Dark affinity changes -Dark affinity should be opened up to Power as well as wisdom. My line of logic is that most of Ganon’s servants would likely have this, with most of them being more attributed to power than wisdom. Along with this, Techniques alongside spells would be amped with the darkness. - The treasures “Warlock Punch”, “Flame Choke”, “Dark Dive”, “Thunderstomp” and maybe “Explosive heel” should be given the Dark tag to give more physical dark abilities, given that they originate from Ganondorf in Smash bros.. - Upon speaking with Spirit about this, we've also decided that instead of the same malignancies received from dark spells, techniques bought with Dark Affinity make the user become more aggressive and animalistic in nature.
1) I would actually like to take that one step further and open it to PWC, although for different reasons. I remember in Fell Transformation we did that because evil isn't tied to any one virtue- choosing to sacrifice your humanity can't be pinned to Courage, or Wisdom, or Power, and therefore I think it makes sense to make it a PWC treasure. 2) My answer to this depends on what changes you're proposing. Do you mean simply giving them the [Dark] field, altering their effects, adding prerequisites, upping prices, what? 3) Just remember that you're proposing a change to an existing treasure, alright? You make it sound like "we decided that it should be this way," which is probably not what you mean, but that's how it sounds. That being said, I'd rather open up the "gaining spells with this" to "gaining treasures with this" in Dark Affinity's description, if that makes any sense. The downside to getting Dark Affinity is so open that you, as the RPer, could easily do what you're suggesting, while also leaving possibilities for other flaws, such as the example of "unable to empathize with fellow human beings." I'd rather not restrict it to one possible flaw.
1) Okay, sounds good. 2) I Moreso mean the tags just being added, though maybe the flavor for some like warlock punch could be changed to better fit what's in-game. If I recall correctly, I don't think it mentions any dark energy, which is how it appears in-game. 3) Alright, sounds good too. My line of thought was that many spells under DA have specific negatives, so as opposed to those, higher aggression would make more sense.
iirc people with DA can cast normal spells with a "dark and sinister" aesthetic twist. I can definitely look at the listed treasures and see if their appearances can be Darked up, though. Summary: 1) Open Dark Affinity to PWC 2) Give “Warlock Punch”, “Flame Choke”, “Dark Dive”, “Thunderstomp” and maybe “Explosive heel” the [Dark] field and edit their descriptions to make their casting more Dark. 3) Open DA's effects to treasures in general, not just spells. [1/2] for the above
Hmmm. I'm actually reconsidering Number 2. Dark is defined here as "magic which is derived from sacrificing a portion of the user's humanity." There is nothing about that in any of these treasures, which leads me to believe that (as they currently stand) they don't fit as Dark. Sure, they look like they may fit, but aesthetics are far from everything. Now, if you want to propose a change to each of those treasures to make them truly fit with the [Dark] field (in a separate thread), you may certainly do so. However, tacking the [Dark] field onto these treasures doesn't feel like it would fit. I'm still game for 1 and 3, though.
Yeah, I agree. We should leave them rather than change things about them. I'd rather create new treasures all together for them then change because how would it effect those that already have the treasures?
1) Open Dark Affinity to PWC 2) Open DA's effects to treasures in general, not just spells. While Dark Affinity is geared strictly to magic, magic =/= W. [1/2]
Magic is very broad, thankfully. I'd be more comfortable with using that as the term for Dark Affinity than specifically talking about dark "spells". This idea seems very closely tied to the idea of opening this up to all PWC attributes. That said, I approve for [2/2]
