Disciplus Geometricus

I believe Henry put it best when this subject came up:

“The issue I have with the Master Smith option that you mention is that it would effectively take a character out of play. Such an apprenticeship would require a considerable amount of time to complete. If taken as a background, then what would be the real benefit? Crafting of items, etc is not supported by the campaign, so I don’t see it being worth the money spent.”

IMHO, the campaign staff has gone to great lengths to streamline the Arcanis play experience based on players’ feedback…eliminating cost of living, restoring balance to fate points, etc.. This particular Path is great for home campaigns but in the current system in place where we have more checks and balances to deal with from a managerial perspective, it is not as feasible as some players would like.

I feel Hat has clarified it spectacularly and blackthorn has given the exact reason.
The Path and Talents are not banned, but there are no rules in effect in the shared campaign for crafting. So you can take these things, but you can’t use them in the shared campaign. If you are fine with having Talents that provide you zero mechanical benefit then take the Path. But understand there is no substitutions or lesser effects for you.

wilcoxon is also right. PCI is losing out on an opportunity to provide crafting to players who really want it. These boards have really shown that some players REALLY want it. But Henry has clearly stated that crafting is a low priority on the list.
If your asking for a solid commitment of a Yes or No, then I’ll have to say No.

I can’t commit the Team to do something like this when we have so much more on our “To do” list. So if your investment in time is predicated on getting said commitment, it would probably be best to go with another concept and if/when the Team sanctions herbalism/poison rules, then revisit that character concept

I do feel the val’Sungha as playable is separate issue and shouldn’t be part of this thread. But I understand that SamhainIA was hoping to show that creating ad hoc rules are not allowed. Again Henry has stated this
While it certainly hasn’t been disallowed by the Legends of Acanis campaign, the fact that guidelines haven’t been put out for such an action doesn’t mean players can come up with their ad hoc rules and expect them to be implemented.

I have said this before and I will say it again: The shared campaign is all about playing the same game as everyone else, the rules that are out there are to provide a level playing field for players and GM’s alike. if you don’t want to follow those rules, or if you want to do something outside of those rules, you are better off exploring that character concept outside of the shared campaign. and playing something within the rules as part of the shared campaign.

Hey Joe,

Thank you for the response. I would like to point out here that I am not asking to be able to craft runes. The initiate level of this path does not grant that talent. It gives you a talent that allows you to do Rune Casting which is +2 to Passive casting level at a cost of +1 speed. It also gives you a core talent MetaPhysical Understanding which allows you to cast advanced spells more easily. The requirements for this initiate level are a bit nonsensical as has been pointed out. To wit, you have to have 3 ranks in Arcanum (Elder, Eldritch, or Primal). As we have gone over previously in this thread we think this should be errata to 3 ranks in Arcanum (Theurgy, Sorcery, or Shamanism). Thus a Sorcerer Priest of Sarish, an Elorii Mage, a Sanctorum Mage, or a Primal Shaman could all become Disciplus Geometricus. As written there is no such skill, and if there was the most logical person to take the path a Sarishan would be barred. Additionally, I would think that Psions should be allowed as well, but I really do not care about that.

I understand and support the no crafting rule for the shared campaign. I am not asking anyone to approve or disapprove the inscribe rune talent. Would it be cool if we could at least move our found runes around without having to resort to merchants? Sure, but again that is not the point here. I want to take the initiate level of this Path for my Sarishan Templar if it is legal to do so. If it is not then I will just take Myrmidon and go another way with the character.

Thanks,
I believe Henry put it best when this subject came up:

“The issue I have with the Master Smith option that you mention is that it would effectively take a character out of play. Such an apprenticeship would require a considerable amount of time to complete. If taken as a background, then what would be the real benefit? Crafting of items, etc is not supported by the campaign, so I don’t see it being worth the money spent.”

IMHO, the campaign staff has gone to great lengths to streamline the Arcanis play experience based on players’ feedback…eliminating cost of living, restoring balance to fate points, etc.. This particular Path is great for home campaigns but in the current system in place where we have more checks and balances to deal with from a managerial perspective, it is not as feasible as some players would like.

Henry,

Thank you for your response. Have a wonderful summer sir. Hope to see you again at Gencon.

Sincerely,
Matthew Jenkins

Hello Matthew,

The rules for the Rune Master (Disciplus Geometricus) path listed in FiM2 is not legal at this time. It is on the list of Things for the Campaign Staff to review for admittance (or not), but at this moment no one can take this Path.

I will speak with Peter to see what, if any, errata, is needed for Home Games.

Thank you.