on its own as well.
Feedback is, of course, welcome.
I appreciate everyone's patience with this system. I know enchanting has been on people's radar for awhile, and I have been nowhere near as productive as I would have liked. On the plus side, I finished my Master's, got a sweet new job, and moved into a new apartment over the past year, so I have benefited from the lapse and am now in a much better position to get things done.
I am once again monitoring the lore forums (at all) and hope to have more news for you all soon.
GM Lohkrian
"In art and dream may you proceed with abandon. In life may you proceed with balance and stealth."
Thanks for all the hard work and amazing releases. Just really excited about this one.
********************************
Hey gang. I've been a bit AWOL for awhile, but I wanted to check in and let everyone know where things stand with Enchanting so far.
The bad news is that there hasn't been a ton of technical progress so far, so we're still at least a few months of work away from a tangible release.
The good news is that we've made a lot of conceptual and organizational progress. I've had the chance to spend some substantial time with a couple PCs and get a feel for Kodius' fantastic Forging system and our new Mining gathering system from a player perspective. This experience has informed a couple adjustments to the way we plan to present Enchanting to the players.
A couple observations:
1. Forging benefits greatly from the logical separation between disciplines. I know exactly what I'm getting when I choose a discipline for a career or a hobby. I can be relatively certain that any advances in my area of interest will continue to fall under my chosen discipline(s).
2. Blacksmithing as a support discipline adds a lot of depth to my decisions on technique expenditures.
3. Rare metal drops are an exciting find and add some surprise rewards to mining process.
4. Variability in material choice adds a lot of flexibility and exploration possibility in the forging experience.
In order to try and capitalize on some of these positive aspects from the existing crafting disciplines, we're looking at some conceptual updates to the Enchanting discipline structure. The following is subject to change, but I thought people would appreciate hearing where we're at.
1. Discipline focus adjustment
The biggest shift is that we are no longer segregating enchantments into discipline by their underlying mechanism. This proved too vague to provide any conceptual boundaries between disciplines and meant that players would have no real idea what the enchantments they made would be able to do.
Instead, we will be dividing the enchantments into three logical categories, similar to existing crafting systems. Using some really non-technical terms here:
1. Runecrafting - tools, Founts, runes
2. Binding - Armor / Weapons
3. Invoking - Everything else
Players can expect each of these disciplines to have roughly 3 technique trees, with Binding and Invoking including appropriate enhancing trees, and Runecrafting likely containing the sigil-gathering techniques.
2. Enchantment powering and Founts
Founts are our answer to the enchantment powering variations. Rather than separating an enchantment activation mechanism by discipline, this will now be driven by what we are calling a Fount. A Fount is like an engine for the enchantment that determines how it receives its energy and is activated. Creation of a Fount will be handled by the Runecrafting decision.
3. Rare sigils, enchantment variation
In order to try and gain some of the exciting rare drops and variation found in Forging, we will be modifying the sigil usage slightly. Essentially each recipe will have some required sigils, but then optional sigils can be added to modify the underlying properties of the enchantment. This final sigil performs a similar role to the type of material used in forging and allows the enchanter to choose whether his enchantment wants to focus on duration, power, ease of use, or some other properties. Harder sigils will offer more novel property options, with rare sigils providing slightly more advantageous property configurations.
4. NMUs and enchanting
Rather than omitting NMUs from an entire discipline, we decided that it would be better to control this interaction by providing two crafting mechanisms for enchanters. There will be a tooled creation mechanism and a non-tooled mechanism. Magic users are able to invest in the Imbue spell, which will provide access to certain enchanting mechanics without the restriction of certain stationary structures. The exact details of these two options are still being determined.
Additionally, NMUs will have restricted options with regards to Fount creation. Again, details pending.
I believe these changes should help provide a much stronger cohesiveness to the disciplines and ensure that players are not penalized for picking the "wrong" discipline a few months down the road when the enchantment they want comes out in a different discipline. It should be much more clear what you will be able to do with each choice. We also have disciplines better able to support one another, with the clear segregation of tools and gathering techniques into Runecrafting, but by putting Founts into Runecrafting it also has capabilities as a potent career path on its own as well.
Feedback is, of course, welcome.
I appreciate everyone's patience with this system. I know enchanting has been on people's radar for awhile, and I have been nowhere near as productive as I would have liked. On the plus side, I finished my Master's, got a sweet new job, and moved into a new apartment over the past year, so I have benefited from the lapse and am now in a much better position to get things done.
I am once again monitoring the lore forums (at all) and hope to have more news for you all soon.
GM Lohkrian
"In art and dream may you proceed with abandon. In life may you proceed with balance and stealth."
