3.5 Class Conversion "The Machinists"

[TheSethGrey]

Hello everyone, I am new to the forum here, been lurking about since a little before D&D Next came out, but I think it's finally time I contributed something rather than asking a ton of rules questions. So, I present to you the Tinker, a class from the 3.5 Warcraft RPG books, and one of my favorite classes. I have done my best to tweak and change it so that it is 5e compatible without breaking anything, which can be hard due to the nature of the Tinker. So, I implore to open the spoiler, but beware, it's long and not for the faint of heart. I would post it straight to the thread, but there's about 5 charts in there and it's a huge hassle to format them here, unless I am missing something.

5e Tinker (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_tKfoPSihAOOHVtc2NNLTd6OHc/edit?usp=sharing)

EDIT: Further on in this thread there is an updated version of the Tinker, which has been split into three classes, I shall added the Machinists documentation here, but I won't change my original post, as to keep as an archive.

The Machinists (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_tKfoPSihAOa3hJS0F1QnJJY1E/edit?usp=sharing)

[Madfellow]

:smalleek:

Such rules! So many!

[TheSethGrey]

:smalleek:

Such rules! So many!

Welcome to the Tinker, not only is it a new class, but more then half of it is the "chapter" on creating technological devices, which is the whole point of their class.

[CyberThread]

I see you put allot of work on this, but I feel you went against the spirit of what the 5e system is <-<.


You made everything really complicated for one class. I feel you should make a subsystem magic or creation and disengage that from the class, to help clean up the document and not be overwhelming when someone first approaches or reads it.

[TheSethGrey]

I see you put allot of work on this, but I feel you went against the spirit of what the 5e system is <-<.


You made everything really complicated for one class. I feel you should make a subsystem magic or creation and disengage that from the class, to help clean up the document and not be overwhelming when someone first approaches or reads it.

How would I make Technology a subsystem of magic? And yeah the document is a bit cluttered, first go around on designing it, and I'm not the best at formatting things, what would you suggest I should do when approaching it from a formatting viewpoint?

[DiBastet]

Ok, I like you work, however I have to agree that it's really complicated. In fact it's a little against 5e style a subsystem this complex.

That said you mentioned it's your favorite class, so there's nothing for me to help you improve your Tinker, but then I could perhaps point an opinion to help create a simpler version; something that did something similar but with less clutter.

That's what I did with my own techno-gadgets class in my setting:

A system that for ease of use imitated magic. Based on pathfinder's alchemist, the Artificer can build gadgets and use them if he has the blueprints for them (effectivly a spellbook). In 3.5 he had spell slots like the sorcerer and could build any invention he had blueprints.

Inventions have the following traits
-Imitates a version of the spell. If the spell allows choices (like choosing between a normal or inverted magic circle) the Invention is built with only one.
-The effect is extraordinary if harmless, spell-like if not.
-Always have a physical component; if Personal or Touch, benefical, and with a duration longer than instant, the gadget is a device that the artificer must wear and that takes a body slot (power gloves of bull's strenght, field generator or mage armor, etc); if not then it's a held item (fireball handcannon, color spray emmiter, or even ye olde tonic of healing).
-Takes one minute to built, and remains inert until used. One use only (like a potion or scroll). After use you can immediatly spend one more spell slot to give the item another charge (representing that, in fact, you created it with more power than people thought, hah); if you don't the item is discharged.
-Like the PF Alchemist, only the artificer can use these items.

After this system I needed something to help with generic inventions that didn't emulate spells, so I created a system of traits he could choose similar in power to Hexes or Rogue Talents, and simply got wild with flavorful options: power armor, power rifles, simple science (other people can use the harmless devices), better healing, improved golem-making and everything that seemed nice.

For the bigger inventions, like the horse or zepellin, I had the artificer talent Improved Machine. You could create mechanical objects of a certain size per level that could perform a certain funciont; it could have a STR score (boring machine), a skill modifier (auto cake-machine), a movement speed (robot horse, flying machine) or some other options from a short list. If needed the machine used the stats of an animated object of its size (but without attacks).

As for cost / duration, you had two options:
A) Fragile, free machine: The machine worked for a number of days depending on the number of "spell levels" spent on it (max your level), and any artificer could spend slots to power it, representing the care needed to keep such complex machinery up.
B) Durable, expensive machine: You spent gold like you were creating a permanent, immobile magic item (as in stronghold builders guide). In that case once completed the machine had its own power source and needed no spell levels to work.


It worked pretty well. If you ever intend to make your Tinker simpler, I hope this helps.

[TheSethGrey]

That's what I did with my own techno-gadgets class in my setting:

A system that for ease of use imitated magic. Based on pathfinder's alchemist, the Artificer can build gadgets and use them if he has the blueprints for them (effectivly a spellbook). In 3.5 he had spell slots like the sorcerer and could build any invention he had blueprints.

Inventions have the following traits
-Imitates a version of the spell. If the spell allows choices (like choosing between a normal or inverted magic circle) the Invention is built with only one.
-The effect is extraordinary if harmless, spell-like if not.
-Always have a physical component; if Personal or Touch, benefical, and with a duration longer than instant, the gadget is a device that the artificer must wear and that takes a body slot (power gloves of bull's strenght, field generator or mage armor, etc); if not then it's a held item (fireball handcannon, color spray emmiter, or even ye olde tonic of healing).
-Takes one minute to built, and remains inert until used. One use only (like a potion or scroll). After use you can immediatly spend one more spell slot to give the item another charge (representing that, in fact, you created it with more power than people thought, hah); if you don't the item is discharged.
-Like the PF Alchemist, only the artificer can use these items.

That's exactly what I want to try to avoid with the Tinker, if it's just imitated magic why not just play a Spell Caster?



After this system I needed something to help with generic inventions that didn't emulate spells, so I created a system of traits he could choose similar in power to Hexes or Rogue Talents, and simply got wild with flavorful options: power armor, power rifles, simple science (other people can use the harmless devices), better healing, improved golem-making and everything that seemed nice.


I kind of want to avoid this, simply because it's too limiting, the Tinker is supposed to be about freedom of choice on what to make, I don't want to hand a player a Class that builds stuff, and then tell them they can only build these specific things. Want to build a machine that shoots Ferrets? We have rules for that.




For the bigger inventions, like the horse or zepellin, I had the artificer talent Improved Machine. You could create mechanical objects of a certain size per level that could perform a certain function; it could have a STR score (boring machine), a skill modifier (auto cake-machine), a movement speed (robot horse, flying machine) or some other options from a short list. If needed the machine used the stats of an animated object of its size (but without attacks).

As for cost / duration, you had two options:
A) Fragile, free machine: The machine worked for a number of days depending on the number of "spell levels" spent on it (max your level), and any artificer could spend slots to power it, representing the care needed to keep such complex machinery up.
B) Durable, expensive machine: You spent gold like you were creating a permanent, immobile magic item (as in stronghold builders guide). In that case once completed the machine had its own power source and needed no spell levels to work.


Your A option could work, but the Tinker has no spell casting ability and I do not ever intend to or wish to give it spell casting so that's out, and B, while I like this idea a bit more, it sort of hearkens to what I tried to do with the class.

In the end, I really appreciate the feedback and I sincerely mean it, but what you suggested takes the Tinker down a road that changes it completely, if I implemented what you suggested it would cease to what a Tinker is all about, that being said from the three responses I've gotten it's obvious that the Tinker is a little too complex/intimidating at first, and I shall work on changing it to fix that, once I figure out how, but I do not wish to sacrifice what makes this class what it is. Again though, thanks for your input I value it greatly.

[CyberThread]

Is it possible to make the system use how psionic summons worked? You have this body of ectoplasm, and various things you can modify it with per level, and per system.


Can we have some sort of metal structure types, and then divide it up among various things you can pick as a resource system?

At the very least, I would create a super crafting or whatever system. And break up the tinker into seperte classes, that use that system,and have them become focused in certain aspects, it would create the monolith system you are using, and able to spread it out into more useable functions.

[TheSethGrey]

Is it possible to make the system use how psionic summons worked? You have this body of ectoplasm, and various things you can modify it with per level, and per system.


Can we have some sort of metal structure types, and then divide it up among various things you can pick as a resource system?

At the very least, I would create a super crafting or whatever system. And break up the tinker into seperte classes, that use that system,and have them become focused in certain aspects, it would create the monolith system you are using, and able to spread it out into more useable functions.

I'm not sure I follow, but I am interested, I've never actually read much into Psionics, so if you could mention a book, I'd have it read fully by tomorrow (I know people with a lot of books). The thing I am worried about is being too limiting, because the core of the Tinker is being able to make anything, and then from that idea, following the steps it would come out as something within the rules, but if you could be so kind as to explain your idea some more, it would help because I don't fully understand.

[Chaosvii7]

I too think you need to revisit the system of crafting devices. Crafting in 5e has cut out making checks and costly material components - now it just takes a flat cost in materials(usually represented in gold pieces) and time(a day per 5 gold, if the ratios hold up). I don't think making a whole new level of roll just to make these items is necessary; You can instead tie it all into the cost and time by making it so that somebody who wants to be diligent could sink all of their money and days into crafting an item that's foolproof and does exactly what they want it to, but it'd be easier for them to just craft a bunch of items that either have a predictable shelf life or are in of themselves fragile but can do whatever they may need on the fly.

I would have to agree with CyberThread - Instead of making one class to carry the burden of this whole subsystem, I think making multiple classes geared around it would be better. There's a whole niche that tinkering can fill if you're diligent enough to find a way that at least a few classes can share the otherwise heavy burden of having to carry an entire focused system of play with it.

[TheSethGrey]

I too think you need to revisit the system of crafting devices. Crafting in 5e has cut out making checks and costly material components - now it just takes a flat cost in materials(usually represented in gold pieces) and time(a day per 5 gold, if the ratios hold up). I don't think making a whole new level of roll just to make these items is necessary; You can instead tie it all into the cost and time by making it so that somebody who wants to be diligent could sink all of their money and days into crafting an item that's foolproof and does exactly what they want it to, but it'd be easier for them to just craft a bunch of items that either have a predictable shelf life or are in of themselves fragile but can do whatever they may need on the fly.

I would have to agree with CyberThread - Instead of making one class to carry the burden of this whole subsystem, I think making multiple classes geared around it would be better. There's a whole niche that tinkering can fill if you're diligent enough to find a way that at least a few classes can share the otherwise heavy burden of having to carry an entire focused system of play with it.

The problem I see with that is when you get into higher costs, into the thousands and thousands of gold you're getting into hundreds of days, and an item that's worth 1000 gold would take you 200 days if I understand you correctly, and at that point who would even bother? I'm not sure I have enough content here to split into several classes either.

[CyberThread]

Sorry I will simplfy.


Make your system work , in the same way Astral Construct Worked in 3.5

[TheSethGrey]

Sorry I will simplfy.


Make your system work , in the same way Astral Construct Worked in 3.5

Thanks, I understand what you meant a lot better now, but what of devices that aren't constructs? And what if someone comes up with a device or ability that want to use that I hadn't thought of?

[CyberThread]

Then they can homebrew.

[TheSethGrey]

Then they can homebrew.

I suppose, but at some point Pisionics will be brought into 5e, and when they are won't Astral Construct be brought back? What then will happen to the system I based on Astral Construct? I'd like to point out that I'm not trying to be difficult, I simply wish to hash ideas out fully.

[TheSethGrey]

I first want to say, I apologize for the double post, but I have looked the system over and thought long and hard about it, and have come up with some ideas.


I too think you need to revisit the system of crafting devices. Crafting in 5e has cut out making checks and costly material components - now it just takes a flat cost in materials(usually represented in gold pieces) and time(a day per 5 gold, if the ratios hold up). I don't think making a whole new level of roll just to make these items is necessary; You can instead tie it all into the cost and time by making it so that somebody who wants to be diligent could sink all of their money and days into crafting an item that's foolproof and does exactly what they want it to, but it'd be easier for them to just craft a bunch of items that either have a predictable shelf life or are in of themselves fragile but can do whatever they may need on the fly.

I would have to agree with CyberThread - Instead of making one class to carry the burden of this whole subsystem, I think making multiple classes geared around it would be better. There's a whole niche that tinkering can fill if you're diligent enough to find a way that at least a few classes can share the otherwise heavy burden of having to carry an entire focused system of play with it.

I've thought this over a lot in the past, day, and to achieve the idea of making 5 gold of progress a day I would have to upgrade it to something like 100 gold * Intelligence Modifier, because the prices easily go into the thousands and nobody will wish to wait that long.

I have thought about making multiple classes, and for a while I thought I didn't have enough there to make Multiple classes, but maybe I do. So what I have in mind it take the Tinker and divide him into 3 classes, the names of which I am still working on. The first class would just be the Tinker, he makes Vehicles, Constructs, and anything else, not really combat strong so he uses the Construct to fight for him. I'd revamp the crafting system to focus on getting "points" that he can spend to upgrade his Construct. The second class would be the Battle Tinker, or some other better name, he'd focus more on fighting, getting extra attacks and using flintlock pistols and such, but he'd also have Access to Tech-Mods which I hadn't written up yet, but think of Tech-Mods as minor enchantments on your weapons that can blow up in your face. Lastly we'd have the Steam Warrior, in essence this guy's focus would upgrade the Steam Armor he has (Haven't written it up yet.) and that would be his progression, combat focused on upgrading himself.

So, that's what I've come up with in terms of spreading the system and classes out, I know there's not a lot you can really critique till I re-write everything, but I would appreciate some feedback on the class divisions.

[Draken]

A certain degree of complexity is part of the draw of WoWRPG's Technology system, as far as I am concerned. That said, this could use some streamlining (removing the skill checks that no longer actually exist and substituting them for minimum TS, reworking the knacks in Tinker's Knowledge, etc).

That said, I see one somewhat glaring issue in battle tinker, that being that the level 6 and 10 features are at odds with one another, which just feels a bit... Inelegant? Flesh to Metal is also sort of meaningless.

On the Engineer's side, Wired For Success may just be too much and the level 10 feature loses its purpose with the proposed streamlining (read: removal of Craft checks, which are more of a downtime aggravation at this point than any meaningful chance of failure on creation attempts, I think).

I would change the level 10 feature (Shoot a firearm as a bonus action) down to level 6 and make the level 10 feature an additional attack on an attack action, since it looks like the class doesn't get those by default. Also should probably either change the speed numbers from overland/travel values to combat values or at least add the combat values just for the sake of having that info readily available.

Anyway, quite fancy. I always liked the tinker.

[TheSethGrey]

A certain degree of complexity is part of the draw of WoWRPG's Technology system, as far as I am concerned. That said, this could use some streamlining (removing the skill checks that no longer actually exist and substituting them for minimum TS, reworking the knacks in Tinker's Knowledge, etc).

That said, I see one somewhat glaring issue in battle tinker, that being that the level 6 and 10 features are at odds with one another, which just feels a bit... Inelegant?

I would change the level 10 feature (Shoot a firearm as a bonus action) down to level 6 and make the level 10 feature an additional attack on an attack action, since it looks like the class doesn't get those by default. Also should probably either change the speed numbers from overland/travel values to combat values or at least add the combat values just for the sake of having that info readily available.

Anyway, quite fancy. I always liked the tinker.

Well, my plan before I got a few suggestions to split the Tinker into separate classes was to remove the Tinker's Knowledge entirely since I'd go for a flat rate of creation (Something like Intelligence Mod x 100gold) So a lot of what Tinker's Knowledge does would be pointless. My original plan that I hadn't mentioned here was to remove Tinker's Knowledge, and re-tweak when you get Specializations so there are less dead levels, but I do like your idea of an extra attack instead of bonus action, not sure why I didn't do that in the first place.

And that's a good point about Vehicle speed, I hadn't even thought about how you'd gauge how fast they go in combat, I'll have to edit that in the master document.

[DiBastet]

That's exactly what I want to try to avoid with the Tinker, if it's just imitated magic why not just play a Spell Caster?

YOU DARE ASK WHY? BECAUSE SCIENCE

Well, it surely doesn't suit your tastes, but in my player's mind it's easier to balance with something that already exists, and attaching bracers of field generator with a button, shimmer, smoke and low hiss (a mage armor invention) seems to be much much cooler than casting a spell... I guess it boils down to "because my players SCIENCE". :smallbiggrin:

[TheSethGrey]

YOU DARE ASK WHY? BECAUSE SCIENCE

Well, it surely doesn't suit your tastes, but in my player's mind it's easier to balance with something that already exists, and attaching bracers of field generator with a button, shimmer, smoke and low hiss (a mage armor invention) seems to be much much cooler than casting a spell... I guess it boils down to "because my players SCIENCE". :smallbiggrin:

I guess in my mind that becomes more re-texturing a wizard's spells to be done through science, which isn't what I want, but I'll be doing some work to try and simplify things, granted the Technology System, as stated above, is made to have a certain level of complexity, some of that I can break down into parts if I decide to go the path of 3 classes instead of 1, which I am still on the fence about.

[Draken]

YOU DARE ASK WHY? BECAUSE SCIENCE

Well, it surely doesn't suit your tastes, but in my player's mind it's easier to balance with something that already exists, and attaching bracers of field generator with a button, shimmer, smoke and low hiss (a mage armor invention) seems to be much much cooler than casting a spell... I guess it boils down to "because my players SCIENCE". :smallbiggrin:

That would be more the realm of the artificer, when that gets published. I think.

[TheSethGrey]

That would be more the realm of the artificer, when that gets published. I think.

So, you sound like you've played with, or played the Tinker class before, do you think it'd break the spirit of the class to split Tinker into 3 classes with their own "Specializations"? That's my major concerns right now, it would make things more simple, but then it limits you on what you can build based on your "Tinker" class.

[zilonox]

I guess in my mind that becomes more re-texturing a wizard's spells to be done through science, which isn't what I want, but I'll be doing some work to try and simplify things, granted the Technology System, as stated above, is made to have a certain level of complexity, some of that I can break down into parts if I decide to go the path of 3 classes instead of 1, which I am still on the fence about.

If you can get your hands on a copy of Dragonmech for 3.5 (published by Goodman Games/Sword & Sorcery Studios), then you might look to the coglayer and steamborg for inspiration.

While the setting itself focused on giant mech-cities, those two classes had abilities that sound very similar to what you are describing (though the steamborg is probably a more internalized version of your power-suit warrior).

Here is a wiki link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DragonMech#Coglayer) with very brief descriptions.

[Draken]

So, you sound like you've played with, or played the Tinker class before, do you think it'd break the spirit of the class to split Tinker into 3 classes with their own "Specializations"? That's my major concerns right now, it would make things more simple, but then it limits you on what you can build based on your "Tinker" class.

I have! Made a troll Tinker/Arcanist (Necromancer) for gestalt once. Game died sort of quickly, however. It was amusing.

I would think making the specs better at their focal points without disabling their ability to dabble in the others (so the gun-tinker can still make himself a tank or steam armor, it just won't match the vehicle-tinker's) would be ideal.

[TheSethGrey]

I have! Made a troll Tinker/Arcanist (Necromancer) for gestalt once. Game died sort of quickly, however. It was amusing.

I would think making the specs better at their focal points without disabling their ability to dabble in the others (so the gun-tinker can still make himself a tank or steam armor, it just won't match the vehicle-tinker's) would be ideal.

I'll try that, and see what I can do, I should have a Rough Draft ready sometime... Before Sunday, I can do that, I'd say by tomorrow, but I have to paint and arena today for tomorrow, so I don't know if I'll be able to get around to it till later.


If you can get your hands on a copy of Dragonmech for 3.5 (published by Goodman Games/Sword & Sorcery Studios), then you might look to the coglayer and steamborg for inspiration.

While the setting itself focused on giant mech-cities, those two classes had abilities that sound very similar to what you are describing (though the steamborg is probably a more internalized version of your power-suit warrior).

Here is a wiki link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DragonMech#Coglayer) with very brief descriptions.

I will write the name of the book down, check with my friends and my FLGS to see if they have it in stock, I'm going there tonight so if I find it I'll make sure to let you know how I feel about it, but they do sound similar.

[Ivellius]

I like the idea, but I also think the WoW RPG technology rules are a bit complicated for this edition.

My conceptual suggestions if you're going to split it into three classes based on how you outlined them:

The Tinker seems like a good class to focus on utility / vehicle construction. The Engineer could be a sub-class good at building machines, while the Cobbler could be a sub-class about more easily scavenging materials together for limited-use and short-term effects.

I like the idea of a ranged class (Demolitionist?) focused on technology. The Sapper could be about big explosions and safely handling them, while the Sniper (Rifleman?) uses firearms and a more sustained DPS approach.

The Steam Warrior could be divided into a Weaponsmith and Armorsmith path for offensive or defensive approaches. Technology might include a spring-loaded blade for extra reach, mechanical pistons for increasing damage dice, or a cloud of steam that scalds enemies who get too close.

[TheSethGrey]

It just hit me, if I take the Tinker and break it into 3 classes I need a name for that group of three, sorta of like all spell casters are called, spell casters. Anyone have any suggestions?

[zilonox]

Machinist?

[TheSethGrey]

Machinist?

I like that one, I think I'll use it unless I come up with, or someone else comes up with one I like better.

[TheSethGrey]

I'm not even finish writing all of the rules yet, but I'm already up to 28 pages up from 14. I am a little worried that splitting this into 3 classes hasn't really... Simplified a whole lot.

[DiBastet]

I guess we'll wait and see.

Your work inspired me to translate my class to english and post it. Take a look at the link in my sig, and if anything strikes your fancy, please feel free to use, adapt, tear and generally "tink" it.

[TheSethGrey]

I guess we'll wait and see.

Your work inspired me to translate my class to english and post it. Take a look at the link in my sig, and if anything strikes your fancy, please feel free to use, adapt, tear and generally "tink" it.

Heh, well I'm glad I was able to inspire someone to create, or in this case translate, something else, though I have to ask. What language did you translate it from?

[DiBastet]

My native language is Portuguese. Brazil man, the land where we play from the beach with bikini-wearing gals while drinking some cool orange juice...


...except I live in the cold part of the country and far from any beach, sigh...

[TheSethGrey]

My native language is Portuguese. Brazil man, the land where we play from the beach with bikini-wearing gals while drinking some cool orange juice...


...except I live in the cold part of the country and far from any beach, sigh...


Well, I enjoy the cold, so I can't sympathize with you that much, but I looked over what you posted, do Inventions just mimic spells?

[Draken]

My native language is Portuguese. Brazil man, the land where we play from the beach with bikini-wearing gals while drinking some cool orange juice...


...except I live in the cold part of the country and far from any beach, sigh...

Fancy that. I live in the northern part with all the jungle, where it is hot day and night and the same lineage of political frankensteins have been ruling for about three decades.

[DiBastet]

I feel for you man. I know exactly who you're talking about. I got no titties but we don't have to deal with those leeches...

[TheSethGrey]

As a quick update I am close to finishing the skeleton of the three classes and the system itself, which for me to say sounds strange as I am bordering on 40 pages. Mostly what's holding me back from publishing it is I have run out of ideas for the Steam Warrior, I need to think of two sub classes and a 20th level feature. Once I have those two I'll polish things up and be able to release the "rough draft" that I have.

[Draken]

As a quick update I am close to finishing the skeleton of the three classes and the system itself, which for me to say sounds strange as I am bordering on 40 pages. Mostly what's holding me back from publishing it is I have run out of ideas for the Steam Warrior, I need to think of two sub classes and a 20th level feature. Once I have those two I'll polish things up and be able to release the "rough draft" that I have.

You can make one focused on "robot" steam armor, made for combat. One focused on vehicle steam armor, made for mobility. And a third one isn't necessary, plenty of classes have only two subs from what I hear.

[TheSethGrey]

You can make one focused on "robot" steam armor, made for combat. One focused on vehicle steam armor, made for mobility. And a third one isn't necessary, plenty of classes have only two subs from what I hear.

Well, currently I have a Subclass for Defense and protecting others that I have drummed up, and I don't want a Vehicle focus cause that takes away from the Tinker being able to make Vehicles.

[Ivellius]

A Steam Warrior focused on unusual melee combat--chainsaws, mechanical claws, electric prods, giant fists, etc.

[TheSethGrey]

A Steam Warrior focused on unusual melee combat--chainsaws, mechanical claws, electric prods, giant fists, etc.

That's what they'll invest their Tech points into.

[TheSethGrey]

Good news everyone! The slime is flowing again! I've finally finished the rough draft of the Machinists, now I realize there are some slight formatting issues, Google Docs messed up my formatting so there might be an extra space here and there. I welcome all thoughts on this project of mine, as I am not sure the Tech Point system is properly balanced, but I do want to warn people that Construct, Tech-Mods, and Steam Armor aren't completely finished, I welcome all suggestions for additions to make to them as I am still adding more. That being said part of the appeal is the ability to make whatever you desire, so there will be some open-endedness to allow Players to work closely with their GM/DMs to make what they desire. That's enough of my long winded preamble, please enjoy all 38 pages!

The Machinists (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_tKfoPSihAOa3hJS0F1QnJJY1E/edit?usp=sharing)

[DiBastet]

The slime is flowing again!

Nerd.

And Glory for the Alliance.

Now, for the classes, I like them. I think three separate classes are really much better. I can't comment on abilities the first time I read a class, I really need one or two days to diggest everything, but I'm happy to know we share the idea that some concepts should be present like easy access to healing tech, rapid reloading and mecha-thrusters. All in all I like it, and would be happy to create a mini Iron Jugg with this.

Oh, and one more thing, maybe you could steal some mod ideas from the cybernetics project. There's some nice ideas there like HUD and targetting systems that could be used.

[TheSethGrey]

Nerd.

And Glory for the Alliance.

Now, for the classes, I like them. I think three separate classes are really much better. I can't comment on abilities the first time I read a class, I really need one or two days to diggest everything, but I'm happy to know we share the idea that some concepts should be present like easy access to healing tech, rapid reloading and mecha-thrusters. All in all I like it, and would be happy to create a mini Iron Jugg with this.

Oh, and one more thing, maybe you could steal some mod ideas from the cybernetics project. There's some nice ideas there like HUD and targetting systems that could be used.

Finally, someone who backs the Grand Alliance, about time.

I'm glad you like it, took ages to put it all together and to come up with possibly balanced ideas. What I really need is to get a group and run a session or two to see how they work in a game.

What Cybernetics project? Do you have a link?

[Ivellius]

Although I do think there's a bit of overlap between the classes (essentially, I would've divided them differently), I like the conversions as a whole. You have some really neat things in there (magnetic Steam Armor? That's awesome!). They seem to work well, at least eyeballing everything--I could see myself using some of these things.

I'm not sure if having the Boomstick reload as a "move action" works in the vocabulary of 5e ("move action" doesn't seem to be a distinct thing, exactly). Something like "Requires your bonus action and you can't have moved" might be better worded, though that's pretty punishing at higher levels. But you can upgrade the gun with the classes, so I dunno.

I might dig out some of my World of Warcraft RPG books and see what else I'd like to see updated--more tech. devices would definitely be a good thing.
For the Alliance!

[TheSethGrey]

Although I do think there's a bit of overlap between the classes (essentially, I would've divided them differently), I like the conversions as a whole. You have some really neat things in there (magnetic Steam Armor? That's awesome!). They seem to work well, at least eyeballing everything--I could see myself using some of these things.

I'm not sure if having the Boomstick reload as a "move action" works in the vocabulary of 5e ("move action" doesn't seem to be a distinct thing, exactly). Something like "Requires your bonus action and you can't have moved" might be better worded, though that's pretty punishing at higher levels. But you can upgrade the gun with the classes, so I dunno.

I might dig out some of my World of Warcraft RPG books and see what else I'd like to see updated--more tech. devices would definitely be a good thing.
For the Alliance!

Well, "Requires your bonus action and you can't have moved" is a bit of a mouthful, and you can still use your bonus action it just means you cannot move the turn you reload. What do you think overlaps? There's supposed to be a bit of overlap due to the nature of everyone being able to do everything, but each class having their own... Specialization. Lastly I implore you to dig out your books, I am still collecting a full set, and I plan to add more Tech-Mods, Steam Armor Features, Construct Features, and Device examples when I think of good ones, but I always wanted the player to have the freedom to craft what they want, as long as they work with the GM/DM.

[DiBastet]

Reload property seems fine for firearms, really, no need for a new mechanic. Then the gun specialist just gets to "ignore Reload the property on firearms".

[TheSethGrey]

Reload property seems fine for firearms, really, no need for a new mechanic. Then the gun specialist just gets to "ignore Reload the property on firearms".

Do you mean, loading?

[DiBastet]

I... I don't know. It's been so long that I translated Basic that I don't even remember the exact name. But yeah, the reloading property of crossbows.

*scans basic pdf*

Yeah, Loading property. "Ignore the loading property of firearms" would be the proper phrasing.

I was giving a hint anyway, no need to nitpick... :smallannoyed:

[TheSethGrey]

I... I don't know. It's been so long that I translated Basic that I don't even remember the exact name. But yeah, the reloading property of crossbows.

*scans basic pdf*

Yeah, Loading property. "Ignore the loading property of firearms" would be the proper phrasing.

I was giving a hint anyway, no need to nitpick... :smallannoyed:

I first want to apologize for the late response, it's midnight here and I've just gotten back from a several day trip to visit possible colleges to transfer, so there's that.

But first, I'm sorry you took my post in a more negative nit-picky way. I simply wanted to make sure I had the wording correct, for if I put incorrect wording into the file it wouldn't be accurate, and I desire to make a quality creation. I am sorry though, that you took it in a negative way, that was not my intent at the time of writing that post.

Lastly, expect a rules update in the next few days, changing wording issues such as the loading property, adding a section on deconstruction, and balancing tweaks.

I'll be constructing a playtest group of 5 people, not including me as the DM. 3 will play the new Machinist classes, while the other two will play a Martial and a Caster class respectively. The reasoning behind this is that I can use the two core classes as a control group to compare power levels. That way they shouldn't over power core classes of their level.

I appreciate all the input given thus far, and if people are interested I will continue to post updates here as I make changes to the master file, and as our local playtest begins.