• Announcements

    • Chaos

      Oathbringer Spoiler Policy   11/13/2017

      Oathbringer is out! Let's make our policy on spoilers clear! 1. You must preface topics with Oathbringer spoilers with the prefix [OB] in the front 2. You are only allowed to post spoilers and spoiler topics in the Oathbringer Spoiler Board, Cosmere Theories, and some select work-related forums. 3. For posts in the Oathbringer Spoiler Board you do not need to use spoiler tags inside a topic marked [OB]. For Cosmere Theories, you also do not need to put spoiler tags inside your topic if the topic has [OB] in the title. However, for Cosmere Theories, if you are adding Oathbringer stuff to an old theory without the [OB] tag, those must go in spoiler tags and you must make it obvious outside the spoiler tag that the spoiler is regarding Oathbringer content. 4. For select things that do require talking about OB spoilers, in Events, Coppermind, and Arcanum forums, those are allowed but keep OB spoilers in spoiler tags 5. Avoid and minimize spoilers in topic titles--even though those two boards will not appear in the Recent Topics ticker, topic titles still appear in Recent Activity and the forum home.  6. You aren't allowed to post Oathbringer spoilers in places other than listed, even with spoiler tags.  It will be nine months and then the Oathbringer board will be re-merged with the Stormlight board and you will not need to tag these spoilers. If you'd like to move something in the Stormlight Archive board to the Oathbringer board, to update it with new Oathbringer information, Report the post and we will happily move it to the Oathbringer spoiler board. Part-by-part Reactions Though the Oathbringer Spoiler Board will be very spoilery, very fast (maybe don't come there until you've read the book, as people do have copies that bookstores sold early), you'll have these five topics for reactions if you want to nerd out: Part 1 Reactions
      Part 2 Reactions
      Part 3 Reactions
      Part 4 Reactions
      Full Book Reactions For parts 1-4, they will not include the interludes immediately following it. On Discord All Oathbringer spoilers on Discord will be exclusively in the #oathbringer_spoilers channel for the nine month spoiler period and nowhere else.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

404 Envisager

About Kadrok

  • Rank
  • Birthday 06/04/1986

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

7,309 profile views
  1. Yeah, it's an interesting one. He does, however, say that there are some resistances just from having a Mistborn's spirit web: and also regarding investiture he does mention that: Which puts me in mind of Savants, although note that this comment doesn't cut out Feruchemy (though also doesn't explicitly include it). Invested by regular use of Feruchemy? Is that a thing, and what does that look like?
  2. I think the WoB about Mistborn being invested is a little misleading as stated here, and it's well worth reading it in context (but only a little misleading; it's not a matter of Moogle reading it wrong so much as it's a matter of the WoB being a little ambiguous and not easily summarized). After agreeing that Mistborn aren't specifically invested when not burning, he backtracks with "I'm going to have to back up on that one and say, yes, the mistborn are as invested as a Knight Radiant" before clarifying that Invested isn't really the right term: "Investing the wrong term, but you have all these connections in the spiritual realm". Does this mean that talking about someone "with powers" as Invested is an incorrect use of terminology? Is a Feruchemist Invested? Perhaps having these kinds of powers is always a matter of "connections in the spiritual realm". At the very least I think it's well worth adding the "Mistborn are as invested as a Knight Radiant" for clarity.
  3. "I would so wanna be a Coinshot! If I could pick any Allomantic power it would be a Coinshot, okay, like, I just wanna fly..." Lurcher for me. Why fly when you can be really lazy instead? So much better than Coinshot in my opinion. And flinging metal at people? Please. That's what guns are for!
  4. I can see why you're missing Renarin, he's Artifabulous. (Did I write this post solely to make that stupid joke? Yes. Yes I did)
  5. Maybe put that all in one post next time.
  6. Need to start a funeral music company called the Band of Mourning.
  7. Indeed! That also! A super-immortal fleeing doesn't make any sense at all given what the heroes knew (though they were pretty distracted by Limelight at the time). Limelight's plan makes sense since he doesn't actually have to kill Larcener, he just has to get his cells to make the Motivator, but I'm surprised no one questioned him. Maybe they assumed he knew Larcener's weakness?
  8. I loved the Larcener as Calamity reveal because I have a love/hate relationship with permanent power theft/copying. It's such a cool power because it lets you have, as well as an assortment of powerful abilities, little "useless" abilities that are good in a day to day situations but you probably wouldn't want as your solitary power. I guess it's the difference between being a wizard and a superhero... having an assortment of random abilities which share the screen time, versus having a few core abilities you use in different ways. I loved the way Larcener used his powers, conjuring his comforts, making decoys and generally getting around like a really lazy wizard. Permanent power theft/copying is cool. However it's also a terrible power because it becomes an "automatic pick" which distorts any interaction with the universe... my first impulse with the "create your own epic" thread was to make someone with power theft/copying. Because why not? I love Telekinesis, but why pick Telekinesis (or whatever power is your favourite) when you can pick a power that can let you have the power you actually want... and all the others! It also ruins the fictive universe, because in a universe of people with power theft/copying, the thieves/copycats not only start to quickly outclass everyone else, but also lose all the individuality of their powers and become homogeneous. So permanent power theft/copying sucks! So when we first hear of/meet Larcener my reaction was "Dingo!" And then I started hoping he was really a non-epic who'd developed the motivator technology to masterful levels and whose array of powers were all derived from dead epics (which would have been a really cool story line by the way). But as irritating as his powers were (because of their universe breaking implications), I really enjoyed him as a character. And then when he's revealed as Calamity, his differences from the other Assumers (who are implied to all be non-permanent power thieves, and therefore non-broken) are all explained, and the universe became non-broken again. Hooray! In hindsight, in fact, the severely broken nature of Larcener's powers strikes me as a hint intended to point to his true identity, much like the strange ways he is restricted also hint at what's ahead.
  9. No problem. If you haven't seen it already, this might also interest you: Source: http://www.theoryland.com/intvmain.php?i=979#53 The Coppermind Wiki is a goldmine of WoBs about specific characters. I knew this one existed, but it's nice to be able to just look up Sigzil and find the source of it
  10. Brandon has noted a connection between Worldsinger and the Scadrian Worldbringers before. http://www.17thshard.com/forum/topic/1308-hoid-founded-the-worldsingers-and-worldbringers/#entry22043(This is the source the Coppermind uses for this information. I'm sure there was a better source for this... can anyone find it?) Also, this (old) discussion might be of interest to you: http://www.17thshard.com/forum/topic/2504-sigzil/
  11. I found the need for a corpse-boat weird too. Also, why a corpse?
  12. Yeah, Scadsmar was "inspired" by Shadesmar, and it's only a pet name.
  13. In Secret History dead Koloss appeared as Humans in Scadsmar (my pet name for Scadrial's Cognitive realm). Now that Sazed has changed the nature of Koloss, do dead Koloss appear as Koloss, or humans? (Probably still humans would be my guess).
  14. @mjk: You're amazing, thank you for that post. Regarding the reappearance of Atium, I'm surprised no one has quoted this yet: Source: http://www.theoryland.com/intvsresults.php?kwt=%27sazed%27(Number 9) Also, this: Source: http://www.theoryland.com/intvsresults.php?kwt=%27atium%27(Number 17) I think these indicate that Atium isn't just going to spring up without Sazed directly intervening, regardless of the timeline Kelsier gives. EDIT: Man I hate the quoting mechanics on this site. I'm constantly wrestling with the ways they randomly screw up. EDIT 2: Fixed it.