PDA

View Full Version : Sci-Fi Wizard Replacement



8BitNinja
2015-11-20, 02:35 PM
If you haven't seen some of my previous threads, I love to make my own RPGs

I am making a new one called Futurequest, but the problem is, I can't think of a good "caster class" that uses the power of science

My only idea for one is a scientist, where he has the same function, but just buys different ammo for a special weapon he carries

An enemy unit that can attack is a Technomancer, who builds Minions, which are 3D humanoid silhouettes that function as ranged combatants, cybernetic "zombies" which are made from dead androids and spare cybernetic parts and "Liches", a bunch of cybernetic parts put together in a massive metal hulk

Then there are medics, who function as more of a nonviolent cleric, as they do in real life

What about druids, sorcerers, and Red Mages (heal and harm)?

Do you even think they are necessary?

The Great Wyrm
2015-11-20, 03:08 PM
A scientist in sci-fi would function more like an Artificer than a Wizard. You could also base something off the Engineer from TF2, who focuses on team support (teleporters, dispensers) and area denial (sentries).

For something like Wizard, sci-fi usually uses psychic characters.

noob
2015-11-20, 03:17 PM
There is also some settings who gives exactly the power of wizards to some people with the argument "nanomachines"

8BitNinja
2015-11-20, 05:57 PM
A scientist in sci-fi would function more like an Artificer than a Wizard. You could also base something off the Engineer from TF2, who focuses on team support (teleporters, dispensers) and area denial (sentries).

For something like Wizard, sci-fi usually uses psychic characters.

I could add an Engineer which would be a sort of "red mage" which would be like the TF2 one (with some actual weapons, maybe being able to use handguns, shotguns, and assault rifles) and a PSI User would be a sort of a class that could be played by some sort of non-human race which could select a certain set of powers at the beginning and use a separate force, besides energy, which powers certain attacks, (energy powers everything from a scout's propelled leap to a marine's automatic fire and is replaced with batteries, the reason why it powers automatic fire is for balance)

Mr. Mask
2015-11-20, 06:41 PM
[Scifi-noun]mancer

Neuromancer.

Nanomancer.

Cybermancer.

Etc..

goto124
2015-11-21, 12:56 AM
A scientist in sci-fi would function more like an Artificer than a Wizard.

Batman Wizard?

Anonymouswizard
2015-11-21, 07:11 AM
A scientist in sci-fi would function more like an Artificer than a Wizard.

Not really, a scientist would be more likely to study enemies and interactions, and isn't great as a 'character class'. And engineer would function almost exactly as an Artificer, and scientists can do engineering, but scientists are more about understanding. In short:

-Scientist: lots of deduction and breaking down, with some item making. (I'd give them an ability that allows them to get a bonus to rolls by preparing and running similar experiments)
-Engineer: lots of item creation, with some deduction.


[Scifi-noun]mancer

Neuromancer.

Nanomancer.

Cybermancer.

Etc..

*shudder* This is one of the worst ideas ever. Who would want to play a 'very small diviner' (yes, that is literally what Nanomancer means).


In short, if you want hard sci-fi the engineer and scientist are probably the closest you'd get to mages. If you want soft sci-fi then you can use psychics.

If you have a mesh-network and are willing to make hacking basic devices simple, hackers could also be decent hard sci-fi mages.

Urpriest
2015-11-21, 07:22 AM
*shudder* This is one of the worst ideas ever. Who would want to play a 'very small diviner' (yes, that is literally what Nanomancer means).

It's great if you want to be a criminal. Then you can be a small medium at large.

Agreed that hackers are a good stand-in. Beyond that, you have to figure out what you want your "caster" classes to do. If most of your casters are blasters, then basically any class with heavy firepower will work. If healing is a role you want, you have to decide how good medical tech is in your setting, or how comfortable you are with 4e "inspiration"-based healing. Similarly, buffs can be medical, technological, or through tactical leadership. Scientists and hackers work well for the "toolbox" aspect of magic...but you can also make a more balanced game, where that toolbox aspect is a feature of actual tools, accessible to any class. Incidentally, Batman-style item ownership is also a good casting replacement. ("What do you mean, you packed shark repellent?")

Anonymouswizard
2015-11-21, 07:33 AM
It's great if you want to be a criminal. Then you can be a small medium at large.

I just love that joke, whenever it turns up.


Agreed that hackers are a good stand-in. Beyond that, you have to figure out what you want your "caster" classes to do. If most of your casters are blasters, then basically any class with heavy firepower will work. If healing is a role you want, you have to decide how good medical tech is in your setting, or how comfortable you are with 4e "inspiration"-based healing. Similarly, buffs can be medical, technological, or through tactical leadership. Scientists and hackers work well for the "toolbox" aspect of magic...but you can also make a more balanced game, where that toolbox aspect is a feature of actual tools, accessible to any class. Incidentally, Batman-style item ownership is also a good casting replacement. ("What do you mean, you packed shark repellent?")

I'll admit that this would be the first thing you'd have to do, and I'm now ashamed I didn't think to mention it.

Keltest
2015-11-21, 07:44 AM
*shudder* This is one of the worst ideas ever. Who would want to play a 'very small diviner' (yes, that is literally what Nanomancer means).

Wouldn't "diviner of the very small" be more accurate?

Im not contradicting you, I genuinely don't know.

Anonymouswizard
2015-11-21, 07:48 AM
Wouldn't "diviner of the very small" be more accurate?

Im not contradicting you, I genuinely don't know.

I used the literal translation as I know it, nano=very small and -mancer=diviner.

'Diviner of the very small' is the correct translation, but it's far less funny. Less more accurate, and more that the words need to be reordered to fit with modern English.

I don't actually know ancient Greek though, so I might be completely wrong about the meaning of -mancer, my point is 'fire diviner' and 'diviner of the flames' would both get the point across.

Mr. Mask
2015-11-21, 07:57 AM
Nanomachines. That is all.

Slipperychicken
2015-11-21, 01:40 PM
I can't think of a good "caster class" that uses the power of science

Do you even need one?

Zalphon
2015-11-21, 03:18 PM
For Soft Sci-Fi? Psionics do the trick.

For Moderate Sci-Fi? Hackers or Engineers do the trick.

For Hard Sci-Fi? Scientists like Physicists, Chemists, and Biologists.

Cealocanth
2015-11-21, 03:33 PM
Well, as far as druids go, I'm thinking something like a mad nanoroboticist. Everything from healing to raising the dead as zombies or otherwise can be explained fairly easily by adaptive and specially programmed nanites which repair damaged cell tissue, deliver or destroy toxins or disease, or amplify physical ability by chemically reprogramming the genetic code of the organisms they enter and 'infect'. Some of the stuff druids are known to do would be a little beyond the theoretical abilities of nanotechnology (like transforming into beasts or communicating with plants), but if you are okay with your sci-fi being a little soft, then it works pretty well.

VoxRationis
2015-11-21, 03:50 PM
The problem with having a wizard-esque class in a sci-fi setting is that a wizard is generally the keeper of an esoteric kind of lore whose effects are barred to society at large, whereas most scientists work in support of society at large. A scientist is much less likely to deploy their work as a practical effect than they are to develop the practical effect and give it to someone else to use. If you think of a lot of spell effects in most fantasy games, you see that they're self-contained field-practical affairs which stem from the mind or abilities intrinsic to the user. But in a sci-fi setting (unless you use "psionics" or something to that effect, and that's really just magic by another name), those effects would be deployed through some sort of equipment, and most of them could probably be used by any grunt after 15 minutes' training the day before.
The stuff the scientist can do that a soldier could not are mostly diagnostics and analysis—they'd be more like the thief class in D&D, dealing with out-of-combat obstacles with their skills and know-how, than like most wizards in fantasy games.
For an example of this in fiction, we can look at Stargate: SG-1, which has a very RPG-like cast setup. Samantha Carter is the "wizard" of the titular squad, clearly, but she doesn't really do anything in combat that anyone else with firearms training couldn't. Instead, she looks at alien technology or phenomena and figures them out for a few hours while the others wander around stand guard, before applying them to solve the problem the group is facing. She doesn't have specific abilities so much as a generally-applicable skill set which can be applied to many kinds of problem. It's a concept that would be very hard to base a full-fledged, satisfying class around, since in gameplay terms it would really boil down to a few skill rolls. (Notably, Carter isn't just a tech geek; she's also a fully-capable combat character.)

Lord Raziere
2015-11-21, 04:21 PM
*shudder* This is one of the worst ideas ever. Who would want to play a 'very small diviner' (yes, that is literally what Nanomancer means).

In short, if you want hard sci-fi the engineer and scientist are probably the closest you'd get to mages. If you want soft sci-fi then you can use psychics.

If you have a mesh-network and are willing to make hacking basic devices simple, hackers could also be decent hard sci-fi mages.

:smallconfused::smallannoyed:

Um, EXCUSE ME.

Nanomancer is the one of the BEST ideas ever.

why? because Psychic is too soft, while an engineer or scientist or hacker are too bound to situational things.

a Nanomancer that controls a cloud of nanorobots are the ones that could replace a wizard, because you could do anything with nanorobotics in a more hard-scifi way than psychics. want a fireball? cloud of nanorobots instantly making a ball of plasma to throw at somebody. shapeshifting? nanorobots manipulating your body, mind-reading? nanorobots implanted in someones mind and transmitting the thoughts so that you can hear them, and so and so forth.

its the ultimate plausible sci-fi excuse.

Anonymouswizard
2015-11-21, 04:31 PM
:smallconfused::smallannoyed:

Um, EXCUSE ME.

Nanomancer is the one of the BEST ideas ever.

why? because Psychic is too soft, while an engineer or scientist or hacker are too bound to situational things.

a Nanomancer that controls a cloud of nanorobots are the ones that could replace a wizard, because you could do anything with nanorobotics in a more hard-scifi way than psychics. want a fireball? cloud of nanorobots instantly making a ball of plasma to throw at somebody. shapeshifting? nanorobots manipulating your body, mind-reading? nanorobots implanted in someones mind and transmitting the thoughts so that you can hear them, and so and so forth.

its the ultimate plausible sci-fi excuse.

That's a NanoMAGUS :smalltongue:

JoeJ
2015-11-21, 04:31 PM
:smallconfused::smallannoyed:

Um, EXCUSE ME.

Nanomancer is the one of the BEST ideas ever.

why? because Psychic is too soft, while an engineer or scientist or hacker are too bound to situational things.

a Nanomancer that controls a cloud of nanorobots are the ones that could replace a wizard, because you could do anything with nanorobotics in a more hard-scifi way than psychics. want a fireball? cloud of nanorobots instantly making a ball of plasma to throw at somebody. shapeshifting? nanorobots manipulating your body, mind-reading? nanorobots implanted in someones mind and transmitting the thoughts so that you can hear them, and so and so forth.

its the ultimate plausible sci-fi excuse.

But in almost any plausible SF scenario, a person who controls a swarm of nanobots is simply using technology that somebody else built and put on the market. There may be laws restricting the technology, but it's still something that is, or could be, mass produced. The only "magic" is in the gadget they bought, or were issued.

In a non-plausible SF setting you can go wild and have a character like Tony Stark who can build whatever "magic" the story requires him to have.

Lord Raziere
2015-11-21, 04:48 PM
But in almost any plausible SF scenario, a person who controls a swarm of nanobots is simply using technology that somebody else built and put on the market. There may be laws restricting the technology, but it's still something that is, or could be, mass produced. The only "magic" is in the gadget they bought, or were issued.

In a non-plausible SF setting you can go wild and have a character like Tony Stark who can build whatever "magic" the story requires him to have.

market?

Wrong. if you have nanorobots able to transmute anything to anything else, then things are post-scarcity and markets are obsolete, and they got them through personal fabbers.

JoeJ
2015-11-21, 04:52 PM
market?

Wrong. if you have nanorobots able to transmute anything to anything else, then things are post-scarcity and markets are obsolete, and they got them through personal fabbers.

And everybody else has them too. Not much of a wizard, then.

Lord Raziere
2015-11-21, 04:54 PM
And everybody else has them too. Not much of a wizard, then.

not really. does everyone have the smarts to make nanorobots using a fabber to do what you want? probably not. matter is a complex thing, and their very creation might involve a super AI making it only for people he trusts or something, you can't predict this stuff.

JoeJ
2015-11-21, 05:00 PM
not really. does everyone have the smarts to make nanorobots using a fabber to do what you want? probably not. matter is a complex thing, and their very creation might involve a super AI making it only for people he trusts or something, you can't predict this stuff.

I don't need smarts. If personal fabbers have replaced markets, then they're really easy to use. I'll just download the plans for the nanobots from the internet.

If there's a mysterious AI who alone knows the secrets and who doles out nanobots to a few chosen, then the AI might count as a wizard, but the slob with the 'bots is still just using a magic item they don't understand.

noob
2015-11-21, 05:09 PM
If there's a mysterious AI who alone knows the secrets and who doles out nanobots to a few chosen, then the AI might count as a wizard, but the slob with the 'bots is still just using a magic item they don't understand.
That would make of those slobs "Warlocks"

Lord Raziere
2015-11-21, 05:37 PM
I don't need smarts. If personal fabbers have replaced markets, then they're really easy to use. I'll just download the plans for the nanobots from the internet.

If there's a mysterious AI who alone knows the secrets and who doles out nanobots to a few chosen, then the AI might count as a wizard, but the slob with the 'bots is still just using a magic item they don't understand.

or they're just a bigger wizard who is teaching the smaller wizard arcane secrets. like any archmage.

I don't see why your so against the nanobots just being a part of the character. if you really want to argue, magic doesn't seem all that intrinsic to wizard because its a separate force from them, therefore they are using an incorporeal magic item that fits inside their brain.

the_david
2015-11-21, 05:59 PM
Savage Worlds has a weird scientist with inventions that work only for him. (Ray gun, force field, teleporter, zombifier. They can learn any power that a wizard or psionicist can learn.)
Money would be the main limitation for a tech character, although you could also go for a restricted limitation. Even though the technology you need might exist, it isn't generally available to the general public because they wouldn't be able to afford it. This works especially well in a post-apocalyptic setting, or you might just need unobtainium to make it work. Another explanation is that there isn't a market for what you need so it rots in developing hell forever.
Ofcourse, this would basically make you Tony Stark or Bruce Wayne and it wouldn't stop you from sharing your wealth with your allies. This also means that you're just a rogue with a wand of scorching ray.
I guess another thing you could do then is make someone who excels at using equipment. If a fighter excels at fighting and a wizard at magic, than wouldn't a technologist excel at using technology?

JoeJ
2015-11-21, 06:16 PM
or they're just a bigger wizard who is teaching the smaller wizard arcane secrets. like any archmage.

What secrets? We're talking about using an ordinary piece of household equipment here.


I don't see why your so against the nanobots just being a part of the character. if you really want to argue, magic doesn't seem all that intrinsic to wizard because its a separate force from them, therefore they are using an incorporeal magic item that fits inside their brain.

I'm not against nanobots being part of a character. I just don't think you can reasonably call that character a "wizard" in any plausible SF setting. Just like IRL the fact that I can pick up a gun and "magically" fire off a metal projectile at tremendous speed doesn't make me a wizard.

The fundamental problem with wizards as a concept is that in any plausible SF setting, "magic" is something that anybody can do, subject only to laws regulating the requisite technology. Any setting in which one character has access to super technology that nobody else can get (Tony Stark, for example) is not a very plausible one IMO - although it can still be an extremely fun one.

Anonymouswizard
2015-11-21, 06:22 PM
The fundamental problem with wizards as a concept is that in any plausible SF setting, "magic" is something that anybody can do, subject only to laws regulating the requisite technology.

In simple terms, less Tony Stark, more Juan Rico? As in, anyone with the access and training can use it, not just inventor-man.

JoeJ
2015-11-21, 06:27 PM
In simple terms, less Tony Stark, more Juan Rico? As in, anyone with the access and training can use it, not just inventor-man.

Pretty much this. I enjoy playing superhero RPGs, so I certainly don't have a problem with Tony Stark. I just don't consider his universe to be in any way plausible.

Keltest
2015-11-21, 06:36 PM
What secrets? We're talking about using an ordinary piece of household equipment here.



I'm not against nanobots being part of a character. I just don't think you can reasonably call that character a "wizard" in any plausible SF setting. Just like IRL the fact that I can pick up a gun and "magically" fire off a metal projectile at tremendous speed doesn't make me a wizard.

The fundamental problem with wizards as a concept is that in any plausible SF setting, "magic" is something that anybody can do, subject only to laws regulating the requisite technology. Any setting in which one character has access to super technology that nobody else can get (Tony Stark, for example) is not a very plausible one IMO - although it can still be an extremely fun one.

in many fantasy settings, magic is also something anyone can do, regulated only by their level of training and knowledge of how to make it work (and laws, if such exist). It takes a lot more training than the stuff Tony Stark makes, but then Stark isn't a good analogue for a wizard the way he does superheroing.

icefractal
2015-11-22, 04:31 AM
In a relatively hard-SF settings? I wouldn't. Scientific research, engineering, those are all 'strategic-scale' abilities that you use over the course of hours/days/weeks. In combat, the scientist just fights the same way anyone else would.

In softer SF, there's lots of things that can produce 'magic-like' effects - psionics, nanotech, time-space manipulation, etc. For some of those, like nanotech, you still have the issue that being good at making X doesn't necessarily make you the best at using X - the best race-car drivers are not the same as the best mechanics or the best engine designers, for example. If it's a classed-based system, you can just bundle the two together and say that's how it works. Or you can keep them separate and have it more like the first approach.

Kami2awa
2015-11-22, 12:03 PM
The prefix nano- is derived from the Greek for dwarf, funnily enough.

8BitNinja
2015-11-22, 01:02 PM
Not really, a scientist would be more likely to study enemies and interactions, and isn't great as a 'character class'. And engineer would function almost exactly as an Artificer, and scientists can do engineering, but scientists are more about understanding. In short:

-Scientist: lots of deduction and breaking down, with some item making. (I'd give them an ability that allows them to get a bonus to rolls by preparing and running similar experiments)
-Engineer: lots of item creation, with some deduction.



*shudder* This is one of the worst ideas ever. Who would want to play a 'very small diviner' (yes, that is literally what Nanomancer means).


In short, if you want hard sci-fi the engineer and scientist are probably the closest you'd get to mages. If you want soft sci-fi then you can use psychics.

If you have a mesh-network and are willing to make hacking basic devices simple, hackers could also be decent hard sci-fi mages.

The scientist is a pretty good combat class in Worms: Revolution. However, it worked more like a Cleric, each round, your team heals 5 hp/ scientist and was better with sentries and remote strike weapons (such as air strikes, bunker busters, agent orange, etc.) but if I did that, It would take the job of the engineer and commando

8BitNinja
2015-11-22, 01:05 PM
In a relatively hard-SF settings? I wouldn't. Scientific research, engineering, those are all 'strategic-scale' abilities that you use over the course of hours/days/weeks. In combat, the scientist just fights the same way anyone else would.

In softer SF, there's lots of things that can produce 'magic-like' effects - psionics, nanotech, time-space manipulation, etc. For some of those, like nanotech, you still have the issue that being good at making X doesn't necessarily make you the best at using X - the best race-car drivers are not the same as the best mechanics or the best engine designers, for example. If it's a classed-based system, you can just bundle the two together and say that's how it works. Or you can keep them separate and have it more like the first approach.

This is definitely soft Sci-Fi, bordering on space opera, so I can just say "I made it up" to explain it

That's what H.G. Wells did, except he sometimes had communist overtones, I don't

mikeejimbo
2015-11-22, 01:22 PM
I think that switching genres might be an interesting chance to switch up some of the basic assumptions, particularly if you're building your own system. Rather than emulating D&D-style roles completely, consider the tone and theme you want to go for. For example, my group is currently playing a military sci-fi game and our characters are a spec ops unit. We have roles like "Demolitions", "Heavy Weapons", and "Sniper". Do these characters also have scientific knowledge? Well no, our characters are traditionally idiots and spend all their points in combat skills, but hey, nothing says they couldn't. We also have secondary support characters who have limited combat training and those science skills. When combat happens, it's because the spec ops group has been sent in to clear some military objective, and when we're trying to figure stuff out, we switch to the other characters who take a longer, higher-level view of things.

The point here is that there are no characters analogous to "fighter", "rogue", "wizard", or "cleric" directly. There may be some that have some similarities, but the base assumptions have changed, and thus so have the roles.

Anonymouswizard
2015-11-22, 01:30 PM
For example, my group is currently playing a military sci-fi game and our characters are a spec ops unit. We have roles like "Demolitions", "Heavy Weapons", and "Sniper". Do these characters also have scientific knowledge? Well no, our characters are traditionally idiots and spend all their points in combat skills, but hey, nothing says they couldn't.

Fun fact, I'm in a group where the GM says 'it's a combat campaign', and our responses are:

'Okay, so I've made a character with lots of out of combat utility and a small number of combat skills.'

So, in a combat focused campaign, we never have more than 1 character actually GOOD at fighting.

mikeejimbo
2015-11-22, 02:15 PM
Fun fact, I'm in a group where the GM says 'it's a combat campaign', and our responses are:

'Okay, so I've made a character with lots of out of combat utility and a small number of combat skills.'

So, in a combat focused campaign, we never have more than 1 character actually GOOD at fighting.

Probably still better than ours, where we're really good at killin', but not so much at actually accomplishing the objectives. "Rescue the hostages and capture at least one of the hostiles alive". 0 hostages rescued, all hostiles killed. Good job, us!

Anonymouswizard
2015-11-22, 02:18 PM
Probably still better than ours, where we're really good at killin', but not so much at actually accomplishing the objectives. "Rescue the hostages and capture at least one of the hostiles alive". 0 hostages rescued, all hostiles killed. Good job, us!

We completed objectives, except on the rare occasion that those objectives were 'kill stuff'. Thankfully, campaign 3 is around the corner, and at least 2 out of 5 of us are playing characters who can fight. This is where all objectives turn out to be 'talk to X without pissing them off'.

At least my character has a few social skills.

Knaight
2015-11-22, 03:23 PM
I am making a new one called Futurequest, but the problem is, I can't think of a good "caster class" that uses the power of science
...
Do you even think they are necessary?

Put simply, no. If you're reskinning a fundamentally high fantasy setting with the trappings of high technology, then you would need something like this. If you're building something for sci-fi or space opera to begin with, and are wedded to a class system, then you might as well make the classes for the space opera archetypes. Caster's aren't among them. There are scientist roles that don't map well to casters, and those might be worth using, but that's about it.

Madeiner
2015-11-22, 07:25 PM
I was thinking of this just today (for a steampunk version of wizards) and i think artificers are really a good match for the setting.

You don't cast magic missile: you have a portable plasma emitter.
Burning hands? You built that micro-reactor to power something, but it didn't work out and now you are just using it to burn things up by venting it's heat.
Sleep? Yeah, that's my sleep-inducing grenade.

All those things are powered by your personal magic/built in a way that you can understand.
If you need to have "prepared spell slots", well you can only carry so much equipment.

Cluedrew
2015-11-22, 08:57 PM
I can think of a few ways to approach this problem.

The one who makes: The artificer type. Science can be shared in a way that magic generally can't. Instead of avoiding this or trying to create an exception to the rule, embrace it have the character make weapons tools for the others. Maybe they are only useable a few times and for a certain period before they lose that "magic touch" that makes them so much better than the standard weapons.

The one who uses: On the other hand some of the "standard weapons" may just require to much training for an average person, even an average soldier to use effectively. Instead of fireball it is some sort of mini-rocket launcher that has a keyboard on the handle that is used to make mid-shot course corrections. A trained user can make 3 a second and hit within 10cm from the edge of the engagement, an untrained user might as well throw the rocket.

It really depends on what type of caster you want. Personally I wouldn't try to create a science-mancer, unless you want to go for an actual sci-fantasy.

8BitNinja
2015-11-23, 09:55 AM
I think that switching genres might be an interesting chance to switch up some of the basic assumptions, particularly if you're building your own system. Rather than emulating D&D-style roles completely, consider the tone and theme you want to go for. For example, my group is currently playing a military sci-fi game and our characters are a spec ops unit. We have roles like "Demolitions", "Heavy Weapons", and "Sniper". Do these characters also have scientific knowledge? Well no, our characters are traditionally idiots and spend all their points in combat skills, but hey, nothing says they couldn't. We also have secondary support characters who have limited combat training and those science skills. When combat happens, it's because the spec ops group has been sent in to clear some military objective, and when we're trying to figure stuff out, we switch to the other characters who take a longer, higher-level view of things.

The point here is that there are no characters analogous to "fighter", "rogue", "wizard", or "cleric" directly. There may be some that have some similarities, but the base assumptions have changed, and thus so have the roles.

I have my own classes
Marine: Tank and damage
Sniper: Heavy, precise damage, light armor
Scientist: Makes and uses special weapons, sapper
Scout: Reconnaissance, Light assult
Commando: Combat/Support combination
Juggernaut: Super heavy damage
Enforcer: Damage Sponge/shielding support
Medic: Healer, nonviolent
*Drill Sargent: Buffs, Support based combat
*Pilot: Great in the air, sucks on the ground
**Engineer: Area of Denial, Stationary Support
**Psychokinetic: Chooses abilities at beginning, pure ability user, only available to certain races

KEY
* Planned, not confirmed
** Planned,suggested by you guys

Anonymouswizard
2015-11-23, 10:50 AM
Ouch, as an engineer, having the class that seems to design, build, and use equipment (so, u'know, engineering and using stuff) be called a scientist just feels wrong to me. Sure, on anything cutting edge you'll want scientists, but for building, modifying, and improving standard equipment engineer or technician just feels better.

No, I do not get upset over mad engineers being called 'mad scientists'.

8BitNinja
2015-11-23, 01:34 PM
Ouch, as an engineer, having the class that seems to design, build, and use equipment (so, u'know, engineering and using stuff) be called a scientist just feels wrong to me. Sure, on anything cutting edge you'll want scientists, but for building, modifying, and improving standard equipment engineer or technician just feels better.

No, I do not get upset over mad engineers being called 'mad scientists'.

The engineer is the whole "Giant in the Playground Forum scientist" you guys keep suggesting
The engineer mainly builds these as his abilities

Sentry Guns
Armored Sentry: Fires handgun rounds, low range, high health
Standard Sentry: Fires assault rifle rounds, medium range, medium health
Sniper Sentry: Fires sniper rifle rounds, high range, low health

Dispensers
Medical Robot: Heals allies within one space
Ammunition Dispenser Unit: Automatically reloads gun if it is compatible with the ammo inside
Reconstructer: Repairs Vehicles, Androids, and Buildings within one space

Teleporters
Small Teleporter: Can teleport 1 humanoid, 1 action startup
Medium Teleporter: Can teleport 3 humanoids or 1 small vehicle, 3 action startup
Large Teleporter: Can teleport 5 humanoids, 2 small vehicles, or 1 large vehicle, 5 action startup

Miscellaneous
Exoskeleton: Provides 500% Extra health and strength, requires 10 energy an action
Hoverbike: Small vehicle increasing speed by 200%, can go over gaps and obstructions
Construction Drone: Controllable remote vehicle that can place build a device anywhere, costs 5 energy a space moved, self destructs upon placing device

mikeejimbo
2015-11-23, 03:43 PM
Personally I'd roll the Scientist and Engineer you have proposed into one "Combat Engineer" class.

8BitNinja
2015-11-23, 04:50 PM
Personally I'd roll the Scientist and Engineer you have proposed into one "Combat Engineer" class.

The Scientist is supposed to be more of a offense/support while engineer is supposed to be defense/support

The scientist is the nerd who runs around, the engineer is the nerd who stays still

The Medic is the nerd who makes the bleeding stop

Keltest
2015-11-23, 05:37 PM
The Scientist is supposed to be more of a offense/support while engineer is supposed to be defense/support

The scientist is the nerd who runs around, the engineer is the nerd who stays still

The Medic is the nerd who makes the bleeding stop

People who run around are generally not doing science of any sort unless it is specifically about running. Someone who just throws random flasks of chemicals at people to see what they do is not a scientist.

Anonymouswizard
2015-11-23, 05:49 PM
People who run around are generally not doing science of any sort unless it is specifically about running. Someone who just throws random flasks of chemicals at people to see what they do is not a scientist.

Correction: someone who just throws random flasks of chemicals at people to see that they do outside of a controlled environment is not a scientist.

But yeah, you basically have offensive engineer, defensive engineer, and medic. Maybe use the names Engineer (offensive), Technician (Defensive), and Medic (obviously a fighter of some sort). Of course, 8BitNinja, you technically don't technically have to care about what the mage without a name says, he'll just keep whining and you can filter out his whining (I come up with constructive ideas occasionally).

8BitNinja
2015-11-23, 05:53 PM
Correction: someone who just throws random flasks of chemicals at people to see that they do outside of a controlled environment is not a scientist.

But yeah, you basically have offensive engineer, defensive engineer, and medic. Maybe use the names Engineer (offensive), Technician (Defensive), and Medic (obviously a fighter of some sort). Of course, 8BitNinja, you technically don't technically have to care about what the mage without a name says, he'll just keep whining and you can filter out his whining (I come up with constructive ideas occasionally).

Technician sounds like a better name for the scientist, thanks

Technician will be offense though, the Engineer is loosely based on the TF2 one

Knaight
2015-11-23, 10:55 PM
Technician sounds like a better name for the scientist, thanks

Technician will be offense though, the Engineer is loosely based on the TF2 one

The abilities listed looked like a straight port even before you mentioned this. I wouldn't call that loosely based.

8BitNinja
2015-11-24, 09:43 AM
The abilities listed looked like a straight port even before you mentioned this. I wouldn't call that loosely based.

Yeah, it pretty much is

But the spah can't sap the sentry

In fact, I have no spy class in the game, although in the early stages, when I tried to first write it out, there was an assassin class, but it was kept out because we had nowhere to go after invisibility, knives, and sniper rifles

For now, I will keep spy out, I already have plenty of classes

The reason why I used the TF2 engineer is because it is the only thing I thought of when thinking of a defense/support class

Keltest
2015-11-24, 10:21 AM
Yeah, it pretty much is

But the spah can't sap the sentry

In fact, I have no spy class in the game, although in the early stages, when I tried to first write it out, there was an assassin class, but it was kept out because we had nowhere to go after invisibility, knives, and sniper rifles

For now, I will keep spy out, I already have plenty of classes

The reason why I used the TF2 engineer is because it is the only thing I thought of when thinking of a defense/support class

portable force field generators? Trip mines? Bionic enhancements?

Storm_Of_Snow
2015-11-24, 11:35 AM
Sci-Fi wizards? How about Technomages from B5? Or Noranti from Farscape as an alchemist/witch type.

8BitNinja
2015-11-24, 01:39 PM
portable force field generators? Trip mines? Bionic enhancements?

The Technician (New name for scientist) Has an explosive node, which basically is a mine

The Enforcer (Basically a tanky space cop) has lots of different force field generator types and even uses force field technology as a restraint on hostiles, but also has portable and stationary force fields

Anyone can get cybernetic parts, even androids, but at the cost of losing armor in that area, for example, if you get a cybernetic torso, you gain a certain amount of constitution, but you can never again armor that area

If it's weapon enhancements you are talking about, you can buy or find attachments which you can equip, you can only have one attachment unless you get a feat to equip another one or you are a Marine who can equip two to their gun, melee weapons can improve their damage multiplier (MK I weapons do base damage, MK II weapons do x2, continues to MK V), but cannot get attachment., After all, why would you need a scope or extended magazine on a knife?

But none of these are combined into one class :biggrin:

noob
2015-11-24, 03:21 PM
Never put everything into one class: it either makes stuff similar to bards or wizards and both are too much overpowering compared to the classes you did put.
If you did choose that one class would do one role do not put twenty roles on one class.
Then the question is why special weapons made for class A could not be carried around and used by other classes?
Anyone can lug around a turret and press on a button to make it shoot at everything in one direction automatically.

Keltest
2015-11-24, 03:51 PM
Never put everything into one class: it either makes stuff similar to bards or wizards and both are too much overpowering compared to the classes you did put.
If you did choose that one class would do one role do not put twenty roles on one class.
Then the question is why special weapons made for class A could not be carried around and used by other classes?
Anyone can lug around a turret and press on a button to make it shoot at everything in one direction automatically.

Sure, but do they know how to maintain and repair that turret in the field using dirt, gum, and that puddle of... something... you got smeared on your boot half a mile back?

VoxRationis
2015-11-24, 03:57 PM
Sure, but do they know how to maintain and repair that turret in the field using dirt, gum, and that puddle of... something... you got smeared on your boot half a mile back?

That's a single (albeit common) scenario; it doesn't explain why those turrets can't be used and deployed by other classes in defensive engagements or in circumstances where maintenance isn't a problem. There's a big difference between "X class is the best with turrets, because they know how to maintain them" and "If your X is incapacitated, it is physically impossible for the rest of the party to use the turret."

Keltest
2015-11-24, 04:00 PM
That's a single (albeit common) scenario; it doesn't explain why those turrets can't be used and deployed by other classes in defensive engagements or in circumstances where maintenance isn't a problem. There's a big difference between "X class is the best with turrets, because they know how to maintain them" and "If your X is incapacitated, it is physically impossible for the rest of the party to use the turret."

Depending on the nature of the turret, it could very well be quite difficult to intuit how to use something. I can all but guarantee you that somebody with no experience in the field would have no luck at all commanding, say, a mechanical arm to do something as simple as move left, then right, then stop. Imagine how complicated an autoturret would be to use without just massacring everyone in your party?

They can also potentially be quite difficult to assemble. Unless the turret is specifically designed to be idiot proof, random fighter guy probably wouldn't be able to assemble it in any practical amount of time. And that's not even counting any safety locks on the thing the engineer installed to prevent people besides themselves from using it. After all, an idiot proof turret that assembles quickly is begging to be stolen in the night and used against the party.

Orderic
2015-11-24, 04:05 PM
How about a combination of nanomachines, cybernetic implants and intensive training?
The nanites to make the magic happen, the implants to control them and the training to do it in a reasonable amount of time.

Sure, anyone can get some nanites and throw around fireballs, but only those few who have trained so much that they can do it instinctively will be able to effectively do so in battle.

VoxRationis
2015-11-24, 04:08 PM
Imagine how complicated an autoturret would be to use without just massacring everyone in your party?

Not very. If it's an actual "auto"turret, the friendly-fire prevention system shouldn't require input. The guy running the turret isn't going to be programming that sort of stuff in the field—it's too complicated to do under fire and can be done just fine at home. If the turret can identify a target (distinguishing it from rocks, signposts, blowing leaves in the wind, and the like), you probably have the techbase to slap some sort of IFF technology on it as well, telling it not to fire at things with friendly radio signatures.
Even if you don't have that, pointing it in a general direction and pressing the "on" button is still useful in many contexts.


They can also potentially be quite difficult to assemble. Unless the turret is specifically designed to be idiot proof, random fighter guy probably wouldn't be able to assemble it in any practical amount of time.
Potentially. But this is science fiction we're talking about, and there is a significant tactical advantage to having the entire squad be able to deploy this kind of field equipment if the engineer gets killed. It's not unreasonable to consider ease of use as a matter favored during the design of the turret. Plus, if it actually takes that much time and know-how to deploy it, it's probably not going to be useful in the sort of combat timescales RPGs usually use.


After all, an idiot proof turret that assembles quickly is begging to be stolen in the night and used against the party.
That could be said for all equipment, really. If you're in a position where you can sneak into the camp, steal the party's turret, and use it against them, you could just as easily steal a grenade and leave it under their pillows like a sadistic Tooth Fairy.

8BitNinja
2015-11-25, 12:39 PM
That's a single (albeit common) scenario; it doesn't explain why those turrets can't be used and deployed by other classes in defensive engagements or in circumstances where maintenance isn't a problem. There's a big difference between "X class is the best with turrets, because they know how to maintain them" and "If your X is incapacitated, it is physically impossible for the rest of the party to use the turret."

Engineers don't carry a fold-able turret, they build one in the field with a special device and even then, it requires the knowledge to actually build one

It's not like the TF2 engineer that carries every device folded in a tackle box

8BitNinja
2015-11-25, 12:50 PM
Not very. If it's an actual "auto"turret, the friendly-fire prevention system shouldn't require input. The guy running the turret isn't going to be programming that sort of stuff in the field—it's too complicated to do under fire and can be done just fine at home. If the turret can identify a target (distinguishing it from rocks, signposts, blowing leaves in the wind, and the like), you probably have the techbase to slap some sort of IFF technology on it as well, telling it not to fire at things with friendly radio signatures.
Even if you don't have that, pointing it in a general direction and pressing the "on" button is still useful in many contexts.


Potentially. But this is science fiction we're talking about, and there is a significant tactical advantage to having the entire squad be able to deploy this kind of field equipment if the engineer gets killed. It's not unreasonable to consider ease of use as a matter favored during the design of the turret. Plus, if it actually takes that much time and know-how to deploy it, it's probably not going to be useful in the sort of combat timescales RPGs usually use.


That could be said for all equipment, really. If you're in a position where you can sneak into the camp, steal the party's turret, and use it against them, you could just as easily steal a grenade and leave it under their pillows like a sadistic Tooth Fairy.

1. Everyone communicates on a radio in their helmet, it's how they can communicate in the soundless void of space, so the engineer sets a frequency on the turret to not shoot at

2. The engineer knows how to use a special device, the construction scepter, to build things, it also does not store blueprints, just puts the parts together, the engineer keeps the blueprints in his head after intensive study of them(yes, they are trained to be that good at remembering in the future)

3. If you are in hostile territory, it's probably safe to put up defenses of have a watch other than a sentry gun, or have an alarm, an enemy technician or psychokinetic could easily take out your electronics with an EMP, this will even affect androids, sorry androids, you wanted to be cool and now you're sapped, but the enemy also needs an engineer who knows how to build these things, If you really wanted to kill off the party and set a sentry off on them in the night, they would have to haul the enemy engineer over there which is not good for an ambush. If you want to kill everyone in their sleep, get a Juggernaut to get over there and spray everyone with his minigun

noob
2015-11-25, 01:11 PM
Still that does not explains why a marine could not carry a fully built sentry and then put it on the ground in front of him(of course he improved the feet by attaching adapted spikes to them) and boot it.
Or why a Juggernaut count not carry an emp device or why a sniper could not get an assault rifle and snipe with it(done often in real life) or even use a rifle with a sawed cannon(have been done too in real life)

CharonsHelper
2015-11-25, 01:45 PM
Yes - as noob says - it seems like you either -

1. Need a better fluff reason to limit equipment usage. Nano or cybernetic controls have already been suggested.

2. Make it soft rather than hard usage limitations. For example - anyone can potentially use a turret, but Engineers can use them fast enough for use in combat and the turrets they use are more accurate. Snipers get large bonuses to hit with their sniper rifles etc.

VoxRationis
2015-11-25, 03:19 PM
1. Everyone communicates on a radio in their helmet, it's how they can communicate in the soundless void of space, so the engineer sets a frequency on the turret to not shoot at
Precisely. I can set a device to register a known frequency, and I am no engineer. Everyone with a car can do that. The process of avoiding friendly fire with a turret of such advanced technology is so simple, any soldier raised in a society that can produce such turrets should know how to do it almost automatically.


2. The engineer knows how to use a special device, the construction scepter, to build things, it also does not store blueprints, just puts the parts together, the engineer keeps the blueprints in his head after intensive study of them(yes, they are trained to be that good at remembering in the future.
This seems like a somewhat arbitrary "societal" reason for why these restrictions exist. Having your field-construction device contain PDF-equivalents would almost certainly improve the quality of constructions, compared with having engineers try to remember how to make complicated mechanical equipment from scratch. Even this requires acceptance of the somewhat arbitrary decision to say "Okay, we want our turrets to be usable only by a small minority of our soldiers."
Does the wand assemble parts the engineer has in a backpack or something, or does it forge the whole thing, including the parts, according to instructions?

Re. point number 3: That's exactly what I'm saying. There's no point in reducing your troops' combat effectiveness to prevent theft of equipment, because if the theft could take place, the troops are already effectively dead.

PrincessCupcake
2015-11-25, 03:52 PM
Well, I think you can answer part of your initial question by asking what roles the Caster Classes fill. Take away the "mystical" aspect of their character and what are they?

The Wizard- has a lot of tools that do a lot of things, but must choose which to take with him. Is also able to create powerful devices that less specialized people can use. Needs some prep time and defending to be really effective. (This is filled pretty handily by your Engineer type)

The Druid- makes sure allies aren't overwhelmed by enemies, using a wide variety of abilities. They can also change their nature to protect themselves from both environmental and Enemy hazards. Has a very tough and very loyal ally to protect them. (This could be a Biologist with an Experiment, a SWAT Officer with gas canisters and a police dog, or even a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde type.)

The Red Mage- Has a wide range of abilities that improve allies and hamper enemies. Not as specialized as some others, but useful in his versatility. (This could be a Spy type, a hacker, a detective, or even a command type.)

The Sorcerer- has a limited toolkit but can use those tools reliably and to devastating effect. Best when used to deal large amounts of damage to individual targets as well as large groups. (This to me sounds like an artilleryman with different kinds of ammunition.)

One other thing.... I notice you have a distinct gap in your roster. There is practically zero mention of non-combat roles, and the only mentions of such things are relegated to "weapons maker" and "healer". No "Face" at all, and the only "Information Gatherer" is combat related. I don't know if that's merely due to oversimplification, or if it's something you actually need to work on yet.
It feels like I should bring that up since many of the casters in D&D have more options outside of combat than they do in combat.

Keltest
2015-11-25, 03:55 PM
Engineers don't carry a fold-able turret, they build one in the field with a special device and even then, it requires the knowledge to actually build one

It's not like the TF2 engineer that carries every device folded in a tackle box

I feel like a collapsible turret would be a more practical battlefield device so that you don't have to spend 20 minutes disassembling it and reassembling it if you want to move it three feet to your left.

ThinkMinty
2015-11-25, 04:03 PM
Psychic powers. Seriously, you can take anything fantastic and slap the science fiction buzzwords on it instead.

Watch, I'mma do it a bunch of times to show you how it works.

Fire magic? Pyrokinesis.
Healing magic? Shared regeneration.
Magic Portal? Wormhole.
Dreamland? Astral plane.
Necromancy? Reanimation.
Dragon? Dinosaur.
Visions? Hallucinations.
Tyrant? Dictator.
Alchemy? Chemistry.
Knight? Space Marine.
Red Mage? Polymath.
Monster? Cryptid.
Stymphalian Bird? Predator Drone.
Magic carpet? Hoverboard.
Golem? Robot.
Thunderbolt Iron? Exotic Alloy.
Elves? Space Elves.
Sea Monsters? Space Whales.
Orcs? Klingons.
Magical Realm? Virtual Reality and/or Platonic Cave.
Bard? Disc Jockey.
Witch-King? Science Emperor.
Foreigners? Aliens.


To an extent, anything other than the stiffest, most explain-y (and therefore the most boring) science fiction is fantasy with a different vocabulary. You take the fantasy thing you want, then create some semblance of an internally-consistent explanation as to how it fits into the science-fictional universe.

You can, if you want, tell a straight-up fantasy story in science fiction if you set it in Virtual Reality.

Ashtagon
2015-11-26, 03:00 PM
A lot depends on how hard you like your sci-fi (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MohsScaleOfScienceFictionHardness).

At the soft end, as others have noted, you can re-fluff magic as psionics, force powers, music of the spheres, or whatever. TSR's Amazing Engine The Galactos Barrier and Once and Future King are examples of this.

At the harder end of the scale, you might want to re-examine party roles, because when guns are common, everything changes.

Using the 4e paradigm,

Strikers are much the same, except more likely to be focused on ranged weapons. Note that D&Ds "blaster wizards" were strikers in 4e. If you are basing this off an actual gun the characters use, the character should be based off a modified rogue or ranger class rather than a modified wizard.

Defenders are far less likely to exist at all, unless for some reason powered armour is a thing.

Leaders (the guy who slaps the bennies on the rest of the party) could be a type of psionic character. Without psi though, they would be trained medics. There aren't many other ways to spin this. d20 Modern has a field medic class which is this trope.

Controllers (the guy who does crowd control) are the classic D&D wizard in the 4e interpretation. This could be a petmaster (either robot comptroller or nanobot swarm controller). That's probably a modified animal companion class feature with an option to have multiple robots and a restriction that all the pets be constructs (and probably only certain constructs). The nanobot swarm controller really depends on what you want that to do, since its so out-there in SF terms.

The "sage" trope is basically a guy will lots of ranks in Knowledge skills. That probably has little combat utility.

The "engineer" trope would be the guy who builds and repairs anything. That could be combined with the robot petmaster, but it might be loading too much power into one class (or not; ymmv).

Finally, there is the netrunner trope, which often gets treated as a plane in game terms (d20 Modern more or less does this). That unfortunately creates problems in that the rest of the party sits on their thumbs while the netrunner does his thing, if this is implemented particularly badly.

So, while I wouldn't have a "wizard" in a hard SF adventure, there's plenty of potential roles for a player who wants to be "the knowledge guy".

8BitNinja
2015-11-30, 01:27 PM
Still that does not explains why a marine could not carry a fully built sentry and then put it on the ground in front of him(of course he improved the feet by attaching adapted spikes to them) and boot it.
Or why a Juggernaut count not carry an emp device or why a sniper could not get an assault rifle and snipe with it(done often in real life) or even use a rifle with a sawed cannon(have been done too in real life)

A Juggernaut can carry an EMP and a Marine can carry a sentry, it just takes an engineer to build the sentry

One of the sniper's usable weapons are assault rifles

8BitNinja
2015-11-30, 01:28 PM
Psychic powers. Seriously, you can take anything fantastic and slap the science fiction buzzwords on it instead.

Watch, I'mma do it a bunch of times to show you how it works.

Fire magic? Pyrokinesis.
Healing magic? Shared regeneration.
Magic Portal? Wormhole.
Dreamland? Astral plane.
Necromancy? Reanimation.
Dragon? Dinosaur.
Visions? Hallucinations.
Tyrant? Dictator.
Alchemy? Chemistry.
Knight? Space Marine.
Red Mage? Polymath.
Monster? Cryptid.
Stymphalian Bird? Predator Drone.
Magic carpet? Hoverboard.
Golem? Robot.
Thunderbolt Iron? Exotic Alloy.
Elves? Space Elves.
Sea Monsters? Space Whales.
Orcs? Klingons.
Magical Realm? Virtual Reality and/or Platonic Cave.
Bard? Disc Jockey.
Witch-King? Science Emperor.
Foreigners? Aliens.


To an extent, anything other than the stiffest, most explain-y (and therefore the most boring) science fiction is fantasy with a different vocabulary. You take the fantasy thing you want, then create some semblance of an internally-consistent explanation as to how it fits into the science-fictional universe.

You can, if you want, tell a straight-up fantasy story in science fiction if you set it in Virtual Reality.

This is great, but I'm not sure how tyrants and bards are strictly fantasy, they exist in real life too

8BitNinja
2015-11-30, 01:31 PM
A lot depends on how hard you like your sci-fi (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MohsScaleOfScienceFictionHardness).

At the soft end, as others have noted, you can re-fluff magic as psionics, force powers, music of the spheres, or whatever. TSR's Amazing Engine The Galactos Barrier and Once and Future King are examples of this.

At the harder end of the scale, you might want to re-examine party roles, because when guns are common, everything changes.

Using the 4e paradigm,

Strikers are much the same, except more likely to be focused on ranged weapons. Note that D&Ds "blaster wizards" were strikers in 4e. If you are basing this off an actual gun the characters use, the character should be based off a modified rogue or ranger class rather than a modified wizard.

Defenders are far less likely to exist at all, unless for some reason powered armour is a thing.

Leaders (the guy who slaps the bennies on the rest of the party) could be a type of psionic character. Without psi though, they would be trained medics. There aren't many other ways to spin this. d20 Modern has a field medic class which is this trope.

Controllers (the guy who does crowd control) are the classic D&D wizard in the 4e interpretation. This could be a petmaster (either robot comptroller or nanobot swarm controller). That's probably a modified animal companion class feature with an option to have multiple robots and a restriction that all the pets be constructs (and probably only certain constructs). The nanobot swarm controller really depends on what you want that to do, since its so out-there in SF terms.

The "sage" trope is basically a guy will lots of ranks in Knowledge skills. That probably has little combat utility.

The "engineer" trope would be the guy who builds and repairs anything. That could be combined with the robot petmaster, but it might be loading too much power into one class (or not; ymmv).

Finally, there is the netrunner trope, which often gets treated as a plane in game terms (d20 Modern more or less does this). That unfortunately creates problems in that the rest of the party sits on their thumbs while the netrunner does his thing, if this is implemented particularly badly.

So, while I wouldn't have a "wizard" in a hard SF adventure, there's plenty of potential roles for a player who wants to be "the knowledge guy".

I love TV Tropes and have referred to this when making the setting, and decided it's gonna be pretty soft

I'm going with H.G. Wells' idea that I can make stuff up because of the fiction label and not worry so much about the science part

after all, how else am I going to protect government secrets with the Konami code?

8BitNinja
2015-11-30, 01:35 PM
Well, I think you can answer part of your initial question by asking what roles the Caster Classes fill. Take away the "mystical" aspect of their character and what are they?

The Wizard- has a lot of tools that do a lot of things, but must choose which to take with him. Is also able to create powerful devices that less specialized people can use. Needs some prep time and defending to be really effective. (This is filled pretty handily by your Engineer type)

The Druid- makes sure allies aren't overwhelmed by enemies, using a wide variety of abilities. They can also change their nature to protect themselves from both environmental and Enemy hazards. Has a very tough and very loyal ally to protect them. (This could be a Biologist with an Experiment, a SWAT Officer with gas canisters and a police dog, or even a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde type.)

The Red Mage- Has a wide range of abilities that improve allies and hamper enemies. Not as specialized as some others, but useful in his versatility. (This could be a Spy type, a hacker, a detective, or even a command type.)

The Sorcerer- has a limited toolkit but can use those tools reliably and to devastating effect. Best when used to deal large amounts of damage to individual targets as well as large groups. (This to me sounds like an artilleryman with different kinds of ammunition.)

One other thing.... I notice you have a distinct gap in your roster. There is practically zero mention of non-combat roles, and the only mentions of such things are relegated to "weapons maker" and "healer". No "Face" at all, and the only "Information Gatherer" is combat related. I don't know if that's merely due to oversimplification, or if it's something you actually need to work on yet.
It feels like I should bring that up since many of the casters in D&D have more options outside of combat than they do in combat.

I'm not entirely done writing it yet, and more classes will be added, probably a diplomat, spy, and gunsmith class will be added

Either that or I will add them as part of your education

At the beginning, you roll a D12 die to see what education you get and gives you certain buffs and abilities (example: Economics, easier haggling)

8BitNinja
2015-11-30, 01:38 PM
Precisely. I can set a device to register a known frequency, and I am no engineer. Everyone with a car can do that. The process of avoiding friendly fire with a turret of such advanced technology is so simple, any soldier raised in a society that can produce such turrets should know how to do it almost automatically.

This seems like a somewhat arbitrary "societal" reason for why these restrictions exist. Having your field-construction device contain PDF-equivalents would almost certainly improve the quality of constructions, compared with having engineers try to remember how to make complicated mechanical equipment from scratch. Even this requires acceptance of the somewhat arbitrary decision to say "Okay, we want our turrets to be usable only by a small minority of our soldiers."
Does the wand assemble parts the engineer has in a backpack or something, or does it forge the whole thing, including the parts, according to instructions?

Re. point number 3: That's exactly what I'm saying. There's no point in reducing your troops' combat effectiveness to prevent theft of equipment, because if the theft could take place, the troops are already effectively dead.

The wand has to assemble a construction using parts the engineer is carrying, no building parts, no building

ThinkMinty
2015-12-01, 03:31 AM
This is great, but I'm not sure how tyrants and bards are strictly fantasy, they exist in real life too

Yes, but in real life, we tend to use other words for the same thing, which was kind of my point and/or the joke.

squab
2015-12-01, 04:01 AM
That's a single (albeit common) scenario; it doesn't explain why those turrets can't be used and deployed by other classes in defensive engagements or in circumstances where maintenance isn't a problem. There's a big difference between "X class is the best with turrets, because they know how to maintain them" and "If your X is incapacitated, it is physically impossible for the rest of the party to use the turret."

Clearly the autoturret is run by a moody AI that only listens to the engineer, since that engineer was one of a very select few engineers who minored in the very emotional field of AI mediation. (Or one of the few professional AI mediators that studied the very technical field of engineering.)

This makes a lot more sense then "only the engineer can build a turret because we keep building new ones instead of getting one working one."

Either that or I've just watched way too much Red vs Blue.

Knaight
2015-12-01, 12:38 PM
Yes, but in real life, we tend to use other words for the same thing, which was kind of my point and/or the joke.

Tyrant gets used plenty.

Gracht Grabmaw
2015-12-01, 01:17 PM
The true equivalent to a wizard in a science fiction story is the hacker/scientist/engineer/royal smart person. The guy who can do basically anything the plot requires because he's clever and knows thing. Think about the engineers on Star Trek, or the hacker in a cyberpunk squad or hell even R2D2 would qualify.

8BitNinja
2015-12-01, 01:22 PM
Clearly the autoturret is run by a moody AI that only listens to the engineer, since that engineer was one of a very select few engineers who minored in the very emotional field of AI mediation. (Or one of the few professional AI mediators that studied the very technical field of engineering.)

This makes a lot more sense then "only the engineer can build a turret because we keep building new ones instead of getting one working one."

Either that or I've just watched way too much Red vs Blue.

The real reason only an engineer can build these things is because of balance, If I give these to the technician, on top of what it already has, then he would be overpowered

Also, if the engineer builds them, it will allow class specialization, If anyone can build it, it's just another item

squab
2015-12-01, 09:09 PM
I think that making the turret some strange equivalent of "animal companion" or "familiar" makes more sense then the idea that the technology doesn't exist to make an auto-turret anyone can use. And uh, we need AIs to run autoturrets because the standard "friend or foe" technology can be circumvented, but AIs and their ability to -think- let's them figure it out.

The most realistic thing I can think of is that the engineer carries the turret, knows how to repair/maintain the turret, it makes sense that he would use it - however everyone technically -can- use it.

CharonsHelper
2015-12-02, 11:10 AM
The real reason only an engineer can build these things is because of balance, If I give these to the technician, on top of what it already has, then he would be overpowered

Also, if the engineer builds them, it will allow class specialization, If anyone can build it, it's just another item

So basically - you have mechanical reasons - but you don't like any of the proposed fluff reasons to match?

8BitNinja
2015-12-02, 01:20 PM
So basically - you have mechanical reasons - but you don't like any of the proposed fluff reasons to match?

Don't worry, I have both

The idea is that in space, due to cold welding, these things would be very risky to assemble in space, so to circumvent that, they have a special "wand" called a construction scepter, where you can input a set of commands for it to follow, similar to writing the instructions of a LEGO set in real life, the thing is, the blueprints don't save and because game only engineers are trained to remember these

There is also a personal AI for the engineer's sentries, don't worry about it coming self aware or breaking Asimov's laws, it's not like we have sentient androids in this world
(voice in the distance)
what's that?
(voice)
We do?
(voice)
Crap

YossarianLives
2015-12-02, 03:09 PM
That still seems rather silly. You haven't provided any IC reason why the construction scepter can't just store the blueprint for the sentry turret. People are lazy, there's no reason why somebody in the future would take the time to memorize the exact instructions for a very complicated and delicate piece of technology when they could just upload it to a device.

VoxRationis
2015-12-02, 03:25 PM
That still seems rather silly. You haven't provided any IC reason why the construction scepter can't just store the blueprint for the sentry turret. People are lazy, there's no reason why somebody in the future would take the time to memorize the exact instructions for a very complicated and delicate piece of technology when they could just upload it to a device.

Thank you. The "construction wand" idea implies that the Powers That Be in-universe share the game designer's out-of-universe, game-balance-motivated idea that only engineers can use turrets. Unless the cultures in-game are amazingly chivalrous and sportsmanlike, the assorted High Commands of the armed forces are not going to limit themselves like that.

Segev
2015-12-02, 04:19 PM
Perhaps, despite their best efforts, things built by Construction Scepters are unfortunately persnickety and prone to hilariouscatastrophic malfunctions, so it takes an Engineer well-versed in their peculiarities and proper function to whack them with the wrench in the right places and keep them operating within parameters?

Tvtyrant
2015-12-02, 04:21 PM
Tyrant gets used plenty.

Get used plenty for what?? :smalleek:

CharonsHelper
2015-12-02, 04:31 PM
Thank you. The "construction wand" idea implies that the Powers That Be in-universe share the game designer's out-of-universe, game-balance-motivated idea that only engineers can use turrets. Unless the cultures in-game are amazingly chivalrous and sportsmanlike, the assorted High Commands of the armed forces are not going to limit themselves like that.

Yes - that's what I was getting at above.

If you're going future fantasy rather than hard sci-fi (definitely what the vibe seems to be here) it doesn't have to be a particularly good reason. Needing a cybernetic brain implant or some such would work pretty easily and is vague enough not to worry about the specifics.

8BitNinja
2015-12-02, 05:10 PM
Perhaps, despite their best efforts, things built by Construction Scepters are unfortunately persnickety and prone to hilariouscatastrophic malfunctions, so it takes an Engineer well-versed in their peculiarities and proper function to whack them with the wrench in the right places and keep them operating within parameters?

This is actually what I was going for, building with tech like this, being remote shaped with just a few buttons and not using fine placements, could be very bad if something were to happen. Engineers specifically train to use these, just like how you wouldn't see a normal person walk around with one of the technician's special instruments, it's not that they can't use them, it's that they don't know how, same with the medic's regeneration beam

8BitNinja
2015-12-02, 05:12 PM
Yes - that's what I was getting at above.

If you're going future fantasy rather than hard sci-fi (definitely what the vibe seems to be here) it doesn't have to be a particularly good reason. Needing a cybernetic brain implant or some such would work pretty easily and is vague enough not to worry about the specifics.

I like this idea also for the wand, I guess to photographically store the memory into their brains is not something everyone can do, sure a few can, but not every engineer. This way, they have access to their blueprints constantly by it literally being on their mind

Knaight
2015-12-02, 08:57 PM
Get used plenty for what?? :smalleek:

As a descriptive word for actual people in the real world.

8BitNinja
2015-12-03, 01:18 PM
As a descriptive word for actual people in the real world.

Many, many people in history and today could be described as tyrants

People such as Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Saddam Hussein just to name a few

Segev
2015-12-03, 01:27 PM
Not to mention undead tyrant lizard queens ridden into battle in Chicago by wizards.

8BitNinja
2015-12-03, 02:19 PM
Okay guys, to avoid derailing, we are going to stop talking about tyrants

If you want to talk about the topic, that's great, if not, let's do that on another thread