If I recall correctly, the gnome invention rules were left on the editing floor when they cranked out the DLCS. When will we be seeing these gnomish invention rules? Will they appear in a future product, be available in a free web enhancement, or something else entirely?
I've got a player in my group that has expressed great interest in playing a tinker gnome inventor-type and although I've seen 3rd edition conversions of the old Dragonlance Adventures invention rules and have even made my own conversion of those rules ... they seem overly complicated and counterintuitive at points. It'd be great to see invention rules without having to resort to non-Dragonlance resources (e.g. Warcraft, the Forgotten Realms, etc.).
Originally posted by iltharanos
they seem overly complicated and counterintuitive at points.
That's a big part of the problem.
Gnomes, or at least gnomes that aren't mad gnomes, are incredibly gifted innovators and engineers but are cursed to constantly revise, retool, overcomplicate and (for all intents and purposes) unconsciously sabotage all of their works. You can't get a simple, useful device from a gnome tinker, it has to be an extraordinarily complicated or inefficient (to our eyes) contraption that appears to do a number of things apart from what it was designed for.
Gnome tinkers have spread to other game worlds and have become a hallmark of many setting's view of gnomes, but the one thing that hasn't migrated is Reorx's Curse. Thus, the image of these gnomes being masterful inventors with great skill in making steampunk wonders is missing the simple fact that they usually don't work.
How to make a character who spends most of his time obsessing over every last detail of a gadget or invention without being able to properly complete it to the specifications originally laid out is a very good question indeed.
Cheers,
Cam
Originally posted by iltharanos
So ...
If I recall correctly, the gnome invention rules were left on the editing floor when they cranked out the DLCS. When will we be seeing these gnomish invention rules? Will they appear in a future product, be available in a free web enhancement, or something else entirely?
I've got a player in my group that has expressed great interest in playing a tinker gnome inventor-type and although I've seen 3rd edition conversions of the old Dragonlance Adventures invention rules and have even made my own conversion of those rules ... they seem overly complicated and counterintuitive at points. It'd be great to see invention rules without having to resort to non-Dragonlance resources (e.g. Warcraft, the Forgotten Realms, etc.).
The gnome invention rules are currently planned for a product that is currently called RACES OF ANSALON on our tentative 2005 schedule. I'd really like to see them reach the light of day, we just have to wait a bit longer!
Jamie Chambers
Sovereign Press, Inc.
Originally posted by Cam Banks
Gnome tinkers have spread to other game worlds and have become a hallmark of many setting's view of gnomes, but the one thing that hasn't migrated is Reorx's Curse.
For the most part, yes, but there was a mishap table for the gnome artificer in Magic of Faerun.
The Gnome Artificer is actually one of my favorite tinker gnome character types. They have device powers, which mimic spells. So, if you want a flamethrower, just mimic burning hands.
The Forgotten Realms Faith and Pantheons books also has a techsmith, which is sort of a specialty priest of Gond. One of the big features of this is that they can create "Gondsmen", which are mechanical constructs. This could be adapted to create autognomes (from Spelljammer fame). The nice part is that you can create all sorts of autognomes.
Warcraft also has a base tinker class, which could be useful.
So there's a few things out there, although nothing DL-specific at this time. Still, there's a lot one can do with a combination of Craft, Knowledge, and Profession skills.
Originally posted by jechambers
The gnome invention rules are currently planned for a product that is currently called RACES OF ANSALON on our tentative 2005 schedule. I'd really like to see them reach the light of day, we just have to wait a bit longer!
Jamie Chambers
Sovereign Press, Inc.
Excellent. I always hoped Sovereign Press would plan on cranking out a races book, it's good to know you guys do have it on the drawing board!
1) Take 10 minutes or more to design a single invention.
2) make the tinker character completely useless and/or an endangerment to the party.
Frankly I don't want to bring tinker rules into my game if it is just going to be complicated, disruptive, and annoy the rest of the players in the party.
Warcraft also has rules for designing inventions, but a big difference in their rules is that the players can decide how reliable they want the invention to be by paying more or spending more time on it. I would like to choose how likely my invention is going to malfunction so I can have the occassional hillarious disaster, yet still have a class that is actually useful for something other than making all my friends angry.
While I hate the rest of the book, I love the Warcraft Technology rules. They're short, easy to use, and allow me to build whatever I need. There is more DM fiat the more you drift away from war machines, but frankly that is what you'll be designing 90% of the time anyway.
Originally posted by ferratus
I don't know about the rest of you, but I would prefer tinker rules that didn't:
1) Take 10 minutes or more to design a single invention.
2) make the tinker character completely useless and/or an endangerment to the party.
Can't agree with you more there. A streamlined set of invention rules would be nice. Mundane and magic items are both created in just a few minutes real time, at most. While it may be fun for a player to spend hours thinking about all the new inventions his gnome PC can make, it'd hardly be the same if it took him that long to actually implement them using tinkering rules.
I'm not sure I really want to buy Warcraft just for the tinkering rules ...
Are there really no other redeeming qualities in the remainder of the book?
I keep it balanced and enjoy it.
Originally posted by iltharanos
I'm not sure I really want to buy Warcraft just for the tinkering rules ...
Are there really no other redeeming qualities in the remainder of the book?
Personally, I like the Warcraft book. I use the mounted warrior prestige class in there for my old beast rider character. There is some redundancy in there (i.e. an elven ranger prestige class, and something similar for paladins), but it has some neat ideas.
Now, back to tinkering...
I'll agree with the sentiment that tinkering rules shouldn't be too complex. I would think one could do it with some basic Craft, Knowledge, and Profession skills and be done with it. Use the rogue class, and you get plenty of skill points (even though some class abilities wouldn't fit the gnome).
Okay, so my question to you guys is - what sort of system would you like to see for tinkering rules? Skill-and-feat? Device powers that mimic spells? Or something else entirely?
Originally posted by Dragonhelm
Personally, I like the Warcraft book. I use the mounted warrior prestige class in there for my old beast rider character. There is some redundancy in there (i.e. an elven ranger prestige class, and something similar for paladins), but it has some neat ideas.
Now, back to tinkering...
I'll agree with the sentiment that tinkering rules shouldn't be too complex. I would think one could do it with some basic Craft, Knowledge, and Profession skills and be done with it. Use the rogue class, and you get plenty of skill points (even though some class abilities wouldn't fit the gnome).
Okay, so my question to you guys is - what sort of system would you like to see for tinkering rules? Skill-and-feat? Device powers that mimic spells? Or something else entirely?
How about re-engineering the rogue class so that instead of sneak attack, the rogue gets a bonus to their guild affiliation. Perhaps a +1 for each 1d6 of sneak attack. That plus the Skill Mastery ability would show a gnome developing a much greater understanding of their particular field of study. The invention rules could even include specific modifications that would require skill mastery and some "sneak attack" to produce. All the other stuff of the class makes sense, such as evasion and uncanny dodge, what with the exploding parts and razor sharp blades involved.
Originally posted by Dragonhelm
Personally, I like the Warcraft book. I use the mounted warrior prestige class in there for my old beast rider character. There is some redundancy in there (i.e. an elven ranger prestige class, and something similar for paladins), but it has some neat ideas.
That really drove me nuts. I mean, they basically took everything interesting out of the cleric and the ranger, and then reprinted a prestige class which put everything interesting back. So you have the healer and the scout class, and then the ranger, paladin, druid and preist prestige classes to make it look exactly like the ranger, paladin, cleric and druid base classes in the PHB. Why? If you're going to make your alternate classes looke exactly like the PHB versions, why not use the PHB classes?
Anyway, I did like some stuff too. I love the tinkering rules, the spells, and the feats. But the new core classes and prestige classes as a whole are either redundant, have abilities better accomplished with feats on a fighter, or just plain boring. The Tinker was the exception, and is a good class, though it is more of a battlefield engineer than the tinkers that would fit dragonlance.
The gazeteer was also disappointing, though it was better than the one in the DLCS simply because you at least know the politics and current affairs of that region. I've loved what I saw of the warcraft monster book and the Alliance and Horde Compendium, but I'm lukewarm to the setting until I see their Atlas. If their Atlas gives me the stuff that the Forgotten Realms campaign setting did, I'm in.
The thing I loved most about the Warcraft book though was the snippets of stories from the perspective of residents of the Warcraft universe, because it made the setting come alive for me. The main thing about a campaign books is to try and make the reader interested in the setting. You want to create enough evocative imagery to make a person feel like they've seen the wonders of that world. DLCS tried to make the reader excited about the rules they developed instead, which made it a big snoozefest. There aren't any new ideas, places, or new campaign seeds in the DLCS, and that is why it suffers. Heck, only one new NPC is there, Lord Krell.
Okay, so my question to you guys is - what sort of system would you like to see for tinkering rules? Skill-and-feat? Device powers that mimic spells? Or something else entirely?
I agree that a tinker class is perhaps unnecessary. However, if one can be made that is fun to play outside of the tinkering itself I don't see why we shouldn't. I wouldn't care whether it was a core or prestige class. I would like it to be taken by other races than gnomes, though I would understand why it would kept to just gnomes for world flavour.
Otherwise, Craft (Technological Device) seems to be good enough for me. I shuddered in horror when I read that the tinker gnome rules were 17 pages long. 4 or 5 pages should be the limit. Warcraft accomplished that by keeping in mind the only things you really need to know about a device for D&D purposes are:
1) How much can it boost the character's abilities?
2) How much damage can it inflict or prevent?
3) How durable is it?
4) How much cargo can it carry?
5) How fast does it move?
6) At what range can it affect its target?
After that, it really isn't important to figure out the specifics of the device. The actual moving parts of the machine and its actual purpose are relatively unimportant to the game balance.
For the construction of the device, I would avoid what the scientist class from Pulp Heroes did (and I beleive the gnome artificer) and require that XP be spent to create these devices if you make creating inventions part of a class. After all, these are more than just the magical items used for convenience such as what a wizard or sorcerer might use, the devices are in effect the "spells" of the tinker. You know the abilities he needs to do damage. If he spends XP all the time to create devices that will do the damage of a fighter's sword or a mage's spell then he'll start lagging behind the rest of the party very quickly.
Of course, if there is no tinker class, the standards of using gold and XP for creating magical items are probably a good guide. I'm not so sure I like the idea of spell mimicry for devices for the simple reason that it is too restrictive. Of course, without using spells as a guide, which are handily categorized by level, you can't really determine what XP would be necessary. That's probably why the Warcraft designers dropped the XP requirement in the first place.
Makes sense after all. With a device that is a portable weapon, you are already penalized by having to take an exotic weapon proficiency to use it effectively. If it isn't portable (like all magical items are) then it is only good for occassional use. Plus, it puts it in synch with other craft checks, which don't need XP to craft alchemical items.
Originally posted by Dragonhelm
Personally, I like the Warcraft book. I use the mounted warrior prestige class in there for my old beast rider character. There is some redundancy in there (i.e. an elven ranger prestige class, and something similar for paladins), but it has some neat ideas.
Now, back to tinkering...
I'll agree with the sentiment that tinkering rules shouldn't be too complex. I would think one could do it with some basic Craft, Knowledge, and Profession skills and be done with it. Use the rogue class, and you get plenty of skill points (even though some class abilities wouldn't fit the gnome).
Okay, so my question to you guys is - what sort of system would you like to see for tinkering rules? Skill-and-feat? Device powers that mimic spells? Or something else entirely?
Using existing mechanics via the skill and feat system would be ideal. The game has a sufficient amount of complexity without further cluttering it with a whole new rules subset. By working with skills (craft, profession, knowledge) and feats, it simplifies things to a workable level. Since the gnomes aren't actually building magic items, I'd not really take to the whole device powers mimicking spells approach (ala gnome artificer).
I don't even see the need for a Tinker class, as the adaptability of the Expert class can easily be used to simulate tinkers.
As for the specifics of implementing these tinkering concepts ... I don't know.
Originally posted by iltharanos
Using existing mechanics via the skill and feat system would be ideal. The game has a sufficient amount of complexity without further cluttering it with a whole new rules subset. By working with skills (craft, profession, knowledge) and feats, it simplifies things to a workable level.
Skills and feats would be ideal, IMO. That way, any class could use them.
Since the gnomes aren't actually building magic items, I'd not really take to the whole device powers mimicking spells approach (ala gnome artificer).
I've considered the idea of a modification of this, where one could create a bunch of device powers with a similar format to spells and psionic powers. It would be a d20 mechanic, but certainly that could take a good portion of a sourcebook. It's an option, although I'm not sure it is the best option for DL.
I don't even see the need for a Tinker class, as the adaptability of the Expert class can easily be used to simulate tinkers.
The Expert is an NPC class, though, and as such works well for your average NPC gnome. Where we get stumped is with player character gnomes.
Basically, a tinker gnome PrC should be easy to play, d20 compatible, something that doesn't distract from the game, and it should provide something new, unique, and interesting. In other words, it needs to be playable.
Jamie Chambers
Sovereign Press, Inc.
Originally posted by jechambers
Sounds like what we need is a player-character version of the Expert that will allow craftsmen and tinkers to be viable in an adventuring party. Gee... I hope someone is working on something like that!
Okay, we're going the tinker class route then. That means it could either be a skill and feat system (ala Warcraft) or done by class abilities.
Well if we're going to make it a class, people are going to want to tinker every session, so the main thing to remember is to not have an XP cost for the devices, and to keep the rules for crafting devices to 5 pages or less. It will be extremely difficult because designing devices is something that needs a comprehensive guideline. Lord knows, I'm no rulesmith, so I wouldn't even begin to know how this would be done if I didn't have the Warcraft rules in front of me. However if the rules are too long, too complex or simply result in useless inventions all the time, I don't want them.
Originally posted by jechambers
Sounds like what we need is a player-character version of the Expert that will allow craftsmen and tinkers to be viable in an adventuring party. Gee... I hope someone is working on something like that!
Jamie Chambers
Sovereign Press, Inc.
Technically, someone workED on a PC version of the Expert class. It is included in the book Unearthed Arcana. However, that class had as much flavor as wet carpet, so if you are working on one or plan to work on one, feel free to make it much better.
Originally posted by Daedavias
Technically, someone workED on a PC version of the Expert class. It is included in the book Unearthed Arcana. However, that class had as much flavor as wet carpet, so if you are working on one or plan to work on one, feel free to make it much better.
Really? What page number? I admittedly haven't perused my copy all too thoroughly but I don't recall seeing a variant of the Expert NPC class. There was the generic class called Expert, but the generic classes are meant as replacements for all the standard core classes, rather than being PC versions of NPC classes.
Since Dragonlance made a PC version of the Aristocrat class, it'd make sense that they'd make a PC version of the Expert class.
Originally posted by iltharanos
Really? What page number? I admittedly haven't perused my copy all too thoroughly but I don't recall seeing a variant of the Expert NPC class. There was the generic class called Expert, but the generic classes are meant as replacements for all the standard core classes, rather than being PC versions of NPC classes.
Since Dragonlance made a PC version of the Aristocrat class, it'd make sense that they'd make a PC version of the Expert class.
I was referring to the Expert generic class. I don't have the book so I was just going off sight and very little reading.
I agree that they should make a fully-functional version of the Expert NPC class for player usage. If you look at it in a peculiar way, the mystic is kinda the Adept NPC class. Kinda...