Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 18 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #151317
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    I’m posting this here becuse I need to say it, I hope it spawns some useful discussion.

    “for some people if you give them an inch they will take a mile” some old proverb but I think its what applies here, I’m talking about the vocal minoritys of the campaign , Talent Drake (Matt Jenkins) in this specific case.

    you guys(Eric) said sure hey its not allowed in the rules but if you want to tell people your playing this thing go for it, and now he wants to do something similar for a path thats pretty much not allowed (or at least parts of it), and some of the other vocal minorities are already piping in on the thread, with but why not crafting, and how about my chariots. they guys dont stop pushing their little agendas for whatever thing they want to do to be disproportionatly good or unique.

    in relation to the arcanis campaign its rediculous to hear something like “oh I have this thing thats not normally allowed because I emailed pedro” what kind of prescident does that set, oh i have a val’sungha because Eric said I could is exactly whats going on here ( the examples that come up off the top of my head are animal companions not normally allowed, playing Ul characters and playing hainese characters)

    here is what I want, I want people to play completed characters that come from the lands they are allowed to come from with families that they are allowed to be from and when the rules open up to allow for differnt things, allow them to create those different things via rebuild.

    You know, everybody playing with the same sets of rules, not people playing hey look at me I’m unique across the board in true one upmanship style.

    #263091
    drafit
    Participant

    Josh,

    If I’m reading this correctly, I don’t see what the issue is.

    Jenkins is saying that he’s a val’Sungha but is not benifiting from any special rules. Its the same as you playing your val’Inares character but saying you’re a val’Holryn.

    Am I missing something?

    Please explain.

    #263097
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    the difference is that I’m not insisting on playing a “disciplus geometricus” path character (crafting path) with substitutions for the crafting talents. and asking for errata to be made for the class so that it is playable.

    It’s functionally the difference between playing a character with the last name val’Sungha and a character that is a val’Sungha. I believe you guys are advocating for the former, and he believes the latter, its a stupid line in the sand, but like I said earlier the other people that are crossing it are saying they are playing Ul’s so its significant somewhere.

    #263107
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    I see where Josh is coming with in regards to the Disciplus Geometricus Path.

    We need a clear stance on where the campaign stands on Crafting Rules and explicitly state which backgrounds and paths associated with it (such as Master Smith & Disciplus Geometricus) are not playable in the Living Campaign. This needs to be put in an updated Campaign Guide as opposed to linking and referencing obscure, forgotten posts on the forums.

    Its one thing saying you are a ‘val’Sungha’ and taking none of the benefits (perfectly fine with me) but asking to play a banned path but only implementing the parts that are not geared towards crafting is a different story and has the potential for opening up a large can of worms.

    #263109
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    thank you Joe, that is certainly part of what I am saying, my first post was not the complete conversation (as thats spread over some other posts).

    its not that the inches that bother me, its the miles that people take. but I don’t see how to deal with it other than not let people take the inches.

    #263111
    drafit
    Participant

    Hello,

    Alright now the posts make sense.

    As I don’t read the Rules section of the forum, I missed that entire interaction.

    Coincidently, Peter, Eric and I were trying to figure out how to make that particular Path to work, (Friday was a slow day at the Con), so we’ll discuss with the LA Staff on whether or not to implement a version of it or not.

    #263115
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    Personally, I would rather see that come out in some sort of different version that utilizes the same rules, because the Rune Casting and Geometric Talents look to be pretty interesting (and maybe a bit powerful)

    So a possible alternate replacement path:
    red indicated new / changed from disciplus geomtricus, and blue is the new talent i added to replace rune crafting

    Rune Focused Caster

    Requirements:
    Initiate
    Talent: Arcane Spell Casting (Tier 1)
    Skills: Arcanum (Thaumaturgy, Sorcery or Shamanism)
    Artisan: (Stoneworking, Woodworking, Leatherworking, Metalworking, or Tailoring),
    Knowledge: (Arcanum), and
    Knowledge: (Metaphysics)
    Must posses at least one Rune that benefits spellcasting

    and would give a benefit of:
    Skill: Artisan(any one), Knowledge: (Metaphysics)
    Talents: Rune Casting, Metaphysical Understanding

    Adept
    Requirements:
    Rune Focused Caster Initiate
    6 ranks in all of the above required skills
    Must posses at least one Tier 2 Rune that benefits spellcasting

    Benefits
    Skill: Linguistics, Knowledge: (Arcanum), Knowledge: (Metaphysics)
    Talents: Runic Focus, Geometric Adaptation

    Master
    Requirements:
    Rune Focused Caster Adept
    9 ranks in all the required skills
    Must posses at least one Tier 3 Rune that benefits spellcasting

    Benefits
    Skill: Arcanum: (any), Artisan(any one), and Knowledge: (Metaphysics)
    Talents: Runic Focus Second Tier, Rune Casting

    *******************
    Talent Runic Focus (this can be one talent or split into differently named talents)
    Tier 1 benefit: (Minor Benefit for using a runed item while casting) +1 to hit when casting with a rune
    Tier 2 benefit: (better different bonus) +1 to the benefit from the rune you use

    #263127
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    Not having much in the race for this path, I would recommend listing specific rune choices as one that “benefits spellcasting” is subjective as almost any rune on a wand might qualify.

    John

    #263140
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    in my mind, yeah any rune on a wand would qualify, as would weapon runes like the elemental runes , its a pretty easy requirement to fill

    #263270
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    On the talk of playing races/nations that haven’t been opened up yet because of lack of book. There are two players in my locals that come to mind.

    A val’Sungha (playing a val’sheem with a kio blade)
    An ul’ of Sarish (playing a Unsealed Lands val’Mehan).
    Holy champion of Hurrian who is role-playing that they are an Aegis of Hurrian.

    They all plan on retweaking (with all the gold, xp, influence, favor and etc they have) once whatever book/pdf comes out containing it. I was under the impression that these things were okay. Am I wrong?

    Obviously re-flavoring something shouldn’t be allowed to keep them special or for blatant story reasons. But things that obviously going to get released for basic play I thought was okay.

    #263277
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    An ul’ of Sarish (playing a Unsealed Lands val’Mehan).
    .

    Do you mean mean Khitani instead of Unsealed Lands? Even when Haina was a player option, there were no Ul there.

    #263313
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    No. He built a val’Mehan from the Unsealed Lands rules wise and has been playing (it as) an ul’Sarish since the First City Arc started. He’s waiting for the book to get released and will convert afterwords.

    I know there are plenty of people who built Kios or Vals and are playing them as val’Sungha. Waiting for them to be released so they can rebuild.

    These types of players are not benefiting mechanically from refluffing, but depending on the GM they may be benefiting role-play wise, which isn’t much. When the person playing the val/ul of Sarish, his mechanical benefits are all val’Mehan bloodline talents, but when I am running PCs they react to him like he’s Khitani.

    How does campaign staff feel about things like this? What are the limitations on rebuilds? What are the limitations on refluffing?

    #263316
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    I dont know what campaign staff would say…but here is my 2 cents…

    I think the difference with the Kio/Val (as Sungha) is that League of Princes is a valid starting area. (Unnsealed Lands are not)….also, story-wise, there are NO Vals/Uls in the Unsealed Lands (other than Vasik)…Even if Haina were to become playable, and Uls were a valid racial option….he could not be an Ul’Tensen (or whatever) from Haina because they simply do not exist.

    #263317
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    I dont know what campaign staff would say…but here is my 2 cents…

    I think the difference with the Kio/Val (as Sungha) is that League of Princes is a valid starting area. (Unnsealed Lands are not)….also, story-wise, there are NO Vals/Uls in the Unsealed Lands (other than Vasik)…Even if Haina were to become playable, and Uls were a valid racial option….he could not be an Ul’Tensen (or whatever) from Haina because they simply do not exist.
    I didn’t know the Unsealed Lands weren’t campaign legal. But not the point.

    Aside from his build, is it okay to refluff into things that you know will be available later?

    #263543
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    My opinion on the 2 Rune classes are as follows. They should be legal for players. BUT players should not crafting anything for monetary gain, especially magical items. Players should be warned that they will not be able to craft runes (or other times) for profit or at cheaper rates. There should be no monetary benefit from craft runes, or craft anything. I think that players with Inscribe Rune should be able to act as an available rune smith for a table, if he/she has access to a “rune forge” (?). Which doesn’t do much for anyone considering there is already a rune smith in that city.

    He’s the thing though, it allows players to take rune casting, but more importantly, it will open up role-playing opportunities! Examples.

    A player with inscribe rune is asked to help a rune smith out. Insert some sort of reward.

    Players find a dying relic, a table with a rune smith is able to salvage the item and get it back to the *insert society/nation*. Insert some sort of reward.

    Players with inscribe rune find knowledge of a lost rune. Runesmith players who gain this reward can learn to inscribe this rune. Other players in the campaign can only gain access to that rune by playing at a table or LARP with someone with that talent. Again for no monetary gain, they may not profit from making this rune for other players).

    I think players making craft characters is fine, but in the campaign, it should not be a means of making or saving money. Game economies are hard to control with any kind of crafting going on. But I think like any other non-adventuring skill (see perform: any, profession: any, or knowledge: Altherian Fashion), it makes for great role-playing and flushes out characters.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 18 total)
  • The forum ‘Harvesters Internal’ is closed to new topics and replies.