Paradigm Concepts
http://forums.paradigmconcepts.com/

5th edition primer comments and questions
http://forums.paradigmconcepts.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2385		 Page 4 of 5
Author:  PCI_StatMonkey [ Mon Oct 24, 2016 10:45 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 5th edition primer comments and questions
Haakon_val'Ishi wrote:
Page 48 Variant Former Legionnaire Background under armor it refers to Lorica Squamata (chain mail). Lorica Squamata was scale mail. The chain mail was referred to as Lorica Hamata. A minor thing that can be fixed later but it jumped out at me when I read it this morning. :)

OF course that begs the question do they mean the medium armor "chain shirt" which more closely matches what the real world legionnaires wore OR the "chain mail" armor in the book with makes me think of a Norman style chain hauberk.

Personally I assume chain shirt. But this is Arcanis so I wonder what the official ruling is. Thanks!


The equivalency is not meant to be a direct translation but a "stat" translation... there are no rules for "scale mail" in 5e (and the AC chart is too tight just to add it)

as such Lorica Squamata better fits the stats for full chain mail while Lorica Hamata better fits the stats for a chain shirt...
Author:  Haakon_val'Ishi [ Mon Oct 24, 2016 9:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 5th edition primer comments and questions
That works for me Pedro. :) Thanks for the clarification.
Author:  Deviknyte [ Thu Oct 27, 2016 12:08 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 5th edition primer comments and questions
I'd like to say thanks for putting the role playing restrictions into the rules.

page 32 wrote:
Additionaly the Clergy of Illiir are always Male while
clerics of Saluwe and the Fire Dragon are always Female.
Is this just in the Mother Church or all Pantheon of Man churches? Also, when they are printed, will these restrictions suppose to apply to Holy Champion and Paladin?

If the monk class is going to have role-play restrictions on Archetypes then I feel these need to be laid out. Such as Path of the Shadow must worship Cadic. While this is mentioned in the primer, it is mentioned as fluff and not as a rule like the cleric restrictions are. The following all have problems where the restrictions are written in fluff and not as rules: Totem Barbarians, Druid, Monk, Sorcerer, and Warlock. It will save a lot of headache if these are presented in a way that players know these things are not allowed.

page 47 wrote:
Ssethric (Ssethric pantheon), or Eloran (Elorii pantheon)
Acolyte gives you a language based on your church. Considering you would already know these languages if you were of these races this part is reduntant because you don't actually gain anything.
Author:  Nierite [ Thu Oct 27, 2016 8:55 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 5th edition primer comments and questions
Deviknyte wrote:
I'd like to say thanks for putting the role playing restrictions into the rules.

page 32 wrote:
Additionaly the Clergy of Illiir are always Male while
clerics of Saluwe and the Fire Dragon are always Female.
Is this just in the Mother Church or all Pantheon of Man churches? Also, when they are printed, will these restrictions suppose to apply to Holy Champion and Paladin?


By following the rules presented in ARPG, male Illiirite PRIESTS and female Saluwean PRIESTS is common in all offshoots of the Mother Church of Coryan (including in Milandir, Altheria, etc). Paladins/Holy Champions and such are not priests, though when the final product is released there may be some restriction there. In ARPG the mark of a 'priest' is Divine Spell Casting, while 5e the mechanics make us have to blur the lines somewhat.

We do not know what the Khitani Kalindruhl says on the matter, or really any of the other churches. In Haina all of the 'major' priests are Male because it is a male dominated society, so at least some of this is cultural.

page 47 wrote:
Ssethric (Ssethric pantheon), or Eloran (Elorii pantheon)
Acolyte gives you a language based on your church. Considering you would already know these languages if you were of these races this part is reduntant because you don't actually gain anything.[/quote]

Redundant, but in no way incorrect. That is like saying that if you were a Roman who speaks and your litergal language was Latin, it is redundant to say that if you are a priest you learn Latin. What if you are a Greek? Then your native language is Greek, so if you wanted to become a priest you'd have to learn Latin.

In terms of the world, for the Ssethric Pantheon not all Ssethrics speak Ssethic as their vernacular tongue. The Black Talons speak Ss'ressen, so to them gaining Ssethric is NOT redundant.
Author:  Deviknyte [ Thu Oct 27, 2016 9:30 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 5th edition primer comments and questions
Nierite wrote:
By following the rules presented in ARPG, male Illiirite PRIESTS and female Saluwean PRIESTS is common in all offshoots of the Mother Church of Coryan (including in Milandir, Altheria, etc). Paladins/Holy Champions and such are not priests, though when the final product is released there may be some restriction there. In ARPG the mark of a 'priest' is Divine Spell Casting, while 5e the mechanics make us have to blur the lines somewhat.
I thought I remembered the male female thing not applying in Milandir which is why I asked. I also remember Larissa having weird restrictions as well. One thing that leds to conflict is players building off the way characters that aren't aloud, but the rules don't tell you as such. Clarification upfront could prevent a lot of this. We've all seen eloran priest of Cadic, and female priest of Illiir before.

Nierite wrote:
We do not know what the Khitani Kalindruhl says on the matter, or really any of the other churches. In Haina all of the 'major' priests are Male because it is a male dominated society, so at least some of this is cultural.
I would just like this to be spelled out. If building a character from Haina is an option that is to be available for campaign play then the restrictions should be laid out. Since Khitani aren't playable as of yet, their restrictions don't need to be spelled out until they are.

Nierite wrote:
Redundant, but in no way incorrect. That is like saying that if you were a Roman who speaks and your litergal language was Latin, it is redundant to say that if you are a priest you learn Latin. What if you are a Greek? Then your native language is Greek, so if you wanted to become a priest you'd have to learn Latin.

In terms of the world, for the Ssethric Pantheon not all Ssethrics speak Ssethic as their vernacular tongue. The Black Talons speak Ss'ressen, so to them gaining Ssethric is NOT redundant.
To be a cleric of Belisarda you have to be an elorii, I don't see anyway you could not be able to speak eloran do you? And yeah, not incorrect, but its just cleaner to skip the redundancy. It won't make players wonder, "why are you giving me something I already have?" or "Since I already speak Eloran can I get a different bonus lang so one of my abilities isn't wasted." You are right in that it is not redundant for Ss'ressen to gain ssethric. If forgot how the ssethric empire works.
Author:  wilcoxon [ Sun Nov 13, 2016 12:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 5th edition primer comments and questions
Nierite wrote:
In ARPG the mark of a 'priest' is Divine Spell Casting, while 5e the mechanics make us have to blur the lines somewhat.


Really? Templar does not directly grant Divine Spell Casting but it does explicitly open access to Divine Spell Casting. To me at least, a Templar with DSC is very different from a priest with DSC.
Author:  Nierite [ Sun Nov 13, 2016 1:43 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 5th edition primer comments and questions
This is very true. The way ARG was originally written there was a blurry line between what "priest" means, as it could mean Anointed Priest (Pa) or "person who casts divine spells" as suggested by the Castigate Spell. In terms of 'in universe', a Priest is a person who has been anointed, and therefore the Path, but mechanically there are some iffy parts in it.

Things that can be fixed in a 2.0 edition with more clear definitions.
Author:  Auroris [ Wed Feb 01, 2017 8:02 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 5th edition primer comments and questions
Just to provide clarity, I wanted to answer two questions that have come up here and I'm not sure if they have been completely answered.

If you have played a mod in the ARG setting and then run or play it in the 5e campaign, you will get a volunteer/replay certificate. Every 5e mod should have these, if they don't please let us know.

Regarding warlocks, they are arcane casters. Any reference to them being primal casters is an error from earlier ideas about the class.
Author:  toodeep [ Wed Feb 01, 2017 9:42 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 5th edition primer comments and questions
Auroris wrote:
Regarding warlocks, they are arcane casters. Any reference to them being primal casters is an error from earlier ideas about the class.


Woah. I thought it was the exact reverse. Earlier documents had some indications they were arcane, but all indications of that have been scrubbed from the most recent version of the primer and they are pretty solidly described as primal.

Pg 45 still says that warlocks with fiend or old one patrons are arcane, and all others are primal - which since the fiend and old one are NPC patrons only (pg 38) means that all PC warlocks would be primal.
Author:  Paldaris [ Wed Feb 01, 2017 10:51 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 5th edition primer comments and questions
PCI_StatMonkey wrote:
EddieS wrote:
Found a possible discrepancy in the Primer regarding the Dwarf. On pg. 22 of the Primer, under Dwarf Common Traits, the excerpt on Speed, it says: "Your base walking speed is 25 feet. Your speed is not reduced by wearing heavy armor."

In 5e, Heavy Armor doesn't reduce Speed. They do, however, all grant disadvantage on Stealth checks. Is the Dwarf trait an error or is it a feature of Heavy Armors being implemented in to Arcanis 5e?


That's was included in error.. ignore that line.

We will update the primer to remove it


Actually, in 5e certain heavy armors do restrict movement (from the SRD):

Heavy Armor. Heavier armor interferes with the wearer’s ability to move quickly, stealthily, and freely. If the Armor table shows “Str 13” or “Str 15” in the Strength column for an armor type, the armor reduces the wearer’s speed by 10 feet unless the wearer has a Strength score equal to or higher than the listed score.

Can we give that ability back to the dwarves? Those Reavers really need it!

Lucas
Page 4 of 5 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/