Ulric said:1) Mechamancy focus on a system for the creation of basically non-magical items of technology in a way that will compliment and not ruin the typical D&D magically focused world.
DMH said:They can be either magic or technology with examples of each. Some random examples- goggles that allow the use of identify, detect secret doors, and see invisibility; mechanical clock; astronomic telescope; wings for individual flight and a mechanical firefly the size of a small dog.
These assessments of mechamancy are correct, in my estimation – and I wrote the book.
RangerWickett said:My honest opinion is that Mechamancy has a bit of an identity problem...
I am surprised and disappointed to learn RangerWickett and GlassJaw believe the book is weak and unfocused, but c'est la vie.
Generally speaking, mechamancy combined magic and the rudimentary clockwork technology available during Renaissance period to make fantastic things possible, like a working version of Leonardo Da Vinci’s “helicopter.”
Further, it was designed to make the items useful for anyone, not just mages. That is the nature of technology, to be available to everyone and not just specialists. From the outset my goal was that mechamancy made things like wands and staffs, but the mechamancy versions of those items could be used by anyone.
As for using the same set of rules for making mundane and magical items, I knew I was doing that at the time I was working on the book but it never concerned me a great deal. I handled it the way I did in an attempt to cover all the bases with one system for the sake of simplicity. This is not much of a conflict to me and certainly not one that keeps me awake at night.
My approach was to make a proverbial tool box. If you need something, you may take that element and use it and you are not required to use the entire book or entire systems. However, if you did want an entire system, then one was presented that was more good than bad.
The notion that wands – and similar tools and weapons – should only be used by levels magic users is ideologically opposite and fundamentally philosophically irreconcilable with the kind of book I wrote in mechamancy.
In any event, I make no apologies and remain pleased with the book.