Holder Clarification/Hot fix

Currently there is a building fad on the site that I was also going to be apart of before my urge to finish that magic faded. This fad is currently leading to an abuse of Holder Items in general. What I'm trying to get at is that we need to set a rule on holder magic, as to how far it can go. Currently people are making weapons/items/armors and making them holders for their magic, and thus indestructible. Some are even taking it a tad bit farther to abuse other systems through this. All in all, I just think there should be a clause for Holder items that are registered equipment. Like, they still take damage for example, or some other drawback.

I agree. Perhaps they can be broken and are automatically repaired the next topic but as it stands they can be used as both equipment/magic in one.

Then there's be nearly no point to using Holder magic at all.

Why use a magic that confers negligible, if any, benefit but you can lose for the rest of the topic it breaks or whenever you get disarmed?


Holder items need significant advantages to give reason why if they are to have any sort of drawbacks like that.   Being unbreakable just makes it comparable to using Caster magic,  making it a purely thematic choice on your part,  a style choice made based on what you want your character to do or the sort of design you're going for.  


This can be tiered,  based on accessibility.

T1: No benefits,  akin to caster magics.   The holder item is neither breakable or removable.
Examples:
Implant. Tattoo. Anomaly.
T2: Minor benefits.  Breakable OR Removable.   Treated as an Item using normal Item rules, does not take up a slot. Must be bought at half price.  Does not provide additional abilities unless it takes up an item slot.
Jedi's lightsaber (Returns when removed),  Self-repairing object.
T3: Benefits.   Breakable and removable.  Treated as an item using the item rules.  Does not take up a slot.  Must be bought.  All benefits of being an item.
Swords,  held items.  Loose items (Necklace)
T4: Notable benefits.   Easily breakable and removable,  or breakable and easily removable.   Treated as an item, does not take a slot,  does not require purchase (Will always be rank appropriate, up to Artifact,  but gains +20% to numerical values if you would exceed Artifact.  (20 damage becoming 24 damage))
Fragile objects or objects prone to taking damage such as armor as a holder item.

The tier of the held item is agreed upon by the mod and member,  mod having final say but listening to what they have to say.


Obviously it would be a legitimate and obvious tactic to attempt to strip such a holder user from their holder item. So using vulnerable tiers at your discretion. A risk-reward.

Since I've used a holder item from day one, the rules from admin to admin to mod to mod have changed so much to the point where I'll agree it needs refined, but not make it overly complex.

Right now, its just an unbreakable item that grants no powers whatsover. If you wish for it to have a power, it needs to take an UA slot up (As numerous mod/admin have told me in the past)

As for 'armors' and stuff. Unbreakable doesn't mean its a god shield either, as even the rules state armors only block so much of the damage. Holder items would/should still be the same, but perhaps the rules should clarify this too.

Holder Items can't be broken. Like the Keyblade from Kingdom Hearts. They are a part of the user magically and can often be recalled to the user as Sora does.

Even if a Celestial Key is broken it will respawn in the real world after a year like a Dragonball lol. Also the key can only be broken by it's owner.

So yea. They should stay indestructible.

In order to balance holder items I would just say this:

Have it so that the holder item by itself has no benefits. So I'm wielding a holder item sword which is indestructible. Its only advantage is that it gives me a bit of extra reach. It does no extra melee damage perhaps. Unless you register this as a UA to boost its power or provide abilities.

However, if you think about it. I have a sword as my holder item. You knock my sword out of my hand. Immediatelly I have no access to magic unless I get my sword back. So it would make sense to give it some slight benefits. You're taking a risk and thus there should be a benefit.

I also think that a holder item should be something you are holding or wearing. A tattoo is not a holder item imo. Its not something you are holding. Its grafted onto your skin. If a slayer lacrima doesn't count as a holder item then neither does a tattoo. This should also be the same for grafted limbs or other things like that.

Or it a tattoo/grafted limb does count then they should be ones that provide no benefit and its purely an aesthetic chance.

Will bring this up to the dev's once I'm off work. Will work on some sort of fix based on what was discussed here and what we think on it.

So, what exactly is the problem? I would like to see some examples of this being abused, because it doesn't really seem like that's all too possible. Unless something was changed, weapons only lose durability when you use them to block. I suppose you could see that as an abuse, but even when you do this, blocking weapons is so weak that you don't even have to bother. And outside of PvP where numbers don't really matter, anyone can block with just about anything anyway. Slayers cannot eat their own spells/weapons either, so that's not a way of abusing it as it would directly go against the rules of slayer magic. And I've never seen armor being used as holder item, if that's even possible.

So I was discussing it with someone and they suggested something pretty neat, Ima just place a screenshot down while I am at it.

http://puu.sh/twI8N/b92260dc8d.png
http://puu.sh/twIjW/93fd739f5b.png

I don't think it's the risk of not having something cool with holder magics. It's that at the current rate it's abusable. Especially if you make an armour a holder item.

Now I hate gaming the system but he's a calculation using what I like to call "babbys first UAs" or cookie cutter UAs that when used will make you really strong.

Don't look if you don't want to ruin your rp experience by gaming your UAs:

Really the answer to this is "if you want a weapon or armour to be a holder item, damaging it to the point of breaking removes its offends ability but can still be used to cast spells." That's the simple answer to stop people using it as a way to make their items undefeatable.

All Holder magic should be is to have a medium that you cast your magic through. This item/weapon/armor should just be thematic in nature. The way it SHOULD work is.. even if your holder item breaks, your magic is still useable.

You know.. this really wouldn't be an issue if durability would just go away. It's kind of a dumb mechanic to begin with imo. Or if durability changes to where "if a weapon or armor breaks, it loses it's abilities" or something like that. Equipment having durability actually kinda annoyed me from the get-go to be honest.

In truth it would make more sense if the magic still works if the weapon is broken, but the weapon does less for melee or for protection in the case of armor. As breaking it wouldn't remove its magical properties, but its physical properties.


I see Ana's point and it is well made. However, if we look at canon holder magics (such as Lucy) then when they don't have their holder item on them they can't use their magic. People are just trying to be realistic to that. Then again..what benefits does lucy's magic have except that its the only way to get celestial spirits.

Veil Crane wrote:In truth it would make more sense if the magic still works if the weapon is broken, but the weapon does less for melee or for protection in the case of armor. As breaking it wouldn't remove its magical properties, but its physical properties.


I see Ana's point and it is well made. However, if we look at canon holder magics (such as Lucy) then when they don't have their holder item on them they can't use their magic. People are just trying to be realistic to that. Then again..what benefits does lucy's magic have except that its the only way to get celestial spirits.

Just had a funny thought that wouldn't one of requip users from show be better example? Seen CS mages in show kinda break that rule with Spirits being like "You didn't need to call cause were friends".

They are still channeled through the keys. They just can sometimes come through themselves to defend their owner.

Requip users in my opinion are not 100% holder as they do have the ability to summon their weapons/armor without having anything to channel their magic through.

You could say all users on site who have weapons/armor are holder mages to some extent

ReQuip is Caster Magic. @Veil Crane

Odd. I swear that useed to be defined as holder.

I think in truth its more of a hybrid.

They have the power to requip armor and weapons at will and that is caster.
However, they require an item to channel that magic into spells. e.g. erza can't do a flame slash without her flame sword. That is holder.


That being said there is literally no benefit or point to holder magic in canon as it stands. Its an item you need to channel your magic through which can be stolen, lost or potentially destroyed. It just seems necessary to access certain types of magic. That's about it.


I'm wondering if perhaps the benefit of holder should be a slightly reduced spell cost as you have an item that is channeling and potentially amplifying your magic power so it costs you less to cast. The drawback is that it can be taken or lost. Or, potentially destroyed. However, I would probably make it so that its range based. So if your holder item is within x distance (determined by rank) then you are able to use your magic.

Perhaps you only get the reduced cost if you're holding it.

It is defined as holder here.

Couldn't holder items just be limited to what is considered a 'holder item'? Like throw swords and armors out as holder item because they present the most problem in this area.

ReQuip should not be Holder. Because it isn't. You don't have to be holding anything to use ReQuip. You summon weapons from another dimension or otherwise.

It's a Caster magic, by definition and by it's use. If a mage can use the Magic without holding anything or use of a specific item. "Ice-Make, Slayer Magic, ReQuip" then it's Caster.

Hera-senpai wrote:ReQuip should not be Holder. Because it isn't. You don't have to be holding anything to use ReQuip. You summon weapons from another dimension or otherwise.

It's a Caster magic, by definition and by it's use. If a mage can use the Magic without holding anything or use of a specific item. "Ice-Make, Slayer Magic, ReQuip" then it's Caster.

I still think its hybird between the two. Caster to requip the weapons/armor etc and holder to use them. Hence why Erza's sword magic in canon is considered holder despite the fact she requips into it

I think the whole point of Requips being Holder Magic is because most of your abilities come from the weapons/armor themselves.

Where Requip weapons have an active and a passive. The active ability is considered the "main spell" while the weapon, itself, is considered the 'vehicle' for the spell. You can also add special requip spells to each of your weapons and stuff and you technically use your weapon/armor as a medium to cast those spells. That's the only way I can see Requip being holder.

But that would also mean that any weapon/armor that anyone gets (other than weak) are also technically considered holder items due to weapons (mainly multipart weapons) having multiple activated abilities that require the weapon to be equipped.

This can be alleviated with the removal of durability (which I think is a silly mechanic on this site to begin with). This is probably the only site I've been on where durability is a thing and it grossly complicates any semblance of PvP (and even PvE) that this site has. Weapons and armor in any anime breaks due to plot reason to make things a bit more dramatic and even then, equipment breaking in anime is wishy-washy due to how often rules of anime actually stay true to when equipment should break. Realistically speaking, equipment on this site should break near instantly when hit with big enough spells that cover a person's entire body.

AoEs should, essentially, break all equipment but nobody actually uses that (probably not even in PvP). All it does is add another layer of unnecessary complexity to a system that should be pretty straight-forward. Most sites handle this in a different manner such as disarming of weapons, which is probably more interesting than equipment breaking altogether.

But whatever, i digress.

Here's an idea and I'm just throwing it out there o3o

If you register your holder item as an actual weapon/armor it'd have all the benefits of being a weapon/armor of that rank, however upon its durability hitting 0 It'll lose all those benefits but still would allow you to cast magic?

eg: Player A's weapon is an Artifact grade holder weapon with a few nifty abilities that assist them and help expand their magic somewhat. Once the weapon reaches 0 in durability it becomes unable to use said abilities for the remainder of the thread, including the damage absorption and melee buff abilities that every weapon has. This essentially makes the weapon a stick that has no advantages or disadvantages by itself, but Player A is still capable of casting their magic from the weapon.

Here's an idea and I'm just throwing it out there o3o

If you register your holder item as an actual weapon/armor it'd have all the benefits of being a weapon/armor of that rank, however upon its durability hitting 0 It'll lose all those benefits but still would allow you to cast magic?

eg: Player A's weapon is an Artifact grade holder weapon with a few nifty abilities that assist them and help expand their magic somewhat. Once the weapon reaches 0 in durability it becomes unable to use said abilities for the remainder of the thread, including the damage absorption and melee buff abilities that every weapon has. This essentially makes the weapon a stick that has no advantages or disadvantages by itself, but Player A is still capable of casting their magic from the weapon.

We're actually working on things in dev in regards to holder weapons/armor.

I don't do this often but I'm going to agree with Ana here. Having durability on items were pvp doesn't happen because of how much of a pain it even is makes no sense. Not only that but when we did have pvp things breaking had to be agreed on by both parties. Has anyone even broken an item in a job if it wasn't related to a characters plot? the entire issue would be resolved by stating that items simply had no durability. It makes sense that spell armor effects have durability but by the durability rules any weapon should break after it hits anything so many times no matter what it is. Or the site needs to get a manageable grasp on how pvp works over all since that is the only time durability would ever truly come into play.