Active Users:1641 Time:20/08/2025 10:41:59 AM
Funny, I just saw this post darius_sedai Send a noteboard - 17/09/2016 11:13:09 PM

Okay one last attempt here.

Channeler has strength 75, but we know a person can draw an amount beyond their maximum up to the point where they burnout and die. For the sake of argument let's assume that number is 80. If someone can draw more than this much above their maximum it would seem odd given how many times we've heard about the dangers of overdrawing.

If an angreal is additive it gives an additional strength of 100 (for simplicity sake) meaning the channeler in question can draw 175 very safely. But the angreal prevents the channeler from drawing beyond this, in other words it has a buffer. If the angreal has no buffer our channeler can pull in more power up to 180 before they burnout and die. The angreal can't offer more than 100 but the channeler still can't draw in beyond their physical limitations.

However, if an angreal is a magnifier of 2x magnitude it's somewhat different in terms of how a non-buffer would end up working. With a buffer our channeler can use 150 with no issues, but without the buffer the number jumps to 160 before they die because they've drawn in 80 on their own and the angreal is doubling that ... Meaning they have pulled in 2x beyond the normal burnout and die increase (10 more instead of 5 more). This clearly increases with the intensity of the angreal so with a 10x magnifier our channeler would be drawing in 800 before death rather than the "safe" 750. Alternatively a lack of a buffer could mean that a multiplier angreal can actually increase from being 10x to say 15x but no longer protects the channeler from the additional influx of power, thus our channeler can draw up to 1,125 or potentially up to 1,200 before death.

Why I see this as important is because an angreal that offers a fixed amount of OP doesn't increase the amount of OP that causes burnout and death so there are still relatively small limits to overdrawing, something like 5-10 v. Potentially massive limits of 50-100. And the fact that they are no longer drawing through the angreal in an additive model, they are only able to draw a fixed amount with an additive angreal whereas a multiplier fits the narrative of "drawing even deeper through the angreal" that we've heard over and over.

Domani Drag Queen in the White Tower ... Aran'gar watch out!
This message last edited by darius_sedai on 18/09/2016 at 08:39:23 PM
Reply to message
Angreal, Sa'angreal and Moiraine at 66 - 11/01/2016 08:53:23 AM 2854 Views
Or we can choose to assume Elayne is incorrect - 11/01/2016 03:50:14 PM 1309 Views
Uhhh... - 12/01/2016 12:07:42 AM 1446 Views
Yet there are problems with either - 15/01/2016 08:52:04 PM 1149 Views
Re: Yet there are problems with either - 16/01/2016 05:29:11 AM 1548 Views
Would you consider... - 17/01/2016 09:06:59 AM 1259 Views
random thought on Shielding - 19/01/2016 07:34:20 PM 1306 Views
You're forgetting the other side, though. - 19/01/2016 08:19:59 PM 1386 Views
yes but it doesn't proactively do this - 19/01/2016 10:06:25 PM 1236 Views
Responding to a shield doesn't require proactiveness - 20/01/2016 05:53:24 AM 1157 Views
it's a visualization thing really - 20/01/2016 04:39:08 PM 1198 Views
Not the crux of the debate... - 21/01/2016 03:37:40 AM 1282 Views
Not really though - 21/01/2016 05:00:34 PM 1048 Views
I always explained it as - 21/01/2016 09:26:35 PM 1289 Views
There's not much to go on since all the shields except Berowyn's are the same - 21/01/2016 09:55:14 PM 1180 Views
That's precisely my point - 21/01/2016 10:09:02 PM 1264 Views
now you are speculating based on a lack of evidence - 21/01/2016 10:39:13 PM 1095 Views
There's actual evidence: - 22/01/2016 06:25:25 AM 1282 Views
what's dense here is that you keep putting in quotes that don't support your position - 22/01/2016 03:28:16 PM 1451 Views
Whoa.. - 22/01/2016 04:24:19 PM 1357 Views
Not at all - 22/01/2016 05:03:50 PM 1317 Views
Wonderful - 22/01/2016 06:30:35 PM 1298 Views
yup that's my argument. that and you're a dick so I'm done with this - 22/01/2016 06:46:23 PM 1113 Views
Re: yup that's my argument. that and you're a dick so I'm done with this - 23/01/2016 02:35:33 PM 1526 Views
Petty much *NM* - 24/01/2016 02:50:32 PM 687 Views
Hmmm.... - 23/01/2016 03:06:15 PM 1492 Views
Let me clear this up - 25/01/2016 04:19:51 PM 1538 Views
Some more quotes - 25/01/2016 05:10:51 PM 1290 Views
none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 25/01/2016 07:19:48 PM 1625 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 26/01/2016 03:45:52 AM 1302 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 26/01/2016 09:00:55 AM 1606 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 26/01/2016 10:39:49 AM 1279 Views
from the very beginning of this conversation I've been saying I'm theorizing - 26/01/2016 04:09:19 PM 1173 Views
Oh well then I agree with you - 26/01/2016 08:50:55 AM 1494 Views
thanks - 26/01/2016 04:26:46 PM 1528 Views
Yes, but that's not what I'm arguing... - 16/01/2016 08:56:15 AM 1101 Views
But additive doesn't explain buffers and being able to overdraw - 16/01/2016 03:02:33 PM 1144 Views
Don't those two facts explain each other? - 16/01/2016 03:24:44 PM 1156 Views
It actually seems counterintuitive to me - 19/01/2016 07:15:37 PM 1102 Views
Simple - 19/01/2016 08:21:11 PM 1228 Views
Not at all - 19/01/2016 10:17:39 PM 1016 Views
Huh? - 20/01/2016 06:01:04 AM 1265 Views
agree to disagree I suppose ... I don't see it this way *NM* - 20/01/2016 04:41:16 PM 677 Views
I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. *NM* - 21/01/2016 12:01:16 AM 640 Views
Re: I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. - 21/01/2016 02:07:21 AM 1117 Views
Re: I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. - 21/01/2016 03:32:59 AM 1167 Views
I don't necessarily think that's true - 21/01/2016 05:07:40 PM 1233 Views
I don't see how magnifiers solve this - 21/01/2016 10:01:17 PM 1196 Views
Re: I don't see how magnifiers solve this - 21/01/2016 10:16:16 PM 1147 Views
Uhhh... - 22/01/2016 06:51:11 AM 1300 Views
Funny, I just saw this post - 17/09/2016 11:13:09 PM 1032 Views
The very first chapter (the Prologue) disproves this - 03/10/2016 06:56:28 AM 1071 Views
No it doesn't - 05/10/2016 12:47:03 AM 982 Views
Re: Don't those two facts explain each other? - 08/10/2016 05:06:53 AM 942 Views
Re: Yes, but that's not what I'm arguing... - 08/10/2016 04:52:06 AM 1126 Views

Reply to Message