Report 1104

Special Report #1104
Skillset: Aerochemantics Skill: New
 Org: Aeromancers Status: Completed Mar 2013
Furies' Decision:
We do not much like the provided solutions and will create something for
runes/dreamweavers to combine with the new specs.
Problem: An important aspect of runist and dreamweaver combat is the ability to
embed a rune or mote in their demesne. Since chemantics users have no access to
a meld, a more mobile, but also more limited, solution is needed.
[A: 0 R: 0] Solution #1: Allow a runist or dreamweaver to attach motes/runes
 to a raised field of their choice. One of the
 attached motes/runes will strike along with the field
 (10s tic). Consider disallowing nyd.
[A: 0 R: 0] Solution #2: Having embed in either Runes or Dreamweaving gives
 you the ability in *chemantics to raise a single
 rune/mote as its own field. Consider disallowing rad.
[A: 0 R: 0] Solution #3:
Player Comments:
---[Tulemrah writes]:
This would of course also extend to the druid equivalent skills.
---[Tulemrah writes]:
The reason for disallowing nyd in solution 1 is because all of our catalysts
consume the cirrus field, which is sensitivity. This means you cannot reraise
the field and have it hit before the catalyst does. If solution 1 went through,
you could just attach nyd to one of the fields not consumed by whichever
catalyst you wanted to use and time it to hit right before the catalyst's
damage.
---[Enyalida writes]:
Isn't your big burst also boosted by epilepsy?
---[Enyalida writes]:
Nevermind, I understand what you meant.
---[Shuyin writes]:
Any solution is fine.
---[Viynain writes]:
Solution 2, provided a method be given to destroy or become immune to generated
fields/mists/spores/etc so that the embedded rune/mote may be countered as well.
Compared to other mobile passives, chemantics-user passives cannot be countered
by earwort/protection or be broken like a meld. Shields and love potion remain
the only defense against these, which are likewise applicable to bards and
melders who have the added obstacles that they individually have to hurdle.
---[Kregarn writes]:
I wouldn't have a problem with this if 1. Viynain's concerns are somehow
addressed and/or 2. there's some need to maintain this fuse or reapply it like
bard's refrain. The difference between this and a demesne fuse, is that you can
only fuse to one location whereas this fused rune/mote would follow you around
making it a powerful addition to your passive arsenal.
---[Celina writes]:
Only with Viynain's caveat will I support this.
---[Shuyin writes]:
Oh yeah, I did forget that these were effectively unblockable. I would prefer
Viy's concerns be addressed as well.
---[Tulemrah writes]:
Since fields only effect the person they're focused on, they are more akin to
angels/demons/fae than to melds or bard songs.
---[Shuyin writes]:
Even ents are killable, however. Focused fields are only defendable via shields,
aren't they.
---[Llandros writes]:
With three specs yet to be released I worry about the possibility for an over
the top combination. I think it's premature from a balance standpoint.
---[Tulemrah writes]:
Mages and druids with dreamweaving and runes are able to add motes and runes as
passive effects via their meld. This report is about providing the same utility
to those with the new skills, adding a mote/rune to their passive effects. If
you feel like fields/mists/flowers need some sort of counter, that is separate
from the issue addressed in this report. I would suggest you make a separate
report on the issue.
---[Asmodea writes]:
Why not just allow a runist or dreamweaver to embed motes and runes into a room
location like they already do with demesnes, but remove the need for a demesne?
---[Enyalida writes]:
The caveats I'd want with this kind of ability is that the rune or mote should
ALWAYS hit last in any stack (to avoid memloss on first hit, always), and it
should not allow rad. The shields thing, I don't care about. Besides that,
working just like embed would probably be fine (memloss having a shorter
blackout, not allowing othala).
---[Rivius writes]:
I'm not entirely sure I like this idea. For one, rad would need to be completely
disallowed. It simply cannot be included in this. I also don't think timing
these with fields is a good idea at all because of the possible combinations we
may have to look at, as well as the fact that we don't even know what three of
the other skillsets will have yet, as Llandros stated. Solution 2 is the best
here and I don't feel overly opposed to it, though part of me feels we should
table this idea until after all the skillsets are released and revisit it.