Dynamis - Limit Breaks

[Cleretic]

If you want to argue 'the Encyclopedia Eorzea might be wrong', that's certainly an angle, but we need to admit alternative sources of information in. Not just because we get nothing by just looking at a source and saying 'nuh-uh' with no regard, but also because this isn't a one-source thing; that one source happens to have the most exhaustive explanation, but it's not the only thing saying that LBs are not necessarily using dynamis. And here, the other subjects to consider are that the Ktisis Hyperborea Trust NPCs, and the boss of the Seat of Sacrifice, can all use LBs despite being baseline biologically incapable of manipulating dynamis.

We can't try to bring 'Ktisis' dampener means they can manipulate dynamis' in, either; not only does that have absolutely no evidence to it, but the lines they say alongside these LBs don't imply any surprise in or newness to this situation (well, Hyth is surprised you let him do it, but that's different). In fact, as Lyth pointed out, Emet very directly cites aether as his power source. The Trust Insighters people have actually transcribed every single quote for Venat and Hythlodaeus in all languages (not Emet, for some reason), so you can see for yourself:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...#gid=856154097

No matter what, we're in a state where neither the amount of dynamis and non-dynamis LBs are at 0% or 100%; some LBs cannot possibly be dynamis, while at least one LB, the one against the Endsinger, definitely is (however, again, everything in the Endsinger fight is by nature at least partially dynamis-powered). Where the majority lands depends entirely on whether you think the Encyclopedia Eorzea is mostly accurate. And personally, I think it is, for one simple reason: the most confirmably non-dynamis LBs outside of the Encyclopedia descriptions come from Endwalker. It wouldn't make sense for them to do a blanket, wide-ranging retcon in the exact same content load that they introduced clear exceptions to this supposed 'new fact'.

[RyuDragnier]

If you want to argue 'the Encyclopedia Eorzea might be wrong', that's certainly an angle, but we need to admit alternative sources of information in.

I hate to bring up old threads better left dead (due to the arguments, this one in context being about Venat), but you said in this quote long ago:

Again: the use of passages from the Encyclopedia Eorzea confirms in-universe sources. Specifically in-universe, present-day, Eorzean sources (although some of these may be Sharlayan at this stage).

By that very standard, doesn't that make the EE fallible simply BECAUSE Dynamis isn't well known yet?

[Cleretic]

I hate to bring up old threads better left dead (due to the arguments, this one in context being about Venat), but you said in this quote long ago:



By that very standard, doesn't that make the EE fallible simply BECAUSE Dynamis isn't well known yet?

Yes, I wasn't saying that the Encyclopedia Eorzea was infallible.

What I was saying is that we have no actual evidence that says we should throw away this information and just go 'BUT DYNAMIS', especially because Endwalker itself provided explicitly clear examples of non-dynamis LBs that actually support those descriptions. There's no counterevidence that suggests that these LB descriptions aren't accurate, so we have no reason to believe they aren't.


Again: There's descriptions of abilities in the Encyclopedia that genuinely do sound like they might be dynamis-related, and are worthy of discussion on that front; I'd point out Manawall and Unleash. We should talk about them, instead of just going 'the NIN LB3 is dynamis because I think that's cool and don't care that it's got a direct explanation'.