Collab session notes/2026-07-22 Pneuma Dissonance Affinity Model

Synthesized by an AI from a live Tyler ↔ Bembi design conversation on 2026-07-22. A record of what was discussed, not settled design — session notes, not canon.

Context

Live design test session, prompted by a question about the existing Pneuma wiki page: it establishes that growing affinity in an opposing element (Dissonance) is "more difficult" than an allied one, but doesn't define the actual mechanism. This session worked out a candidate three-phase model.

Decision: three-phase affinity model

Affinity per element is tracked as total cumulative pneuma invested, measured against a fixed per-element (or global elemental) cap. Percentages below are derived from that cap, not a separate stat — this keeps a single ledger and lines up with a possible future elemental talent tree (nodes = investment milestones).

Phase 1 — Free zone (0% – 25%)

• No decay.
• Growth in any element (allied or opposing) is slow but unrestricted.
• Represents an unfocused, experimenting caster.

Phase 2 — Locked in (25% – Mastery)

• Crossing 25% permanently locks in that element as a chosen affinity. This crossing is one-way — decay can never push total investment back below 25%. It is a floor, not a soft checkpoint.
• Casting the opposing (Dissonant) element still grows that opposing affinity, but slowly, and decays the locked-in element's invested total, per-cast (small amount each cast, not a time-based drain).
• This is the real tradeoff phase: going hybrid-opposite actively costs you progress toward mastery.

Phase 3 — Mastery (90% or 100%, unresolved — see below)

• Once an element reaches the mastery cutoff, it becomes permanently decay-immune.
• The opposing element can then be used freely, any amount, with zero decay to the mastered element, forever.
• Narratively: a true master has earned the right to diversify without penalty; a mid-tier specialist has to actively defend their identity.

Reasoning notes

• Tyler's original instinct was "slower growth only" (no decay at all) — simplest, least punishing.
• Bembi liked growth+decay in principle but flagged the real risk: decay needs careful tuning or it reads as an annoying tax rather than a meaningful build choice, rather than creating a genuinely distinct playstyle.
• The threshold/floor idea (25%) was proposed as the way to reconcile this: early experimentation stays free and cheap; decay only bites once a player has meaningfully committed to a specialization.
• The mastery unlock (phase 3) exists so specialization doesn't become a permanent trap — a true master should be able to branch out without being punished forever.
• Total-invested-pneuma was chosen over a raw percentage stat specifically because it composes cleanly with talent-tree-style progression (points earned via elemental investment).

Open questions

• Mastery cutoff value — still split: Tyler favors 90%, Bembi favors 100%. Unresolved, needs a follow-up decision.
• Cap size — the per-element (or global) cap that percentages are derived from has no proposed value yet.
• Per-cast decay amount — not yet numerically defined; needs tuning once spell costs/mastery curves exist (neither exists yet as of this session).
• No existing spell-cost or mastery-curve design to anchor these numbers against — this model is being built ahead of that groundwork, so numbers here are placeholders until that lands.