Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DonAdam" data-source="post: 4134361" data-attributes="member: 2446">Your points are dead on if those are the two possibilities, but I don't really accept the dichotomy of making gadgets vs. using gadgets that are widespread. Here's what I was thinking:The problem with gadgeteer classes is that you probably don't want a world of weird gnomish technological devices, at least not for a typical D&D setting. In that sense, but the "Mad science" power source and the using-bombs-better-than-everyone Martial source are problematic. The former is problematic because it raises the question of why the gadgeteers aren't outfitting everybody. That has the undesirable effects of changing the flavor of the campaign (PC's with machine guns) and cutting into the gadgeteer's niche. Magic items, while they may or may not have plenty of problems (not trying to start up that debate), are at least a little easier to have some control over (unless you want to start charging XP for making gadgets--but then why does it cost XP to make the same one over and over?).So what I was thinking was that the gadgets are too complicated for other characters to use, not just make or use well. I think the universality of Powers would allow those sorts of characters to actually work. Limits to mixing and storing ingredients, shelf lives, access to materials, etc. could be the justification (not that we really need one) for the limits on usage. Making isn't so much the issue as using and maintaining. I think that fits the martial descriptor (taken from the rogue class) at least reasonably well:</blockquote>

Verification