CLOK BBS

This conversation came up in chat when someone suggested that a geomancer with quickchannel master (QCM) can open a channel at the last second of roundtime to gain the bonus without incurring the long open-channel energy drain through the roundtime. I think this concept of being able to open a channel, do the action, and immediately drop it without incurring a penalty has been known by most spellcasters who end up taking QCM. I have used it, even, but grow ever uncomfortable without knowing an official standpoint of whether it is bad or good. The "errata", so to speak.

Is circumventing the "open-channel-energy-drain" through the addition of 2 abilities against the intent of the spellcasting system enough to warrant a fear of consequence e.g. policy 6? Or is it sufficiently supported by lore and its costs that it isn't 'gameifying' the system?

Hi,
I maybe remember briefly chatting with you about this, or something adjacent. Can I ask how much of a difference or impact it has on energy loss, or if the drawbacks help balance it in any way? Most of the time, as an elemancer engaging in elemancy, it seems necessary to have channels open when they are in use. Yes it is possible to drop them during roundtime, but roundtime--any kind of roundtime--drastically reduces energy regeneration, and opening a channel again begets additional roundtime. Maybe it is only one second for one channel, but it also adds to a relatively long six seconds of wait for a cast, and this is every single time, as the channel is dropped and then re-opened: two casts becomes 14 instead of 12, three is 21 instead of 18, which can potentially be over a whole entire missed round! And if that seems very little, remember elemancy only ever has one roll per attack, and no weighting abilities like most forms of combat, something which might apply to channeling in a more general sense. There have been times where I have missed four or five consecutive rolls while rolling three times as high, and repeatedly failed dodge rolls while having somewhere in the vicinity of six times as much dodge due to weighted rolls, or multiple attacks. And this is only with one channel; the gap is even wider if you are dropping and reopening multiple channels in an attempt to conserve energy. Maybe for a master geomancer it is different because of the projections, but projections themselves require energy to create and sustain, unless this is a misunderstanding of how the ability functions? Is it a workaround or abuse still overwhelmingly useful regardless? Is this response a misinterpretation of what you are trying to explain? Sorry if it seems silly or super obvious or overly verbose; I am only interested in trying to understand the scope of the issue.
-Alila

We did discuss it earlier as I'd had my misgivings about it then as well, but it has come up in chat and I felt it was time to bring my concerns to light. Sure can.

As you said, being in roundtime takes energy regeneration down to nearly nothing. Opening and closing channels while in roundtime, to me, is essential. Especially for the sake of combat where you might need to change patterns on the fly as a situation changes, no doubt about it. You really properly described the trade off in additive time lost per action for opening and closing that channel, and I think that's definitely important to note and say for the reasons mentioned.

I think my issue morein lies the consequences for magic overall, but I certainly know that it has a massive impact on a master geomancer.

For my guilt, to keep a projection, I need a channel open. If I forge with my geomantic matter hammer, it takes the 35 energy for the forging action and if I keep the channel open throughout the entire roundtime, it takes an additional 40 seconds of open roundtime for me. Which means one forging action takes me about 75 energy, twice what a normal tool would give. If I drop the channel after getting the forging round in and reset, it only takes me 36 or 37 energy to do the same.

But is it *right* to do that? Am I circumventing the intended system? If I am, I want to stop now so I can go get a forging hammer and feel like I'm doing the intended and right thing. But at the same time, it takes away all of the feeling of utility for the capstone and ultimately makes me feel like I've fallen flat.

I did the calculations on mining with a geomancy channel up versus mining with a standard tool. For every 205 seconds of 'uptime' I have, I have 205 seconds of resting. For a person with a standard tool, they get about 400 seconds of 'uptime' for every 205 seconds of resting. Similarly, someone fighting unarmed for a set amount of time looks to get the same benefit. The constant drain of an open channel is that big of a deal. If I were to drop-channel, I extend that uptime greatly. But you also bring up an excellent point that maybe I'm seeing an extension due to the longer roundtimes and not, in fact, entirely due to drop-channeling.

Other than just for geomancers and the specific instances I've seen its impact, I want to make a point that any spellcaster with QCM can utilize this. They can open sorcery, cryomancy, or any spellcasting to throw a bolt, then drop it so that they only took 1 second of energy drain for opening the channel, saving 4 energy per cast.

If the answer ultimately is "don't do that," I can happily go about my day knowing that I should not do this. I hope that this doesn't prompt a removal of the ability to drop channels in round time as it strongly affects the viability of multielement weaving or for use case scenarios where it's intended.

I think a great part of my worry is wanting peace of mind. It is not knowing if what I'm doing is inappropriate while wanting to remain in compliance, or if it is okay, I can raise my head high.

In brief:
Pros of drop-channeling: Saving potentially tons of energy per action
Cons: Extra time per opening channel is additive, plus the cost of 2 ability slots.

The combat-side of your calculations is all assuming a perfection of timing that, quite frankly, doesn't exist. Doing it in combat seems tedious and is far more likely to get you killed by limiting your ability to respond to changes in the fight.

As to the concerns you've posted about projection a couple times now, here was Rias's original comment on the matter:

Using geomancy to temporarily provide basic item or tools is one of the potential abilities I'm considering for mastered geomancers. However, it'd really only be useful in emergencies and would never be as useful as having an actual item (of course, it'd just be cool to be able to do). As you guessed, the object would only last for as long as a geomancy channel was maintained. But yes, they'd likely be quite low-quality and low-durability, since as was mentioned, geomancy can't produce solid stone or anything too dense and durable (non-brittle?) because at that point the material would be too dense to be effectively affected by channeling and just dissipate.

It sounds like having the proper tool for the job was always intended to be the preferred tactic. The ability is more to provide flexibility and utility and also be really cool, not replace the need for tools.

Thank you for that quote! I had no idea that had been said before, and I really do appreciate that greatly. That does assuage the projection related side of the question. I'd been using keywords like Projection to dig through the forums, and didn't think it'd been referenced in the past.

I will adjust my methods to match the appropriate lore, always, and this definitely answered one of them. I have to admit that this makes me feel a bit dejected.

Oh well! My point stands, however impractical drop-channeling seems, is it considered a valid strategy?