Stone of Change - Eldritch Rituals Cookbook

[SneakThief]

Or its possible there is no "Formula" for tier 3 bonuses at all and they just picked one focus to compliment the Tier 2 combo. There are only 21 Tier 2 combos, so its not like they "need" a formula to cover them.

[Dworkin_of_Amber]

You are currently using Tier1/Tier2. The correct terms (from Turbine's Beginners' Guide) are 'Raw Ingredients' and 'Manufactured Ingredients'.

Posters on the DDO Forums have been using Tier1/2/3 for each of the altars. Altar of Invasion = Tier1, Altar of Subjugation = Tier2, Altar of Devastation = Tier3.

Ah, Ok... thanks Mad_B... I'll try to start making the requisite changes.


Additionally, I fixed a goof I made in the Crafting Instruction. I gave an example to make +EE Goggles, and I used the wrong "Manufactured Ingredients" for the Goggles (I accidentally used the Helm Ingredients). My apologies to anyone who I messed up with that.

[Ilandrya]

Or its possible there is no "Formula" for tier 3 bonuses at all and they just picked one focus to compliment the Tier 2 combo. There are only 21 Tier 2 combos, so its not like they "need" a formula to cover them.

There is a formula for creating aspects that is based in D&D. All known "tier 3 bonuses" are the result of aspect 1 + aspect 2, so there is a formula.

focus 1 + focus 2 = aspect 1. Since only two focuses are used to create an aspect, and we only have three focuses, that leaves either focus 1 + focus 3, or focus 2 + focus 3, for the creation of aspect 2. The same D&D based formula is used for the creation of an aspect, whether that is aspect 1 or aspect 2.

[jjflanigan]

There is a formula for creating aspects that is based in D&D. All known "tier 3 bonuses" are the result of aspect 1 + aspect 2, so there is a formula.

focus 1 + focus 2 = aspect 1. Since only two focuses are used to create an aspect, and we only have three focuses, that leaves either focus 1 + focus 3, or focus 2 + focus 3, for the creation of aspect 2. The same D&D based formula is used for the creation of an aspect, whether that is aspect 1 or aspect 2.

While that may be true, there's no way to know if there's something special we can do at certain tiers to make a special shard -- like one that is a shard of magma instead of a regular shard of fire, etc. So it could still be much more complex

[MysticTheurge]

I'm in a position where I need to make assumptions to keep it simple.

Fair enough. I'm glad you're doing the work and not me.

an aspect is comprised of two focuses, not three.

You're making assumptions about Aspect II based on the way Aspect I works. There's nothing I've seen so far to suggest that your assumption is correct.

A second tier aspect (i.e. Aspect II) could be based on Aspect I and some other factor. Or three other factors (Gem I, Focus II, Essence III). Or 9 other factors (i.e. it matters what each manufactured ingredient is at all three tiers). There's just no way to know yet.

[Dworkin_of_Amber]

Ok, I just went through and changed all reference of "Tier 1 Ingredient" to "Raw Ingredient" and "Tier 2 Ingredient" to "Manufactured Ingredient".

I also moved the pages, to rename them as necessary, and updated the footer (with all the links to the Reciper Pages) that I could find. If anyone finds anything still broken or pointing to the old names, or using the old names, please let me know and I'll try to get it fixed as soon as I can.

[Big-Dex]

Had a thought occur to me...

Has anyone attempted to combine two fully imbued shards of power into a third empty shard of power?

This, of course, would be done prior to adding it to a weapon and might possibly produce the ever-evasive Magna II type aspect that Eladrin spoke of.

Just a thinking out loud here...

[bigal4458]

Believe it or not...i've read all 69 pages of this thread and am still pretty confused. I think i'm getting it down, but good job to all the contributors. I don't have enough time or resources to be able to contribute much.

[binnsr]

Ok, I just went through and changed all reference of "Tier 1 Ingredient" to "Raw Ingredient" and "Tier 2 Ingredient" to "Manufactured Ingredient".

I also moved the pages, to rename them as necessary, and updated the footer (with all the links to the Reciper Pages) that I could find. If anyone finds anything still broken or pointing to the old names, or using the old names, please let me know and I'll try to get it fixed as soon as I can.

how long does the RSS feed take to pick up these changes? I'm not seeing the new pages on my tracker

[Ilandrya]

While that may be true, there's no way to know if there's something special we can do for tier 3 to make a special shard -- like one that is a shard of magma instead of a regular shard of fire, etc. So it could still be much more complex

Correct, we don't know if there is a trick to shards yet or not. We do know:

There are 5 slots on the eldritch devices and to imbue a shard, you need:

shard, power cell, essence, gem, and focus

there is no room for a second focus when imbuing a shard, and removing one of the other ingredients and subsituting a second focus does not work

but:

shards can go in your trinket slot (don't know yet about imbued ones, but I find this interesting that they do...)

also, I do not know if a shard can be imbued more than once or more than one imbued shard can be used at a time at an altar


Also, while we know from the developer Eladrin that it is possible to have magma I and II on one item, he also hinted that there were "special" effects... this may go beyond aspect I and II/ magma I and II he was talking about. It's possible shards/trinkets may have something to do with this, or that aspect I "balances" have a trick to them....

[SneakThief]

There is a formula for creating aspects that is based in D&D. All known "tier 3 bonuses" are the result of aspect 1 + aspect 2, so there is a formula.

focus 1 + focus 2 = aspect 1. Since only two focuses are used to create an aspect, and we only have three focuses, that leaves either focus 1 + focus 3, or focus 2 + focus 3, for the creation of aspect 2. The same D&D based formula is used for the creation of an aspect, whether that is aspect 1 or aspect 2.

Actually ... it might not matter at all what Focus1 or Focus2 are. It might only matter what Aspect1 is. That is, it might just be that I need to add Fire to Magma I to get Magma II, regardless of the order that Fire and Earth were combined to make Magma I. And it might not follow some formulaic pattern. They may have just said, "what would compliment magma? Fire would make it hotter. Ok, lets go with that."

I'm still stuck on Eladrin's little cryptic statement that there is something we havent figured out about Tier 3 upgrades. I know that more than one imbued shard cannot be used on an item a the Tier 1 and Tier 2 alters. But then he didnt say there was something we didnt know about upgrading in general he said specifically Tier 3. Of course, I'm no where near having enough large ingridients to test that. And that would make those signifigantly "harder" than the "easy" ones.

PS - 3 large ingridients away from NOM-NOM-NOM goggles.

[MysticTheurge]

I'm still stuck on Eladrin's little cryptic statement that there is something we havent figured out about Tier 3 upgrades. I know that more than one imbued shard cannot be used on an item a the Tier 1 and Tier 2 alters. But then he didnt say there was something we didnt know about upgrading in general he said specifically Tier 3. Of course, I'm no where near having enough large ingridients to test that. And that would make those signifigantly "harder" than the "easy" ones.

It does sort of suggest a "think outside the box" mentality.

I am curious about the twice-imbued shard and the two-shards-one-weapon possibilities.

[Vienemen]

PS - 3 large ingridients away from NOM-NOM-NOM goggles.

Good luck in the pulls...have someone spot ya whats needed...I really would like to know the end to these. Hell with just the 4 abilities it has so far makes me want to make one.

[Mad_Bombardier]

Ok, I just went through and changed all reference of "Tier 1 Ingredient" to "Raw Ingredient" and "Tier 2 Ingredient" to "Manufactured Ingredient".

Something still just isn't right. Purely, nitpicking here (what can I say, I'm a perfectionist ). It looks like you're linking a recipe to make Raw Ingredients (which you don't make, you find). How about 'Recipes using Raw Ingredients' and 'Recipes using Manufactured Ingredients'? And as you know, you can just tell me to frak off. I'm okay with that, too.

[Ilandrya]

An aspect is made up of two "focuses"... two elements or energies, or a combination thereof, in D&D. It's not an assumption that an aspect is an aspect is an aspect, whether you number it aspect 1, aspect 2 or aspect 3,579,348, it's still an aspect.

[MysticTheurge]

And as you know, you can just tell me to frak off. I'm okay with that, too.

Oh frak off, Mad_B!

/checks that one off the "to do before I die" list

[MysticTheurge]

An aspect is made up of two "focuses"... two elements or energies, or a combination thereof, in D&D. It's not an assumption that an aspect is an aspect is an aspect, whether you number it aspect 1, aspect 2 or aspect 3,579,348, it's still an aspect.

A first tier aspect (i.e. Aspect I, made at the Altar of Subjugation) is made up of two focuses. That is all we know.

Your assumption that second tier aspects (i.e. Aspect II, made at the alter of Devastation) work in the same way is an assumption.

Heck, the assumption that it's even called "Aspect of Magma II" is an assumption. Eladrin said:

I'm trying to help, really, in a way that won't end up with Piloto poisoning my basil pad thai, not tease.

A weapon with, say, "Magma I" on it at Tier Two can be upgraded to "Magma II" at Tier Three.

That indicates to me that "Magma II" isn't necessarily even called "Magma II." And he doesn't even obliquely refer to it as an "Aspect." So yes, you're assuming things about the way Altar of Devastation upgrade abilities work based on entirely unrelated information.

[Boulderun]

shards can go in your trinket slot (don't know yet about imbued ones, but I find this interesting that they do...)

Imbued shards equip to the trinket slot as well, with no immediately apparent effect (no combat log message, no buff graphics, etc).

[Ilandrya]

Heck, the assumption that it's even called "Aspect of Magma II" is an assumption.

Correct. Being as we haven't yet seen at item with "Magma I" and "Magma II" on it, we of course don't know what it's actually called, but we do have to use some terminology to describe it in the meantime. I'm not sure what this has to do with your point that I, personally, am assuming things though. I have not made an assumption about what "Magma I & II" is actually called. I have merely used terminology to describe it as best I can because the proper name is lacking currently.

And he doesn't even obliquely refer to it as an "Aspect."

Correct in that he doesn't refer to it as an aspect in that post. However, we know from D&D that these are in fact aspects. When the aspects started showing up after items were upgraded at the second raid altar, we knew what they were all named before we actually saw them all, even though we didn't know what they did yet... because they were all taken directly from aspects in D&D. Also in the description of the items at the second upgrade, it says "Aspect of". So, although he didn't use that term himself, both in the descriptions of the items themselves, as well as in D&D, we are consistant with calling them "Aspects". Just because he didn't use the word "aspect", doesn't mean they are not, and everything we have seen to date indicates they are. We also know what comprises an aspect from D&D. So it's not an assumption on my part that two elements, two energies, or a combination thereof make up an aspect... that is straight from D&D.

Your assumption that second tier aspects (i.e. Aspect II, made at the alter of Devastation) work in the same way is an assumption

If you are referring to my earlier posts, it's a working hypothesis, which is not the same thing as an assumption. One is based on following scientific principles, the other is not. Could I be wrong? Yes. Anything can turn out to be wrong when more information becomes known. Look at what we now know about black holes as oppossed to what we thought 50 years ago. Obviously no one knows much with regard to second tier aspects for a "fact", because we do not have sufficient info to do so at this point. I have not claimed that my hypothesis is a fact, and I have in fact, stated several times that it is a hypothesis. This is already known, I have stated it freely, and it's not something I deny. So, again, I'm not sure what your point is here. I don't see anything to indicate that you are disproving my hypothesis, and I've already previously established it's a hypothesis. I haven't discounted all other possiblities, like with the shards, for example, which could lead down a whole different path entirely or build upon my own theory. You are entitled to your own views, and I won't be offended if you don't agree with mine, but that doesn't negate that it's a plausable hypothesis right now until either proven or disproven. It doesn't mean others shouldn't be considered in the meantime.

[SneakThief]

Again, I'm not sure what your point is here. I was defining what an aspect is in my last post, not discussing how second tier aspects work. What an aspect consists of, again, is straight from D&D, so it's not an assumption.

Can you point me to where in D&D you are talking about "Aspects" from? Because the reason we knew the names was from Elemental, Para-Elemental, and Quasi-Elemental planes. I dont remember reading anything about an "Aspect" when I was reading about planes.