Post/Author/DateTime	Post
ksbsnowowl 06-07-05, 10:05 AM	Simple question really, if you were running a game in the Realms, would you allow a character to play an Artificier as found in the Eberron Campaign Setting? Personally, I don't see it as a problem, flavor-wise, but I'm interested as to what others think as I debate letting this class be used in my upcoming campaign.
Damien_Hiro 06-07-05, 10:46 AM	I would not have a problem with it. I would like to see a gnomish artificer from Lantan or a dwarven one from the Great Rift. I think it fits very well in the Eberron settingbecause of the Warforged, but I do not see any reason for it to be exclusively there. Even a Human artificer from Waterdeep would make sense. I have let a lot of things go into our Realm's campaign.
Alac Luin 06-07-05, 04:50 PM	I can also see the Red Wizards employing them in their magic trade enclaves possibly allowing non-mulans to work and build magic items. The male spell casters from Rashemen that build all those neat toys the Hathrans use would also be appropriate (IMO). Some people think the artificer is a broken class, but I don't think so.
Brom Greenstar 06-07-05, 04:56 PM	isn't Torbriand an artificer too?
ruleslawyer 06-07-05, 07:31 PM	Trobriand is an artificer with a small "a", so to speak. The Artificer class (from the Eberron CSB) is a spellcasting class geared around creating and imbuing items rather than casting spells for direct effect. IMHO, I think they work just fine in the Realms; in fact, it's one good way to explain the high numbers of magic items coming out of some places (e.g. Thay) without needing enormous numbers of high-level wizards to justify them. BTW, I'd say the artificer is generally weaker than a standard spellcaster, not stronger. They're a great support character, but not so devastating on their own.
msatran 06-08-05, 04:04 AM	He's in the Waterdeep Preview. (And really, he should be higher level than this)
msatran 06-08-05, 04:05 AM	It says specifically in the Eberron book that this is an Eberron Only class. You could work it in, but Out of theme, to me, means out of theme.
GothicDan 06-08-05, 09:06 AM	I agree. It just makes the creation of magical items way too easy; I think it's already been made easy enough with normal Item Creation feats, even for the Red Wizards.
Tyrant of the Moonsea 06-08-05, 09:16 AM	I would see the Artificer as a good PrC for Rhaumatar...They were experts in craftsmanship and constructs...Maybe they introduced warforged to Faerun. But I dont think Red wizards need that kind of support...They are far too proud of their magic to accept the fact that some guy can craft magical items without their precious magic... My two cents ;)
Alac Luin 06-08-05, 11:46 AM	Another idea I had in the past is basing 3.X Pluma Weavers and Hishna shapers from the Mezteca area on the Artificer. It does vary from the “flavor” when we first think about the way the Artificer is presented in the ECS, but does fit for rule governing spellcasters with limited spell advancement and that create things, like these two classes (actually rogue kits with spell casting ability) are presented in the Mezteca boxed set.
GothicDan 06-08-05, 01:11 PM	The Rhaumathari were known for their Battle Mages (i.e.: the PrC in the Unapproachable East book), not for their artificing skills. If there was going to be an artifice-based ancient nation that may have introduced the Warforged into FR, it would be the Imaskari, probably, though I would never do it myself. What's the point in having a campaign setting at all if you're just going to muddle them altogether? It would be like some really bad online fanfictions that cross together Star Wars/Star Trek/the Terminator/Pokemon.
Alac Luin 06-08-05, 01:30 PM	Darth Mewh (sp?) leads his romulan alliance in an invasion of Babylon 5.
GothicDan 06-08-05, 01:35 PM	Pika?
Alac Luin 06-08-05, 01:39 PM	Mewh, or whatever his name is is Pika's arch nemesis, at least as far as I can tell from the cartoon. It just makes no sence to me, perhaps I'm just old. ;)
Damien_Hiro 06-08-05, 03:33 PM	The Rhaumathari were known for their Battle Mages (i.e.: the PrC in the Unapproachable East book), not for their artificing skills. If there was going to be an artifice-based ancient nation that may have introduced the Warforged into FR, it would be the Imaskari, probably, though I would never do it myself. What's the point in having a campaign setting at all if you're just going to muddle them altogether? It would be like some really bad online fanfictions that cross together Star Wars/Star Trek/the Terminator/Pokemon. I do not see the big deal because the Realms is already a hodgepodge. It has European, Asian, American, African and Arab themes. Why not other Campaign settings? The two are very similar in regards to magic accessibility. The Monster Manual III is setup for having "eberron" creatures as generic creatures or eberron specific. Maybe a realms or eberron elitist would not, but there is no reason to deny the artificer class in a different setting. Would you deny a PC a Red wizard or any prestige class in the DMG? Same thing.
GothicDan 06-08-05, 03:51 PM	Actually, I would deny that, and I have. The following PrCs from the DMG are not available in my world: Heirophant, Archmage, Red Wizard. Arcane Trickster, Arcane Archer, Assassin, and Shadowdancer are all exceedingly rare. Basically, since spellcasting requires training that could not possibly be developed on own's one (I don't use Sorcerers - and 'happening' to learn how to use a Fireball on your own is like 'happening' to discover a physics equation with no background in any form of math or science), all spellcasting PrCs are very restricted and specific to the training available in the history/cultures of my world. And note that Ed Greenwood never designed the Realms originally to support any of those themes. He SPECIFICALLY made the world so that it did NOT reflect any real-life nations/cultures, because he wanted it to be distinctive from Earth, or any place else. It was 2E's fault that all of those other Earth-cultures got sort of shoved into the Realms. And even then, it isn't that bad now, considering they've been a part of the Realms for so long now they've integrated into it fairly well, and there is no competing Campaign Setting that supports similar/identical Earth-nations. In 2E, DMs were much less hesitant about contradicting/restricting the mechanics found in various books, specifically to support the theme of their campaigns.
Another Gnome 06-09-05, 10:32 AM	Maybe a realms or eberron elitist would not, but there is no reason to deny the artificer class in a different setting. Well, there are two Realms-specific artificer prestige classes already. Plus there are feats for crafting new types of magic items (not that they offer that much variety) and feats to make crafting of items less expensive. Sure, you might add the Eberron artificer to it, but it's not something the Realms couldn't live without. Okay, so I don't know what the class actually does, but still. Let Eberron be the dump heap of every new idea, and develop the Realms into a unique place in its own right.
TheDarkestOfAngels 06-09-05, 12:53 PM	I wouldn't personally have a problem with allowing an artificer in forgotten realms. I mean, there's nothing in the class that makes it a distinctly Eberron class (such as no region-specific flavor or requirements that couldn't allow it to be displaces in forgotten realms) in fact, as some of the other posters here mentioned, there are a number of places in Forgotten Realms, such as Thay, that it could easily be integrated. Wouldn't really be much different than placing any non core class into Forgotten Realms really. I mean, I already allow all of the "Complete" classes and the psionics classes and many of the varients of the core classes in Unearthed Arcana, so I'd say "the more variety the better." As far as making FR a "hodgepodge," you do realize that there are some events in Forgotten Realms that involve people from other campaign settings (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=443946). Thus far, it looks like Faerun has survived that particular catastrophe, no?
GothicDan 06-09-05, 02:52 PM	And in 2E, part of the theme of the Realms was the fact that despite it being connected to all of the other Primes in the Multiverse, and being the most-travelled of all Primes planar-wise, it managed to retain its own unique feel and magical systems. You didn't see Wizards of High Sorcery popping up in the Realms as a normal PrC/Class, because their magic depended (as far as their special abilities go) on the three Moons of Krynn. You didn't see Spellfire Wielders in other Crystal Spheres, because it was an ability inherent to FR's Weave, which no other Prime Material World shared. You didn't see Athasian Dragon Kings romping around. Etc. This is the major reason - flavor - why I would not allow such a PrC into the Realms, and why for my homebrew campaign I've severely altered or disallowed many PrCs and core classes in favor of ones I've specifically tailored to the world's history and culture.
Alac Luin 06-09-05, 03:37 PM	The Artificer isn’t a PrC, but a Base Class. (Personally I only call the classes in Players Hand Book "core" classes.). There really isn’t anything about them that Screams “Eberron only” or screams “Not Faerun”. An example of the later is the Base class in the DLCS, the Mystic. A divine caster similar to sorcerer, it does not need a patron Deity. Now, because of that, it screams “Not Faerun”, no matter how much I like the idea of the class. But this class could work in another setting very well, besides the DL setting.
Another Gnome 06-09-05, 04:20 PM	As a base class, wouldn't it be all the more reason not to let the Eberron artificer steal the thunder from the "native" Realms PrCs?
GothicDan 06-09-05, 04:41 PM	Just like what Another Gnome said. :) What's the point in introducing PrCs OR Base Classes when there are other ones available that are tailored specifically to a campaign setting?
Alac Luin 06-09-05, 04:51 PM	I don't really see the niche the Artificer plays being covered by any PrC that is in the Realms at this time. Except maybe the Techsmith of Gond from F&P, and that is a big maybe. Granted, this could change the realms, if you allow the Non- mulon to build magic items for the red wizards, there could be a shift in power but the Red wizards will still be the masters. I will admit, I haven’t incorporated the Artificer into the realms yet. If I run a Meztica campaign I certainly will, unless some one can prove me wrong, the Artificer Class is perfect replacements for the two kits I mentioned, or at least used as a starting place.
TheDarkestOfAngels 06-09-05, 05:01 PM	This is the major reason - flavor - why I would not allow such a PrC into the Realms, and why for my homebrew campaign I've severely altered or disallowed many PrCs and core classes in favor of ones I've specifically tailored to the world's history and culture. Well, that's your perogative in your game. As a base class, wouldn't it be all the more reason not to let the Eberron artificer steal the thunder from the "native" Realms PrCs? Why? Does it matter? Why would, say, the Gnome Artifacer prestige class from the Magic of Faerun book have some exhalted status over the Eberron Artifacer? Tell me, why shouldn't the Eberron artifacer simply be a better replacement for that particular prestige class? The Eberron Artifacer might be in the ECS, but it isn't tied there in any particular manner. That is, it isn't like the Red Wizards of Thay. They're not a specific order in a specific region in a specific campaign setting. Instead, it's a base class that isn't "tied down" and can easily be transferred just like the other 16 base classes in the complete books and the Psionics handbook. What's the point in introducing PrCs OR Base Classes when there are other ones available that are tailored specifically to a campaign setting? Ahh, but the better question is; why not? It's one thing if we're talking about using the Wizards of High Sorcery (from DL) in Greyhawk (or whatever) but another when we're talking about the archmage from the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting (ignoring the fact that it was later republished in the 3.5 ed. DMG) or the Runecaster from the Player's Guide to Faerun or the Noble from the Dragonlance Campaign Setting. I don't really see the niche the Artificer plays being covered by any PrC that is in the Realms at this time. Except maybe the Techsmith of Gond from F&P, and that is a big maybe. Granted, this could change the realms, if you allow the Non- mulon to build magic items for the red wizards, there could be a shift in power but the Red wizards will still be the masters. I will admit, I haven’t incorporated the Artificer into the realms yet. If I run a Meztica campaign I certainly will, unless some one can prove me wrong, the Artificer Class is perfect replacements for the two kits I mentioned, or at least used as a starting place. exactly.
Alac Luin 06-10-05, 07:36 PM	I’ve given some thought to how an ECS Artificer would work in Faerun. First, I would make them weave based or shadow weave if they take the feat. (IE, not working with raw magic, that would be overkill IMO) The Artificer works by manipulating the “threads” of the weave in the items. I would disallow the deconstruction of items made with the opposing weave, If they don’t work with the particular weave they are unable work it to gain the craft reserve. (for the record, I don't support warforged in Faerun if that means anything:))
ruleslawyer 06-12-05, 03:41 AM	GD, have you actually READ the description of the artificer class? It's quite Faerunian in flavor. Just because the thing is published in a sourcebook that doesn't bear the FR label, doesn't mean it can't work in the Realms just fine. Also, the Realms IS, in Ed's understanding etc., indeed a hodgepodge; a hodgepodge of ancient Earth history and lore from thousands of worlds, including Krynn and Greyhawk. (Take a look at Ed's Gates article from Dragon #26 and his bit on Greyhawk wizard-named spells in FR4 The Magister). He just was not particularly thrilled with having parts of the Realms based on real-world equivalent regions, which is a different issue (although he did see Calimshan as a sort of Moorish/North African cultural equivalent). The artificer works fine in Faerun IMHO, and has a nature and etymology that are easily inserted into the Realms. Use it if you feel like.
Alac Luin 06-12-05, 07:40 PM	Just to add some things to think about. To avoid any conflicts of interest, a connection to the clergy of Gond can be ignored. Yes, it does feel like a natural fit, but consider that Gond is in many ways “more tech, less magic”. Mystra would be only as concerned with them as she is with any spell caster. Azuth would likely despise them (as they are not mages), while possibly secretly respecting their abilities. Azuth’s clergy may openly oppose them. Oghma would appreciate their knowledge. For a reason I do not completely understand, I believe Lathander would dislike them. It may just be my feelings of Lathander. Now Finder may take to them, seeing the ability to deconstruct magic items, and using that to build new items as an extension of his “Transformation of the Arts” portfolio. The Red Wizards would likely see any Artificers not working for them as opposition, and would likely have clandestine warfare with any organization of Artificers working in the same areas.
Meta_FR_DM 06-13-05, 01:28 AM	The artificer works fine in Faerun IMHO, and has a nature and etymology that are easily inserted into the Realms. Use it if you feel like. Exactly. I'll add the Realms are far to huge for the small number of well done Prestige Classes that exist to represent all Faerûn has to offer. When you consider all the different varieties of magic that have been developed, borrowed and improved upon by the various races and cultures of the Realms over time...well how can you not have a variety of artificer classes? The sort of 'outside sources aren't good enough for the Realms' bias I see on this Forum just misses the mark and is sort of sad if you ask me, because it shuts down imagination, puts a stranglehold on Realms campaign development and inhibits Forum Community contributions to others' campaigns. So yes again, use it. Dave M.
GothicDan 06-13-05, 10:37 PM	Ahh, but the better question is; why not? It's one thing if we're talking about using the Wizards of High Sorcery (from DL) in Greyhawk (or whatever) but another when we're talking about the archmage from the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting (ignoring the fact that it was later republished in the 3.5 ed. DMG) or the Runecaster from the Player's Guide to Faerun or the Noble from the Dragonlance Campaign Setting. Typically, as far as literature and the like goes, the question of 'Why not?' is a really bad way to decide what to add to a world/story/plot. If it doesn't specifically add something that helps to accent the ongoing plot, theme, mood, feel, etc., then it might as well be useless fluff - like using too many adjectives in a sentence. There's no reason why you -shouldn't- do it (it's not "wrong"), but does it really -add- anything to what you're trying to say? Not normally. The only thing adding numerous non-FR-specific PrCs would do is to actually diminish the perceived importance and flavor of those existing already for the Realms. It's the same case with players feeling like they "aren't getting enough Feats" because of the suffocating amount of Feats that WotC puts out all of the time in their sourcebooks. It's an illusion, in part - this perception - but all perception is subjective in the first place. :) I'd personally craft my own Artificer PrC (if I absolutely wanted to go down this road), using Eberron's Artificer for mechanical bits, but adding things that make it more specific to FR. It isn't so much, in my case, 'outside sources aren't good enough for FR,' as much as, 'How would including this in an FR game add to the flavor/theme of FR?' And I would ask myself the same question for every other campaign setting and every other PrC as well.
TheDarkestOfAngels 06-14-05, 12:42 AM	Typically, as far as literature and the like goes, the question of 'Why not?' is a really bad way to decide what to add to a world/story/plot. Only if implimented badly, which you've already outlined below. If it doesn't specifically add something that helps to accent the ongoing plot, theme, mood, feel, etc., then it might as well be useless fluff - like using too many adjectives in a sentence. There's no reason why you -shouldn't- do it (it's not "wrong"), but does it really -add- anything to what you're trying to say? Not normally. But we're not adding to an ongoing "plot, theme, mood, feel, etc." or even adding "extra adjectives" to a sentence. We're adding Eberron's Artifacer to the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, which has clear benefits in filling in a lot of the artifacer niche without necessarily dawdling in magecraft (or even the warlock class, which would only draw more ire from people in general given the demonic heritage than even a regular mage would.) Perhaps even better than the "realms specific/flavored" prestige classes that were geared toward that same goal. That's what I call "replacing something with something else that does the job better." It happens all the time. Even if the artifacer doesn't really add anything to the realms, it doesn't take anything away, either. The only thing adding numerous non-FR-specific PrCs would do is to actually diminish the perceived importance and flavor of those existing already for the Realms. It's the same case with players feeling like they "aren't getting enough Feats" because of the suffocating amount of Feats that WotC puts out all of the time in their sourcebooks. It's an illusion, in part - this perception - but all perception is subjective in the first place. :) Right. Personally, I don't bother to place special importance in things made realms-specific. It only stifles ideas or otherwise that could perform the same function, only better with greater suitibility in regards to its place in the realm's full expanse of ... er... things. I'd personally craft my own Artificer PrC (if I absolutely wanted to go down this road), using Eberron's Artificer for mechanical bits, but adding things that make it more specific to FR. It isn't so much, in my case, 'outside sources aren't good enough for FR,' as much as, 'How would including this in an FR game add to the flavor/theme of FR?' And I would ask myself the same question for every other campaign setting and every other PrC as well. I find that adding options tends to add more depth and feel to a campaign setting than it takes away. I mean, mechanically, the artifacer doesn't require any modification to operate in the realms as easily as it would in Eberron. I mean, it would be one thing, as I was saying, to add a red wizard to Krynn is one thing, but it's another to add a the hexblade or the favored soul to Forgotten Realms. I mean, the red wizard simply doesn't fit "as is" in Dragonlance. It potentially could (with heavy modification, such as by pulling the red wizard into a "super-specializatized wizard" niche) but it would require heavy modification. Adding the artifacer, favored soul, or hexblade requires virtually no modification whatsoever and adds greatly to the different sorts of characters you could encounter there in virtually any way that it could add to the overall feel of the realms in general.
GothicDan 06-14-05, 02:29 PM	See, the conflict here comes from the fact that you are looking at things mechanically, and I am looking at things thematically. As far as I'm concerned, everything impacts the theme of the Realms - whether for good or for ill. Just because an Artificer could mechanically fit into the Realms without modifications does not mean that they could fit thematically into them without modifications. At best, I'd allow an Artificer to Spelljam/Planewalker from another Crystal Sphere/Plane, and he'd be the first Artificer of the Realms. That would fit, thematically; in the past there was no mention of such Artificers, and Faerun is known for its very heavy planar traffic. But I would still endeavor to change the mechanics a little to perhaps better reflect certain aspects of the FR campaign setting.
TheDarkestOfAngels 06-14-05, 04:19 PM	See, the conflict here comes from the fact that you are looking at things mechanically, and I am looking at things thematically. True, I am looking at things mechanically. However, that's not the only way I'm looking at it, as this statment of yours appears to imply. When I said "mechanically, the artifacer doesn't require any modification to operate in the realms as easily as it would in Eberron." That is not the primary topic I was talking about. It wasn't even my primary point in that particular post. It was not the conclusion of the post, in summation. But I would still endeavor to change the mechanics a little to perhaps better reflect certain aspects of the FR campaign setting. I doubt that such a change would be necessary, but do whatever you want, but what you appear to be suggesting is that the only way an artifacer could have existed in Faerun is to have been ported from Eberron, which I think is silly. Little different from implying that prodigies of the art of wizardry come only from faerun (originator of the "spellcasting prodigy" feat) or archmages prior to the advent of 3.5 or that the only way a finesse-based fighter in the realms could have existed is if the swashbuckler was ported over from Greyhawk (since the complete books are technically part of the Greyhawk "standard" campaign setting.)
Alac Luin 06-14-05, 07:09 PM	... Just because an Artificer could mechanically fit into the Realms without modifications does not mean that they could fit thematically into them without modifications. We have a whole set of male spell casters in Rashemen that are hidden away in some mountain hideaway that do really nothing but make magic items for the wychlaran. In fact, they are often referred to as artificers. Yes, little “a”, but it is still what these people do, make magic item. That is what the Artificer class does. What do the wychlaran do with the magic items of the red wizards they defeat? Well, send them to the Articicers, so they can change these harmful magics into something that can be used to defend Rashemen. Would this prevent them from taking the field? Not at all, several of the Artificer’s infusions are combat related, and are suited to playing a support role as the Vremyonni are to the Hathran. Then there is the Meztican artificers. 2ed spell casters that was actually a Rouge kit. If you see the entry in the Meztican boxed set, they are referred to as artificers, on a consistent base. Not only mechanically is the Artificer the closest base class match, it also fits in the theme. The Pluma Weaver made magic items, its most powerful spell requires them to Weave an item of feathers to have any effect. Similar things can be said of the Hishna shaper. To me, these two examples (meztica and the Vremyonni) thematically scream Artificer. That does not mean these are the only places they would fit in.
GothicDan 06-14-05, 09:06 PM	I doubt that such a change would be necessary, but do whatever you want, but what you appear to be suggesting is that the only way an artifacer could have existed in Faerun is to have been ported from Eberron, which I think is silly. Little different from implying that prodigies of the art of wizardry come only from faerun (originator of the "spellcasting prodigy" feat) or archmages prior to the advent of 3.5 or that the only way a finesse-based fighter in the realms could have existed is if the swashbuckler was ported over from Greyhawk (since the complete books are technically part of the Greyhawk "standard" campaign setting.) Let's see here. First of all, I would not allow the Feat Spellcasting Prodigy to crop up in every campaign setting, because the fact that it originated in FR is rather an example of the campaign setting's overall heavy level of magic, in terms of natural/ambient magic in the Weave, and in terms of the fact that there are a HUGE number of Wizards and the like in the campaign setting, far more than any other that I can think of. The same could be said about the Archmage - perhaps. Except for the fact that even in other campaign settings, Wizards were shown using Archmage-like abilities at times before the PrC was ever made, let alone before it was generalized to the 3.5 Core setting via the 3.5 DMG. As for the Swashbuckler, Forgotten Realms has a long history of warriors who relied on their wits and dexterity more than brute strength to get the job done, so the Swashbuckler PrC would be perfect for use in the campaign setting. Do you see what I'm getting at yet? There has been no evidence of Artificers (the type presented in Eberron) in the Realms before, and so obviously if they were suddenly in the Realms now, they would have had to come from somewhere. I reckon it would be extremely difficult for them to naturally evolve in many areas of the Realms, given how wizard/spellcaster-centric the attitudes are (i.e. Thay, Shade, Halruaa, etc.).
Demetrios 06-14-05, 09:08 PM	There has been no evidence of Artificers (the type presented in Eberron) in the Realms before, and so obviously if they were suddenly in the Realms now, they would have had to come from somewhere. I reckon it would be extremely difficult for them to naturally evolve in many areas of the Realms, given how wizard/spellcaster-centric the attitudes are (i.e. Thay, Shade, Halruaa, etc.). But what about Lantan? It's an area that has been pretty much unexplored (hence we don't know exactly what is or isn't there), although we do know its inhabitants have strange ideas of combining technology with magic. I could definitely see the Eberron sort of Artificier coming from there.
GothicDan 06-14-05, 09:17 PM	We have a whole set of male spell casters in Rashemen that are hidden away in some mountain hideaway that do really nothing but make magic items for the wychlaran. In fact, they are often referred to as artificers. Yes, little “a”, but it is still what these people do, make magic item. That is what the Artificer class does. And the only ones you saw wandering outside of their caves were also 15th+ (or higher, I believe) level wizards. This is because any male children in Rashemen that displayed a talent for arcane magic were drafted into the ranks of the Vremyoni. Without that talent for arcane magic perceived by the Wychlaran, they are not recruited. That means that the Vremyoni should all be Wizards (or possibly Sorcerers, if that's your cup of tea) first of all. And note that they are ALSO known for their prodigious creation of new spells. If the Eberron Artificer does not advance as well as a standard Wizard (in terms of spellcasting level and the ability to create magic items AND spells), they would not fit the Vremyoni at all, thematically. What do the wychlaran do with the magic items of the red wizards they defeat? Well, send them to the Articicers, so they can change these harmful magics into something that can be used to defend Rashemen. Would this prevent them from taking the field? Not at all, several of the Artificer’s infusions are combat related, and are suited to playing a support role as the Vremyonni are to the Hathran. And just where would have the strange arts of the Artificer come from, when all female arcane spellcasters in Rashemen have been trained as Wychlaran and all male arcane spellcasters in Rashemen have been trained as Vremyoni since before anyone can remember? Did they simply manifest their powers spontaneously, all at the same time, for no reason? Then there is the Meztican artificers. 2ed spell casters that was actually a Rouge kit. If you see the entry in the Meztican boxed set, they are referred to as artificers, on a consistent base. Not only mechanically is the Artificer the closest base class match, it also fits in the theme. The Pluma Weaver made magic items, its most powerful spell requires them to Weave an item of feathers to have any effect. Similar things can be said of the Hishna shaper. Note that was I referring to the standard Forgotten Realms campaign setting. That is, not other continents that happen to share space on Abeir-Toril, and which are distinct, stand-apart campaign settings. That being said, unless the Artificer from Eberron provides the basics of the Rogue class as well as their Artificing abilities, obviously they do not fit the Mazticans very well, considering all of their artificers (small 'a') also have obviously had training in the arts of thievery. Other than that, I am not very familiar with the above kits, other than the fact that I know that the Pluma practitioners cast actual Wizard spells... And not simply crafted items. To me, these two examples (meztica and the Vremyonni) thematically scream Artificer. That does not mean these are the only places they would fit in. I suppose they scream Artificer if you discount all of the previous lore, and the logical conclusions from the lore and how the past would impact the projected current status of such groups in terms of spellcasting power and culture. :) So, basically, they scream Artificer if you separate them completely from the cultural roots as they were established in 1E/2E... Which kind of underlines my point - that using PrCs that don't originally have a place in FR doesn't really aid in making FR a unique campaign setting. Why not simply create a Vremyoni PrC (wizard/sorcerer-based) or a Maztician artificer PrC (rogue-based)? This would allow you to keep consistent with the established lore of such figures in the setting, it would allow you to specifically tailor them to how they have been described in terms of powers (rogue powers and arcane spellcasting powers), as well as letting you through in bits of the Artificer from Eberron for inspiration? Is that a lot of work? Sure. But a lot of work - separating the Special from the Generic - is what made things like the Specialty Priests from the 2E Deity books trilogy so awesome.
GothicDan 06-14-05, 09:18 PM	Demetrios: Possibly. Though, considering how biased Lantan is towards the worship of Gond, I see no reason why such vague rumors could not be more appropriately attributed to Techsmiths, without having to introduce a foreign PrC into the mix. :) We haven't had any near-specific examples of the sort of individual magic of Lantan that the Artificer PrC could accomplish particularly better than a Techsmith could.
TheDarkestOfAngels 06-14-05, 09:27 PM	First of all, I would not allow the Feat Spellcasting Prodigy to crop up in every campaign setting, because the fact that it originated in FR is rather an example of the campaign setting's overall heavy level of magic, in terms of natural/ambient magic in the Weave, and in terms of the fact that there are a HUGE number of Wizards and the like in the campaign setting, far more than any other that I can think of. Except that this singular feat doesn't distinctly reflect that any more than, say, craft contingent spell would. The same cold be said about the Archmage - perhaps. Except for the fact that even in other campaign settings, Wizards were shown using Archmage-like abilities at times before the PrC was ever made, let alone before it was generalized to the 3.5 Core setting via the 3.5 DMG. and I suppose individuals crafting magic items that weren't technically wizards or clerics (a certain dwarven friend of Drizzt's comes immediately to mind, as an example) isn't general at all, but completely specific to Eberron's thematics... As for the Swashbuckler, Forgotten Realms has a long history of warriors who relied on their wits and dexterity more than brute strength to get the job done, so the Swashbuckler PrC would be perfect for use in the campaign setting. and this is different from the artifacer how? Do you see what I'm getting at yet? There has been no evidence of Artificers (the type presented in Eberron) in the Realms before, and so obviously if they were suddenly in the Realms now, they would have had to come from somewhere. I reckon it would be extremely difficult for them to naturally evolve in many areas of the Realms, given how wizard/spellcaster-centric the attitudes are (i.e. Thay, Shade, Halruaa, etc.). except that Alac Luin and Demetrios have appearently unearthed forgotten realms information stating otherwise. However, FR doesn't have a listing of every mortal and otherwise creature across the entire tree cosmology, therefore, one cannot say "they don't exist because I heaven't heard of one." I haven't seen of or heard of a statted swashbucker or dervish in forgotten realms, but both could be easily implimented in FR, just like the artifacer could. Same with any class or prestige class concieved between now and D&D's demise (or the end of time, whichever comes first.) Just because it was thought up in another book doesn't mean it can't work as-is. Barring, of course, campaign specific themes (such as in the way the Red Wizard Prestige class has a campaign specific theme by requiring that the human be from thay, like region-specific feats as well) that the artifacer does not have in relation to Eberron.
GothicDan 06-14-05, 09:59 PM	Except that this singular feat doesn't distinctly reflect that any more than, say, craft contingent spell would. This is your opinion. I feel that it does, since it gives spellcasters an additional boost of power beyond those of other campaign settings at the time. Thus, it's plainly indicative of FR's theme of having a high prevalence of powerful spellcasters. and I suppose individuals crafting magic items that weren't technically wizards or clerics (a certain dwarven friend of Drizzt's comes immediately to mind, as an example) isn't general at all, but completely specific to Eberron's thematics... Precisely. Said dwarf was able to do this because ONCE during their life, under the old 1E rules, a dwarf could create a SINGLE magical weapon. So this isn't very supportive of your argument. except that Alac Luin and Demetrios have appearently unearthed forgotten realms information stating otherwise. And if you read what I replied to those examples, you'll see why they are only good matches upon a cursory examination, but as soon as you look at them more in depth, glaring inconsistencies can be seen in drawing equivalencies between the examples and the Artificer as stated in Eberron. If you feel I did not adequately retort to those comments, please cite specific reasons and I will gladly expand upon my answers for you. :) However, FR doesn't have a listing of every mortal and otherwise creature across the entire tree cosmology, therefore, one cannot say "they don't exist because I heaven't heard of one." I haven't seen of or heard of a statted swashbucker or dervish in forgotten realms, but both could be easily implimented in FR, just like the artifacer could. Same with any class or prestige class concieved between now and D&D's demise (or the end of time, whichever comes first.) In a formal debate, the burden of proof rests 100% upon the Affirmative's shoulders. So you, 'affirming' the fact that Artificers could cogently exist in FR, cannot fall back on the 'lack of information' as a citation for your argument. If you do so, you are actually conceding defeat, because when there is no information for or against a given topic, it's the Affirmative that takes the hit. That being said, there were no such things as PrCs in 1E and 2E, so it's rather simple to see why you have not seen such beings directly statted, considering there are thousands of NPCs left unstatted from 1E/2E. Any of a number of them I am sure could conceivably be re-statted in 3E with levels in the aforementioned PrCs. Why? Because they were already in existence, already applicable towards the given PrCs, BEFORE the PrCs were ever created in another campaign setting. Just because it was thought up in another book doesn't mean it can't work as-is. Barring, of course, campaign specific themes (such as in the way the Red Wizard Prestige class has a campaign specific theme by requiring that the human be from thay, like region-specific feats as well) that the artifacer does not have in relation to Eberron. I am not talking about how easy it is to implement a PrC in a Campaign Setting in which such PrCs are not specific to it. Heck, there's really no work involved at all in 99% of them. This statement is a little redundant, really. It's like saying, "Well, it wouldn't be hard to drop a 1" ball through a basketball hoop!" True... It wouldn't. But that's because it requires no work. And what are you adding to the story/Campaign Setting's original theme or feel by doing so? -That's- what takes the creativity, trying to figure out those things, and incoporate them into the campaign setting without losing a sense of consistency. Also, I have no problem incorporating/stealing things from one book and using it in another Campaign Setting... If such things have a place, culturally, thematically, and lore-wise within the campaign setting. In the DMG specifically under the section about creating new classes, it stresses how important it is to try to create classes that are -unique- to a given campaign/campaign setting, rather than using more generic ones. It gives the campaign setting an identity. Otherwise, all Worlds would just be clones of each other, made up of the same rudimentary numbers and generic classes/prestige classes, just rearranged in different ways. If you want a hodgepodge of EVERYTHING, then you want Planescape. That was part of its intent - to draw together ALL campaign settings. It was NOT the intent of the various Prime Material-based settings. Just because it was thought up in another book doesn't mean it can't work as-is. Dropping the ball through the hoop again. I never said that it couldn't 'work' as is, with the way it's written. I said that it would be BETTER to do it another way. There's a lot of things that 'work', but don't necessarily improve things. You can technically wear a pair of bright pink shoes with an all black outfit. They won't inhibit your ability to walk. But they certainly aren't consistent with the rest of your appearance, either. Why not go out and buy a pair of similarly-sized black shoes that better add to the outfit? Barring, of course, campaign specific themes (such as in the way the Red Wizard Prestige class has a campaign specific theme by requiring that the human be from thay, like region-specific feats as well) that the artifacer does not have in relation to Eberron. And with 3.5 we have seen such campaign specific themes removed, with them making the PrC Generic. By your reasoning, considering there's nothing mechanically difficult about incorporating the Red Wizard into another campaign setting, there should be nothing wrong with doing so - it would 'work'. WotC apparently has this stance, too. So why are you specifically citing this as an example of the exception to your opinion? The question here isn't whether or not something would 'work.' We could pile on thousands and thousands of generic PrCs and Feats and Spells that 'worked' into a campaign setting, but then all of the campaign-specific material would get lost under the onslaught. Is it really worth throwing miscellaneous, functional-but-not-flavorful mechanics into Forgotten Realms, making it into some strange concoction in which all of the established powers/lore/PrC are overshadowed by newer/shinier/more powerful bits?
TheDarkestOfAngels 06-14-05, 10:56 PM	This is your opinion. I feel that it does, since it gives spellcasters an additional boost of power beyond those of other campaign settings at the time. Thus, it's plainly indicative of FR's theme of having a high prevalence of powerful spellcasters. Oh really? I wasn't aware that being a prodigy of magic was a theme central or specific to the forgotten realms. Precisely. Said dwarf was able to do this because ONCE during their life, under the old 1E rules, a dwarf could create a SINGLE magical weapon. So this isn't very supportive of your argument. in 1e, that might have been true. in 1e. That reminds me... when you stated: "unless the Artificer from Eberron provides the basics of the Rogue class as well as their Artificing abilities, obviously they do not fit the Mazticans very well," But if this were true, then all dwarves in FR doesn't even fit the "theme" you think exists for forgotten realms in 3.5e, since they could, in 1e make one magic item in their lifetimes and now, suddenly, they are unable to. Or what about all those other things that didn't translate at all into 3e. Such as the old multiclassing system or all those priests and druids who couldn't even touch a non-blunt weapon, who can also, all of a sudden, start casting 8th and 9th level spells? THe swashbuckler didn't exist in 3e or 3.5e until the complete warrior was released and it had all the existance in the realms as the artifacer supposedly does or the samurai. Then there are feats... skills... Fighters in 2e that had a "kit" and weren't high level had to translate into plain ol' fighters for 3e. The point is that, again, being in another book, even another Campaign Setting book doesn't mean that they're out of place in another, thematically, mechanically, or whathaveyou. In a formal debate, the burden of proof rests 100% upon the Affirmative's shoulders. So you, 'affirming' the fact that Artificers could cogently exist in FR, cannot fall back on the 'lack of information' as a citation for your argument. If you do so, you are actually conceding defeat, because when there is no information for or against a given topic, it's the Affirmative that takes the hit. "However, FR doesn't have a listing of every mortal and otherwise creature across the entire tree cosmology, therefore, one cannot say "they don't exist because I heaven't heard of one." Yeah... conceding defeat... right... I'd hate to see anything, you know, new be created for the realms. Like the transition of D&D editions, new classes (realms specific or not), prestige classes, spells, feats, or.. well.. generally anything. That would really mess up the theme of the "hodgepodge" realms since for something to fit in thematically, it would have to be input historically in the realms with recorded NPCs in books or novels with those exact abilities. :rolleyes: That being said, there were no such things as PrCs in 1E and 2E, so it's rather simple to see why you have not seen such beings directly statted, considering there are thousands of NPCs left unstatted from 1E/2E. Any of a number of them I am sure could conceivably be re-statted in 3E with levels in the aforementioned PrCs. Why? Because they were already in existence, already applicable towards the given PrCs, BEFORE the PrCs were ever created in another campaign setting. not all of them. Some of them ceased to exist and others sprang into existance. And what of those NPCs already statted? The kits or specializations they had? Do you really think they're the same now? I am not talking about how easy it is to implement a PrC in a Campaign Setting in which such PrCs are not specific to it. Heck, there's really no work involved at all in 99% of them. This statement is a little redundant, really. It's like saying, "Well, it wouldn't be hard to drop a 1" ball through a basketball hoop!" True... It wouldn't. But that's because it requires no work. And what are you adding to the story/Campaign Setting's original theme or feel by doing so? -That's- what takes the creativity, trying to figure out those things, and incoporate them into the campaign setting without losing a sense of consistency. and what does what class a person is have anything to do with consistancy? what consistancy? what theme is the artifacer violating that any other new class or prestige class wouldn't have the same effect on? You keep mulling about as if the artifacer didn't fit into the FR "theme" assuming that the artifacer wasn't "generic" or some other garbage. Also, I have no problem incorporating/stealing things from one book and using it in another Campaign Setting... If such things have a place, culturally, thematically, and lore-wise within the campaign setting. In the DMG specifically under the section about creating new classes, it stresses how important it is to try to create classes that are -unique- to a given campaign/campaign setting, rather than using more generic ones. It gives the campaign setting an identity. Otherwise, all Worlds would just be clones of each other, made up of the same rudimentary numbers and generic classes/prestige classes, just rearranged in different ways. and there's nothing wrong with making unique FR items, classes, spells, feats, or prestige classes. Both Eberron and the Forgotten Realms have theirs. The artifacer lacks any campaign specific theme that placing in another campaign setting would make it "out of place." Admitting it into the FR cosmology doesn't violate the thematics of any other class or prestige class in use in the forgotten realms, therefore it doesn't "steal the identity" of Toril. (Why do I feel like I'm trying to explain to someone why a digital camera won't "steal your soul.") If you want a hodgepodge of EVERYTHING, then you want Planescape. That was part of its intent - to draw together ALL campaign settings. It was NOT the intent of the various Prime Material-based settings. But we're not "hodgepodging" everything. We're using a class printed in the Eberron Campaign Setting, which has a thematic and mechanical place in Eberron, but is generic enough to be placed virtually any place that makes magic items. There's a lot of things that 'work', but don't necessarily improve things. or take anything away And with 3.5 we have seen such campaign specific themes removed, with them making the PrC Generic. By your reasoning, considering there's nothing mechanically difficult about incorporating the Red Wizard into another campaign setting, there should be nothing wrong with doing so - it would 'work'. WotC apparently has this stance, too. So why are you specifically citing this as an example of the exception to your opinion? The red wizard's existance in the DMG 3.5 doesn't make it generic. It even states in the DMG in the first line describing the prestige class where the red wizards are, what campaign setting they're in, and what land they hail from in Faerun (Thay), etc. The first requirement to enter the prestige class is Race: Human from Thay. That doesn't strike me as "generic." What's more, you're still putting words in my mouth (not the only time in this post.) I did not say that "there's nothing mechanically difficult about incorporating the Red Wizard into another campaign setting." I said: "[The Red Wizard] potentially could (with heavy modification,"
GothicDan 06-15-05, 12:14 AM	Oh really? I wasn't aware that being a prodigy of magic was a theme central or specific to the forgotten realms. Then you obviously haven't looked into the setting enough. Sammaster, The Seven Sisters, Iolium (can't spell at this time of night), etc. were all known to be prodigious magic users at a very young age. Heck, let's point out Karsus as perhaps the most obvious example, or pretty much any Netherese Arcanist, considering they could all cast spells of levels higher than any other Prime Material World (provided they were high enough level). in 1e, that might have been true. in 1e. Which was the time during which the above-referenced novel was written, or at least the ruleset used in its writing. That reminds me... when you stated: "unless the Artificer from Eberron provides the basics of the Rogue class as well as their Artificing abilities, obviously they do not fit the Mazticans very well," But if this were true, then all dwarves in FR doesn't even fit the "theme" you think exists for forgotten realms in 3.5e, since they could, in 1e make one magic item in their lifetimes and now, suddenly, they are unable to. And your point is? The reason this was such in 1E was because Dwarves could pretty much ONLY be fighters. With the advent of them being able to be Priests/Clerics in 2E (or Bob forebid, Wizards in 3E... Though we did see at least one Gold Dwarf Wizard in FR in 2E too), they do not need special race-defined rules. They do not lose any of their consistency because they are still able to make magical weapons. And also note that this was a 1E generic rule that was adopted by FR, not an actual custom rule for FR that was made specifically to develop the theme of the setting. 2E FR later retconned official/general rules as well, such as with providing paths for elves to achieve Wizard levels above 15th (the original High Mage kit provided in the Evermeet supplement). So, in conclusion: The above-referenced example was not a theme of FR, but rather simply an aspect of the 1E ruleset at the time, which Ed Greenwood allowed to handle his world when he gave WotC the rights for it. Nevertheless, the fact that Dwarven priests are still known for being masters of creating combat spells, magic weapons, and the like (i.e. Hammer Golems!), does just fine to promote the theme of Dwarves being innately geared towards the production of magical weapons. Or what about all those other things that didn't translate at all into 3e. Such as the old multiclassing system or all those priests and druids who couldn't even touch a non-blunt weapon, who can also, all of a sudden, start casting 8th and 9th level spells? The multiclassing system required that you effectively gain the EXP required of both classes to go up a level in each. Effectively, this means you are gaining double the experience points. This translates perfectly into 3E, meaning that you gain 2 levels - one you could put into Wizard and the other you could put into Fighter, for example. And in 2E FR, Specialty Priests of given deities were fully capable of wielding varied types of weaponry and armor; priests of Tempus could use swords, priests of Mykrul could use scythes, etc. Please do not confuse generic/core AD&D/D&D with the specifics of the FR campaign. You're rather highlighting my point entirely - that the flooding of general rules, classes, etc., into a world detracts from the already existing themes/aspects of the world, to such a degree that you don't even know (or perhaps don't remember) what they were. And that being said, Divine casters were able to access Quest level spells, which could easily be translated into 8th and 9th level spells. THe swashbuckler didn't exist in 3e or 3.5e until the complete warrior was released and it had all the existance in the realms as the artifacer supposedly does or the samurai. Then there are feats... skills... Fighters in 2e that had a "kit" and weren't high level had to translate into plain ol' fighters for 3e. Complete Warrior is a core/generic book, whereas the Artificer is from an Eberron source. While Core D&D may be Greyhawk in name, the reason they chose that world for the default setting was because (according to some) it was the "simplest" world for new players. There's also nothing wrong with Fighters with similar kits had to become pure Fighters, given the fact that they could have taken Skills and Feats to emulate the abilities they possessed in description/stats in 2E. I'm not entirely sure where you're headed with the above line of thought. The point is that, again, being in another book, even another Campaign Setting book doesn't mean that they're out of place in another, thematically, mechanically, or whathaveyou. Not necessarily, no, but usually, yes, especially when there are better alternatives that could be tailor-made to specifically reflect similar roles in the Realms. That is to say - they are "more" out of place than PrCs custom-made to the lore and traditions of the Realms would be. "However, FR doesn't have a listing of every mortal and otherwise creature across the entire tree cosmology, therefore, one cannot say "they don't exist because I heaven't heard of one." Yeah... conceding defeat... right... I apologize if my description as to the decorum of formal debate in some way inhibited your ability to comprehend the intent of my statement. Is there anything I can do to better clarify it for you? I'd hate to see anything, you know, new be created for the realms. Like the transition of D&D editions, new classes (realms specific or not), prestige classes, spells, feats, or.. well.. generally anything. That would really mess up the theme of the "hodgepodge" realms since for something to fit in thematically, it would have to be input historically in the realms with recorded NPCs in books or novels with those exact abilities. You point out precisely what I am asking for. The Forgotten Realms was written with the intent to be a world that served as the setting for novels and stories. I know I would be rather upset if I was 200 books into a series and suddenly there was a huge retcon that made the previous 199 books seem diminished, useless, or blatantly wrong. New things are fine, as long as you build properly on the foundations of the things that came before the new ones. :) not all of them. Some of them ceased to exist and others sprang into existance. And what of those NPCs already statted? The kits or specializations they had? Do you really think they're the same now? Well, such a thing would be impossible, considering the modern ruleset does not support kits. However, I see no reason why they should not have been built (in terms of Ability Scores, Levels, Classes, Feats, and Classes) in a reasonable facisimile of their former 2E incarnations. In fact, I can say that in the case of some NPCs (Elminster, for example), he is very closely matched to his 2E stats and specialties. That's not to mention the Red Wizards, of course. Or Drizzt still being a Ranger and all. Or Wulfgar being a barbarian (translation of a 2E kit into a core 3E class, here). Once more, I'm not sure what you're getting at. Of course the stats of 3E NPCs will be reflective of the backgrounds/abilities they had in 2E, unless there was a good reason to change them. We see the evidence of this in many published NPCs. and what does what class a person is have anything to do with consistancy? what consistancy? what theme is the artifacer violating that any other new class or prestige class wouldn't have the same effect on? You keep mulling about as if the artifacer didn't fit into the FR "theme" assuming that the artifacer wasn't "generic" or some other garbage. Consistency: Where did they come from? How did they get to FR? Where have they been all of these years? Where did they learn their powers from? Theme: FR, while heavy in magic, was hardly known for having characters that could mass produce magic items. This is one of the reasons I have removed the Item Creation feats entirely from my game beyond Brew Potion and Scribe Scroll. Much less were characters known for being able to craft magic items at a prodigious rate without an inkling of true spellcasting talent. Also: Your diction is fantastic! and there's nothing wrong with making unique FR items, classes, spells, feats, or prestige classes. Both Eberron and the Forgotten Realms have theirs. The artifacer lacks any campaign specific theme that placing in another campaign setting would make it "out of place." Admitting it into the FR cosmology doesn't violate the thematics of any other class or prestige class in use in the forgotten realms, therefore it doesn't "steal the identity" of Toril. (Why do I feel like I'm trying to explain to someone why a digital camera won't "steal your soul.") Doesn't the fact that it was developed in Eberron hint at you the fact that they had a place in Eberron, historically or culturally? Would it have been printed in an Eberron book if it had not? If it wasn't, you give me yet another reason to never buy an Eberron book (i.e. If they don't link presented PrCs into the culture/history of their world). Also: I am an atheistic Physics/Classics major. Would you like to discuss the subjective perceptions of this argument? Or how about some simple science? You have a vial containing 2 milliletersof Substance A and 2 millileters of Substance B. You add in 2 millileter of Substance C, 2 millileter of Substance D, and your new substance is no longer a unique, previously identified conglomeration of Substances A and B, but rather something new entirely. Ah, yes, we cold go into Thales' theories of Flux here, if you like - just to prove to you I'm perfectly capable of distinguishing soul-sucking magic from camera lenses (are we speaking of Linear Optics of Geometric?) - but I fear I would tread terribly close to the line leading into the region of Pretentious. Woe is me. :) In conflusion: The new Substance X still contains Substances A and B, but the inclusion of Substances C and D have effectively halved the actual influence of the original elements of the concoction on the overall Substance X product, proportionally. I could also bring into account psychology, of course, and the simple fact that consumers are more likely to appreciate and remember products when they are idiosyncratic from others, and when they only have a limited variety of products from which to choose. (In regards to adding more PrCs/Feats/etc. into a campaign setting needlessly, thus overall diminishing the literary/thematic/psychological/wholistic/etc. impact of the already present materials.) Shall I continue, then? But we're not "hodgepodging" everything. We're using a class printed in the Eberron Campaign Setting, which has a thematic and mechanical place in Eberron, but is generic enough to be placed virtually any place that makes magic items. 'Generic enough' is your subjective view, when in fact according to the rules of WotC, it is not at all generic until printed in a Core 3.5 book. 'Virtually any place that makes magic items'? What about places in which all non-spellcasters who dabble in any form of magic are viciously slain? (Thay, Halruaa, Shade, etc., once more, those nations known for having the greatest capability of producing magical items.) What about places in which it takes years to learn even the basic understandings of the Weave enough to craft a simple Cantrip out of it? (Namely: Forgotten Realms.) What about in places with a religion that would consider the strange, ignorant workings of such Artificers ('Not knowing in what they are meddling!') to be abominations to be discouraged? (I would say Azuth.) What are your definitions of a hodgepodge, exactly? or take anything away As I explained in my above simple analogy (which I do so hope was perfectly comprehensible for you!), one must not necessarily take away a portion of something to diminish the impact of it on the overall end result. Adding in useless things that 'work' (once more, going back to literature - reading books in which way too much boring description is used) mechanically doesn't make the end product any better, but only makes it harder to focus on those really interesting, thematic, plot-building pieces. The red wizard's existance in the DMG 3.5 doesn't make it generic. It even states in the DMG in the first line describing the prestige class where the red wizards are, what campaign setting they're in, and what land they hail from in Faerun (Thay), etc. The first requirement to enter the prestige class is Race: Human from Thay. That doesn't strike me as "generic." What strikes me as generic is the fact that it is printed in one of the Core (Thus: Generic) 3.5 manuals. Obviously they would not have reprinted it in a Manual aimed specifically towards Greyhawk (which can be assumed to be the Default/Generic D&D world) if it was not meant to be used in such generic campaigns (according to WotC). What's more, you're still putting words in my mouth (not the only time in this post.) I did not say that "there's nothing mechanically difficult about incorporating the Red Wizard into another campaign setting." I said: "[The Red Wizard] potentially could (with heavy modification," I did not at all put words in your mouth. I simply traced the lines of thought that you expressed in such a way that I was able to use them against you in this debate. It is not my fault if you did not word such opinions more carefully, in such a manner that I would not be able to generalize them to other situations. That is, to say, I connected the following dots (paraphrasing): - You said that the Artificer 'works' in almost any campaign setting because no modifications would have to be made to it in order for it to fit into other settings. - You did not say that this was specifically the case for the Artificer, but rather generalized it to Prestige Classes in general. - Thus I used the above line of thought and applied it to the Red Wizard. The Red Wizard could be modified to any other campaign setting by simply removing the requirement of being a human from Thay. That is not difficult at all, and in doing so, it would make the PrC completely generic. No mechanics would have to be changed, and since it didn't reference any specific campaign setting any more (like apparently the Artificer PrC does not), it would 'work' just fine - that is, it would not conflict with any rules.
TheDarkestOfAngels 06-15-05, 02:32 AM	Then you obviously haven't looked into the setting enough. Sammaster, The Seven Sisters, Iolium (can't spell at this time of night), etc. were all known to be prodigious magic users at a very young age. Heck, let's point out Karsus as perhaps the most obvious example, or pretty much any Netherese Arcanist, considering they could all cast spells of levels higher than any other Prime Material World (provided they were high enough level). ... obviously :rolleyes: I'm perfectly aware of these individuals, but you miss my point. Again. You said: "I feel that [that the feat "spellcasting prodigy] does, since it gives spellcasters an additional boost of power beyond those of other campaign settings at the time. Thus, it's plainly indicative of FR's theme of having a high prevalence of powerful spellcasters." and I replied: "I wasn't aware that being a prodigy of magic was a theme central or specific to the forgotten realms." I was implying that the idea of a prodigy of using magic isn't a concept that is niether new, nor unique to the realms. it is one that, essentially, can be easily transplanted into any campaign that happens to utilize magic to any extent without removing or adding to either campaign setting. Which was the time during which the above-referenced novel was written, or at least the ruleset used in its writing. but now we're in 3.5e and those rules no longer apply. In fact, it retroactively makes the previous iterations false, mechanically since magic is required to be able to create an item of magic in the same way that the new cosmology does the same thing as far as changing the way the realms is handled in terms of planar travel and what connects to what. And your point is? Easy. There were major changes in the game mechanics that, according to your definations, changed the consistancy of how things work, generally speaking, in the realms - past, present, and future to accomidate the new rulesets. Assuming I'm not too stupid to be reading your posts correctly, I would have thought that you meant that the artifacer would do the same thing, were it used in the realms. Now, lets look at your definition of consistency that you graciously provided. "Consistency: Where did they come from? How did they get to FR? Where have they been all of these years? Where did they learn their powers from?" now when we look at things like some of these 2e/1e/3e/3.5e changes, all this "this" being the "consistantcy" we're talking about, changes. Some cases require more changes than before and a lot of material is often added to the realms to accomidate new materials (among other things.) Such materials could potentially easily include Eberron's artifacer with perhaps even fewer impacts, assuming there are any, than a lot of the other material that would typically have to change given the similar situations. This is especially true when new monsters and PC races are introduced. The artifacer, I'm argueing, doesn't have to be different in this regard at all - just because it wasn't made in a FR or generic book. The multiclassing system required that you effectively gain the EXP required of both classes to go up a level in each. Effectively, this means you are gaining double the experience points. This translates perfectly into 3E, meaning that you gain 2 levels - one you could put into Wizard and the other you could put into Fighter, for example. I'm aware of what the multiclassing system is, the point is that an 11th level fighter/mage from 2e becomes an 11th level fighter/mage in 3e with drastically differing powers and capabilities and things the fighter/mage was capable of now no longer applies (such as casting higher level spells). Thus, we violate consistancy again due to a major overhaul in the D&D rules. As far as novels probably go, this changes relatively little due to "artistic license." This is the same case with the maztica rogue "artifacer" kits (or generally anything that didn't translate well with the transition.) And in 2E FR, Specialty Priests of given deities were fully capable of wielding varied types of weaponry and armor; priests of Tempus could use swords, priests of Mykrul could use scythes, etc. Please do not confuse generic/core AD&D/D&D with the specifics of the FR campaign. You're rather highlighting my point entirely - that the flooding of general rules, classes, etc., into a world detracts from the already existing themes/aspects of the world, to such a degree that you don't even know (or perhaps don't remember) what they were. Specialty priests, yes. General priests, no. And look, I didn't say "generic/core AD&D/D&D priests" I said "priests." Citing explicit exceptions to the normal rule doesn't change my point with this red herring. Oh yes, and then there's specialty priests, which has also dissapeared entirely. Heck, priests and druids between the two editions of D&D aren't alike at all. Isn't that a lot of history and background that just suddenly washed away? And that being said, Divine casters were able to access Quest level spells, which could easily be translated into 8th and 9th level spells. Oh, but then we'd have to "convert." Which is apparently some sort of sin against the theme (or consistancy or both or whatever) of the realms. Just like "converting" the Eberron artifacer to FR, right? Complete Warrior is a core/generic book, whereas the Artificer is from an Eberron source. While Core D&D may be Greyhawk in name, the reason they chose that world for the default setting was because (according to some) it was the "simplest" world for new players. Uh huh. There's also nothing wrong with Fighters with similar kits had to become pure Fighters, given the fact that they could have taken Skills and Feats to emulate the abilities they possessed in description/stats in 2E. No, no, no, I didn't say that there was anything wrong with it. My point with this ties into what I was talking about earlier in this post. That suddenly the same fighter in 2e and abilities and powers that have completely changed between now and then. Not necessarily, no, but usually, yes, especially when there are better alternatives that could be tailor-made to specifically reflect similar roles in the Realms. That is to say - they are "more" out of place than PrCs custom-made to the lore and traditions of the Realms would be. What "alternative" is "better" is entirely subjective. Even if they do similar things, it doesn't mean they couldnt' co-exist. But beyond that, I'm not immediately aware of any talor-made FR artifacers with the exception of the gnome artifacer in the magic of faerun, which, despite its similar name, wouldn't interfere with an FR "Eberron" artifacer. Heck, if anyone would have the higher population of FR artifacers, it would probably be gnomes and, to a lesser extent, dwarves (whom you stated was "being innately geared towards the production of magical weapons. " in addition to something about "hammer golems.") and humans. But, you know, apparently, we can "convert" quest spells and virtually every aspect about priests and clerics, but no one in the realms can be an artifacer... hmm... I apologize if my description as to the decorum of formal debate in some way inhibited your ability to comprehend the intent of my statement. Is there anything I can do to better clarify it for you? Oh, no. Don't apologize. You don't have to be sorry for misreading my prior arguements and jumped to the conclusion that I was "falling back" on a "lack of information" as a somehow major valid point I was trying to make in that previous post in addition to the fact that it's quite out of context and missing the point of the entire paragraph as a whole in addition to insulting my intelligence. You point out precisely what I am asking for. The Forgotten Realms was written with the intent to be a world that served as the setting for novels and stories. I know I would be rather upset if I was 200 books into a series and suddenly there was a huge retcon that made the previous 199 books seem diminished, useless, or blatantly wrong. like changing the rules at a completely fundemental level? like changing the entire cosmology of Realmspace? like introducing new monsters and races and prestige classes (and base 20 level classes) that have apparently existed in the forgotten realms for hundreds of years? Perhaps it won't make 99.5% of all D&D books wrong, by any stretch of the imagination. There's always an author's artistic license and the fact that an author of a book doesn't need to make his characters conform to specific powers and abilities in the game to work in the novel. But I must reiterate: Adding artifacers changes nothing that adding new material (realms-specific or not) would otherwise do. i.e. if there's a niche it can fill, the artifacer probably fills it. New things are fine, as long as you build properly on the foundations of the things that came before the new ones. :) Like adding to the history of the realms specifically for the new material, which could easily be done for the artifacer as well as any other new material. Well, such a thing would be impossible, considering the modern ruleset does not support kits. However, I see no reason why they should not have been built (in terms of Ability Scores, Levels, Classes, Feats, and Classes) in a reasonable facisimile of their former 2E incarnations. I concur, but that doesn't mean one can be made and "making it a reasonable facimile" is still "converting" and still requires modification and so forth, but I'd just be repeating again what I've already said in this post. Once more, I'm not sure what you're getting at. Of course the stats of 3E NPCs will be reflective of the backgrounds/abilities they had in 2E, unless there was a good reason to change them. We see the evidence of this in many published NPCs. Quite. I'd hate to see this NPC with a well-written history that details abilities or powers (or whatever) that existed with the 2e incarnation that doesn't with the 3e or 3.5e incarnation. Better yet, assuming the abilities could even be used anymore with the new iteration or new powers that the new iteration has that the previous ones didn't. Consistency: Where did they come from? How did they get to FR? Where have they been all of these years? Where did they learn their powers from? Hey, wasn't wasn't there a city with a lady of pain somewhere around here... there used to be a gate... I mean... portal around here somewhere. Now I'll have to memorize my ... I mean prepare my spells again. ... seriously though, if the artifacer were integrated into FR, I'm sure something along the lines of writing up the history of artifacers in forgotten realms could be made. Same as any other bit of new (or altered) realms material. Theme: FR, while heavy in magic, was hardly known for having characters that could mass produce magic items. This is one of the reasons I have removed the Item Creation feats entirely from my game beyond Brew Potion and Scribe Scroll. Much less were characters known for being able to craft magic items at a prodigious rate without an inkling of true spellcasting talent. It's hardly known for its non-mages either. The stars are all wizards or some other primary arcanist. What does that say about psions (for example,) who do, in fact, exist in Forgotten Realms. Why would artifacers be any different. Doesn't the fact that it was developed in Eberron hint at you the fact that they had a place in Eberron, historically or culturally? Would it have been printed in an Eberron book if it had not? If it wasn't, you give me yet another reason to never buy an Eberron book (i.e. If they don't link presented PrCs into the culture/history of their world). Of course it was made for Eberron. It's in the Eberron Campaign Setting book. But this red herring doesn't address the point of the paragraph of mine that you quoted. 'Virtually any place that makes magic items'? What about places in which all non-spellcasters who dabble in any form of magic are viciously slain? (Thay, Halruaa, Shade, etc., once more, those nations known for having the greatest capability of producing magical items.) What about places in which it takes years to learn even the basic understandings of the Weave enough to craft a simple Cantrip out of it? (Namely: Forgotten Realms.) What about in places with a religion that would consider the strange, ignorant workings of such Artificers ('Not knowing in what they are meddling!') to be abominations to be discouraged? (I would say Azuth.) as if this were, in any way different, than introducting other bits of new material. fair enough, I was incorrect in saying "virtually" (with the implication that it would be 98% or better) any place, and I'll restate that with... well, simply put, it would exist wherever it could be placed. Which could potentially be anywhere where there could be artifacers which would be in places where artifacers could do their "thing." I'm sure there's more than enough locations for them to exist, but whatever. What are your definitions of a hodgepodge, exactly? a union or mixture of different things that aren't necessarily otherwise associated with each other. A zoo would be a "hodgepodge" of different animals from around the world, for example. one must not necessarily take away a portion of something to diminish the impact of it on the overall end result. Adding in useless things that 'work' (once more, going back to literature - reading books in which way too much boring description is used) mechanically doesn't make the end product any better, but only makes it harder to focus on those really interesting, thematic, plot-building pieces. Great. Were adding the artifacer to the forgotten realms campaign setting doing any of these negative things, I might have gotten worried. What strikes me as generic is the fact that it is printed in one of the Core (Thus: Generic) 3.5 manuals. Obviously they would not have reprinted it in a Manual aimed specifically towards Greyhawk (which can be assumed to be the Default/Generic D&D world) if it was not meant to be used in such generic campaigns (according to WotC). I'm sure the fact that the book explicitly states that the members of this particular prestige class exist in Thay, of Faerun, of Toril, of the FRCS says otherwise. Were it generic, it wouldn't be any of that. I connected the following dots: - You said that the Artificer 'works' in almost any campaign setting because no modifications would have to be made to it in order for it to fit into other settings. the primary function that artifacers fufill in eberron is essentially a class that uses magic entirely through items through both crafting and temporarily imbueing. their abilities revolve around the creation and use of magic items - something that, in no discerable way, clashes with FR in general. - You did not say that this was specifically the case for the Artificer, but rather generalized it to Prestige Classes in general. in general. - Thus I used the above line of thought and applied it to the Red Wizard. The Red Wizard could be modified to any other campaign setting by simply removing the requirement of being a human from Thay. That is not difficult at all, and in doing so, it would make the PrC completely generic. No mechanics would have to be changed, and since it didn't reference any specific campaign setting any more (like apparently the Artificer PrC does not), it would 'work' just fine - that is, it would not conflict with any rules. So, you took two unrelated thoughts out of context and used them to formulate a conclusion on your own and stated that they were my thoughts or that I said them (no, I'm sorry "paraphrasing" them) and yet you claim that you're not "putting words in my mouth." The red wizard is a prestige class that is integrated into FR and likewise has requirements and abilities that likewise relfect that, unlike, say the artifacer in relations with Eberron. The conclusion I reached, which I have stated earlier, is that it could be made generic with HEAVY MODIFICATION. THe basic idea behind the red wizard could transfer. That idea being that of a super-specialized wizard. Not a "red" wizard, which is FR specific. The reason this is is because the Red Wizard is not generic in the least. In a prestige class representing a specific group of wizards in a specific location in a specific campaign setting. Unlike the artifacer.
GothicDan 06-15-05, 11:21 AM	I was implying that the idea of a prodigy of using magic isn't a concept that is niether new, nor unique to the realms. it is one that, essentially, can be easily transplanted into any campaign that happens to utilize magic to any extent without removing or adding to either campaign setting. However it's an idea that is only prevalent in the Realms, at least as far as we've read in novels and supplements. It's the only campaign setting in which such individuals would be common enough to actually merit a Feat such as this; campaign settings don't publish rules for players for things that are so rare it's up to the DM's jurisdiction to use. That is why we haven't seen it used in other campaign settings. Once more, you are hanging on the word 'can.' Words like 'can' imply ability. We have the ability to do anything we want. I have the ability to run around screaming naked in the streets spraying people with Kool Aid. The question here is whether a given course of action would be a very good thing to do, not whether or not we can do it. but now we're in 3.5e and those rules no longer apply. In fact, it retroactively makes the previous iterations false, mechanically since magic is required to be able to create an item of magic in the same way that the new cosmology does the same thing as far as changing the way the realms is handled in terms of planar travel and what connects to what. So you're effectively saying that under 3.5E's rules, the events in previously established sources of Realms lore make no sense? Correct me if I am wrong, for I would hardly want to put words in your mouth! This is actually one of the key points of my stance, really - that one should not implement new rules in any way that contradict too much, power-wise (that is, the abilities of certain NPCs or groups or the like, in general) or thematically, with the lore of the past. now when we look at things like some of these 2e/1e/3e/3.5e changes, all this "this" being the "consistantcy" we're talking about, changes. Some cases require more changes than before and a lot of material is often added to the realms to accomidate new materials (among other things.) You seem to be implying that I had no problem with all of the changes made. I started playing in the Realms in 2E, and I abolutely abhor some of the changes they made in the transition from 1E to 2E (the whole Time of Troubles debacle, for one). I am not talking about those changes made to reflect the mechanics behind the setting changing, but the needless deity shuffling. Such materials could potentially easily include Eberron's artifacer with perhaps even fewer impacts, assuming there are any, than a lot of the other material that would typically have to change given the similar situations. This is especially true when new monsters and PC races are introduced. The artifacer, I'm argueing, doesn't have to be different in this regard at all - just because it wasn't made in a FR or generic book. It doesn't. However, I've already given a small list of the possible reasons why the Artificer would not be given a chance to rise in the setting. Once more, I stress the fact that I am absolutely not against the addition/changing of things in a campaign setting, provided it is done in a way that relies in one shape or form, consistently, on already-established facts about the Realms. Do you think that I really like all of the sudden new monsters and PC races popping up, with little or no actual history in the Realms? Hardly. However, given the fact that the Realms' history and culture, as it stands, without any modifications, is more than perfectly capable of being supported by PrCs already present in the Realms (without the addition of the Artificer), adding in new PrCs would be utterly, thematically, useless. If there was a role in the Realms, culturally, that was not already adequately filled by a current PrC, and there was a PrC from another source that would fit it, I would certainly advocate its use. Granted, I would still urge one to make modifications to it to better reflect the history specific to it in the Realms, such as requirements of Regional Feats, the addition of Realms-specific Feats, Spells, etc. If events occurred in the Realms that provided a new role that Realms-specific PrCs could not support, than I would be all for it. However, I feel that such events would still have to be explained - thus my reasoning that Artificers would most likely have come from outside of Abeir-Toril, considering the fact that they do not have a previously established history there. I'm aware of what the multiclassing system is, the point is that an 11th level fighter/mage from 2e becomes an 11th level fighter/mage in 3e with drastically differing powers and capabilities and things the fighter/mage was capable of now no longer applies (such as casting higher level spells). Thus, we violate consistancy again due to a major overhaul in the D&D rules. As far as novels probably go, this changes relatively little due to "artistic license." This is the same case with the maztica rogue "artifacer" kits (or generally anything that didn't translate well with the transition.) Artistic license, you say? Exactly what is artistic about the mistinterpretation of the stats/abilities of previously created NPCs in terms of their power levels? What precisely artistic purpose does this serve? Considering the above 11 fighter/11 mage in 2E had a huge number of experience points (considering how quickly 3E levels compared to 2E, in particular), I would NEVER simply translate said character as an 11th level character. I would instead look at the abilities of said character in 2E and try to best emulate them in 3E. Hogwash to the actual levels. It's what the Wizard does - the spells he casts - that we remember. NOT the arbitrary level that means nothing all by itself. This is precisely the reason why I made the Bladesinger into a Core class, considering I thought it was a bit improper to require a character to take so many varied levels (Wizard/Fighter/Bladesinger) to get even an inkling of the former power that Bladesingers had as a Fighter/Wizard kit. Specialty priests, yes. General priests, no. And look, I didn't say "generic/core AD&D/D&D priests" I said "priests." Citing explicit exceptions to the normal rule doesn't change my point with this red herring. According to standardized 2E rules, 'priests' referred to 'priests of specific mythoi' (using words directly from the 2E PHB) - otherwise known as Specialty Priests. Clerics were the generic divine spellcasters to which you were referring. Oh yes, and then there's specialty priests, which has also dissapeared entirely. Heck, priests and druids between the two editions of D&D aren't alike at all. Isn't that a lot of history and background that just suddenly washed away? I truly am amused that you keep referring to retcons that just keep proving my point. You are 100% correct, and I 100% dislike this. Which, once more, is why if I was to run a Realms game I would convert the Specialty Priests from 2E into 20-level classes in 3E. This is why in my own homebrewed campaign, I spent countless hours crafting approximately a dozen and a half core 20-level classes, to better simulate Priests rather than generic Clerics. I also keep the Druid more in line with the 1E/2E rules - only True Neutral, the ability to travel the Inner Planes at higher levels, etc. Oh, but then we'd have to "convert." Which is apparently some sort of sin against the theme (or consistancy or both or whatever) of the realms. Just like "converting" the Eberron artifacer to FR, right? Not at all, given the fact that Quest spells were not specific to the Realms, but rather an aspect of Core D&D presented in Player's Options: High Level Campaigns. Once more, you are confusing Core/Generic D&D with the FR-specific aspects of the game about which I would keep consistent when at all possible. If I could possibly cite multiple history/cultural reasons why divine spellcasters being able to cast 8th-9th level spells would actually alter the history of the Realms if it was retconned (not likely, considering such effects could easily be described by saying they were Quest-level spells), then I would not allow them. However, such an example has yet to be brought to my attention. If you insist on pointing out such an analogy, I do hope you are able to back up your case by giving me such an example? It isn't the conversion that I feel violates the consistency of the Realms - not necessarily. It's a case-by-case analysis that must be made. Uh huh. Considering you felt it absolutely necessary to reply at all in such a manner, I feel that you have something truly worthwhile saying, which you felt was adequately expressed in this succinct statement. Perhaps my mental capabilities are limited, but I was unable to derive this transcendental meaning from your word choice. Could you enlighten me as to the specific intentions of your statement? Obviously you felt it had some meaning you wanted to communicate, since you posted a response at all. No, no, no, I didn't say that there was anything wrong with it. My point with this ties into what I was talking about earlier in this post. That suddenly the same fighter in 2e and abilities and powers that have completely changed between now and then. Which they wouldn't necessarily have to, given the fact that there are numerous Feats which could have been taken - without any actual PrCs needed - by a standard Fighter, to more than make up for the lost abilities, and still keep in the spirit of those abilities. A Fighter with Grand Mastery in a weapon (2E) could easily be simulated, in style, by a Fighter with Weapon Focus/Specialization, Greater Weapon Focus/Specialization, Power Attack, Cleave, Dodge, Whirlwind Attack, and Improved Initiative, etc. The simulation of a 2E Kit would be painfully easy, considering how few mechanical alterations such Kits usually made to the base class. What "alternative" is "better" is entirely subjective. Even if they do similar things, it doesn't mean they couldnt' co-exist. I agree. But beyond that, I'm not immediately aware of any talor-made FR artifacers with the exception of the gnome artifacer in the magic of faerun, which, despite its similar name, wouldn't interfere with an FR "Eberron" artifacer. This is probably because there were no other significan groups in the Realms that have been historically known for being solely artificers. Once more, the Vremyoni were also known as being potent spellcasters and spell researchers, the Maztician artificers were known for their rogue skills as much as their magical abilities, and the Pluma Shapes were known for their spells as well as their artificing. Granted, the Imaskari had the sobriquette of artificers, but they were also known, obviously, for intensely powerful magic, which obviously the Artificer class could not provide. Heck, if anyone would have the higher population of FR artifacers, it would probably be gnomes and, to a lesser extent, dwarves (whom you stated was "being innately geared towards the production of magical weapons. " in addition to something about "hammer golems.") and humans. And obviously the Gnomes' higher population of artificers is reflected in the aforementioned PrC that has already been made to fill such a role. As for the dwarves, I am currently working on making a PrC called the Battlesmith to highlight just such a dwarven propensity for magic. Given that they are so against (traditionally) anything but Divine magic, I could never see the dwarves sponsoring Artificers. As for the Humans, I have already pointed out all of the major groups that could possibly be Artificers to my knowledge, and why said groups would actually deter the creation and spread of such skills. Are there any other examples you would care to bring up, or would you like me to expand at all upon any of the previous statements I have made concerning my reasoning? But, you know, apparently, we can "convert" quest spells and virtually every aspect about priests and clerics, but no one in the realms can be an artifacer... hmm... Obviously we have to convert the Core rules of the game because we are in an entirely new ruleset. Even then, there are many rules of 2E that I have not converted to keep things more in line/theme with the history of the Realms. However, the Artificer is a different case - it is not integral that we include them in the Realms (i.e. There are no existing cultural/historical cases of such characters that the PrC could fill). If we do not assume the conversion of Quest Spells - > 8th-9th level spells, we cannot play the 3E game at all. If we do not implement every generic (or Other-Campaign-based) PrC or Feat to the Realms, we are still quite capable of playing in the 3E Realms - and truer to the originally presented world, I might add. As I said, specifically, things are on a case-by-case basis, and I analyze them in accordance to historical/cultural consistency, not necessarily mechanical consistency (at least in so far as deciding what would best fit into a Campaign Setting). Clerics casting super-powerful spells have always been around in the Realms, by whatever name/level you decide to call them. Artificers, as given in the PrC, have not been. Oh, no. Don't apologize. You don't have to be sorry for misreading my prior arguements and jumped to the conclusion that I was "falling back" on a "lack of information" as a somehow major valid point I was trying to make in that previous post in addition to the fact that it's quite out of context and missing the point of the entire paragraph as a whole in addition to insulting my intelligence. 1. Please refer to me the specifcs of how I misread your post. Please cite specific misinterpretations of which words I used. I do believe I interpretted the wording of your arguments as the definitions of standard Western culture would permit. If I am wrong, I would be happy to be better-informed. 2. If you made a statement, obviously you were using it as a valid argument. If you did not mean for this to be your intention, than you highlight the fact that needless baggage (in any case, be it literary or game-wise) does not truly add anything to what is being presented, but rather detracts from the impact of what is truly trying to be said. 3. In debate, there's no such thing as 'out of context.' Anything can be used as an argument. As a safeguard against this tactic, I would reccommend you try to be more specific in your wording, in a manner that prevents me from using your words (which I did not change at all, and still made sense in the context in which I put them) out of context from what the full breadth of your intention was. 4. Your original statement was this: "However, FR doesn't have a listing of every mortal and otherwise creature across the entire tree cosmology, therefore, one cannot say "they don't exist because I heaven't heard of one." As the Affirmative (you are the one affirming the fact that there should be Artificers in the Realms), it is your duty to cite specific reasons why your stance is supported. In the above sentence, you are stating that one cannot say that Artificers do not exist in the Realms, just because we haven't heard of one yet. Note that the italisized text is an example of a lack of information regarding the topic, which unless I am mistaken (correct me if I am wrong) is the main point of the argument in this sentence. If I removed that last thought, the rest of your sentence (and your point/argument) would be completely inconclusive, proving that it is indeed integral to your argument. Thus, this portion of your argument rests upon a lack of information regarding the topic, which you are trying to use to prove the point. Ignorance of a topic, whether enforced or voluntary, is still ignorance; it does not stand up in courts of law or debate forums. One thing one should never, ever do in a debate is admit a lack of information. By saying something along the lines of 'we don't have any information saying for or against', you are admitting that your argument is not supported by the facts you are referencing. And, as an Affirmative, it is your job to provide the proof. 5. I do not recall specifically making any assessment of your intelligence, but rather stating a general rule of modern rhetoric. like changing the rules at a completely fundemental level? like changing the entire cosmology of Realmspace? like introducing new monsters and races and prestige classes (and base 20 level classes) that have apparently existed in the forgotten realms for hundreds of years? Perhaps it won't make 99.5% of all D&D books wrong, by any stretch of the imagination. There's always an author's artistic license and the fact that an author of a book doesn't need to make his characters conform to specific powers and abilities in the game to work in the novel. But I must reiterate: Adding artifacers changes nothing that adding new material (realms-specific or not) would otherwise do. i.e. if there's a niche it can fill, the artifacer probably fills it. - When the ruleset conflicts with the theme/history of the Realms, I do not change it unless it is inhibiting my gameplay. - I do not use the new cosmology, and since we still haven't gotten an in-game reason for its change, according to Ed Greenwood's contract, it's still not canon anyway. - I do not use new races, classes, and monsters that have had no presence in the Realms in the past, unless there is an in-game reason/change made that introduces them (or if their supposedly long-time, but unheard-of-until-3E presence would not have otherwise impacted the overall history of the Realms as written). - I am very sparing in my reading of FR novels. - Obviously adding new material to the Realms, in my opinion, does some very bad things to the Realms if not properly implemented, which is my point entirely. Thank you. Like adding to the history of the realms specifically for the new material, which could easily be done for the artifacer as well as any other new material. Precisely. Yet you seemed almost offended (calling my stance 'silly') when I suggested that we give an in-game addition to the history of the Realms by introducing them from Eberron to Abeir-Toril. I concur, but that doesn't mean one can be made and "making it a reasonable facimile" is still "converting" and still requires modification and so forth, but I'd just be repeating again what I've already said in this post. And once more you focus on mechanics, even though I have repeatedly reiterated the fact that I am talking about theme/history/lore. I have stated, over and over, that I do not care about converting/changing mechanics, and rather this is exactly what I prefer to do to keep better in the spirit of a given NPC/race/organization/etc. as presented in 2E. Why do you think I suggested, multiple times, that we use the Eberron Artificer's base statistics as inspiration for PrCs such as the Vremyoni, and modify it heavily to better suit their specific role in the Realms? Why do you think that I've made approximately two dozen new Core Classes and another 3 dozen new PrCs for my own world? Obviously I am not daunted by the creation/modification of mechanics to better suit a given campaign setting. ... seriously though, if the artifacer were integrated into FR, I'm sure something along the lines of writing up the history of artifacers in forgotten realms could be made. Same as any other bit of new (or altered) realms material. If one was absolutely set on adding Artificers to the Realms, I would require nothing less. However, such a history would also have to be consistent with the history of the Realms (not necessarily the mechanics to a 'T'). However, the inclusion of so many 'new' things is frankly boring. The Shades, the Shadow Weave, the Imaskari, the Star Elves... I don't understand why they didn't implement such ideas (or variants of them) in other less-detailed worlds to allow them to take more of the spotlight. Probably financial reasons (FR being the biggest seller currently). Of course, this doesn't address the issue of the introduction of all of these new things making what is already existent seem less prominent. This is why all of these 'old races/cultures' returning is getting older and older the more it happens. And please note that Sigil (and the Lady of Pain) is now officially connected to the Realms cosmology, as well. It's hardly known for its non-mages either. The stars are all wizards or some other primary arcanist. What does that say about psions (for example,) who do, in fact, exist in Forgotten Realms. Why would artifacers be any different. Because psionics has been in the Realms since 1E. Elminster himself was a Wild Talent in 2E. The posterboy of FR having psionics is a pretty good indication that FR supported psionics, even if it wasn't as common as wizardry. as if this were, in any way different, than introducting other bits of new material. fair enough, I was incorrect in saying "virtually" (with the implication that it would be 98% or better) any place, and I'll restate that with... well, simply put, it would exist wherever it could be placed. Which could potentially be anywhere where there could be artifacers which would be in places where artifacers could do their "thing." I'm sure there's more than enough locations for them to exist, but whatever. Once more you are falling into the use of verbs like 'could.' Certainly we 'could' stick them anywhere we wanted. But what would it add by doing so? The organization known currently for being THE producers of magic items (the Red Wizards) would fly into a foam-mouthed frenzy at the implication of Artificers, and would have tracked them down and slain all of them as very potential business rivals. And considering they aren't even spellcasters, I don't see Azuth or Mystra being terribly concerned about protecting them - and Azuth, being a patron of wizardry, would probably even lend some secret aid to the crusade. a union or mixture of different things that aren't necessarily otherwise associated with each other. A zoo would be a "hodgepodge" of different animals from around the world, for example. I see. Personally, with this definition, I would consider tossing non-FR PrCs and the like, creating a hodgepodge, because they were initially unassociated with the already existing lore. Great. Were adding the artifacer to the forgotten realms campaign setting doing any of these negative things, I might have gotten worried. It does, from a literary and psychological point of view. Do try to step outside of your own perspective and try to look at things more wholistically, taking into account many fields of study before drawing a conclusion. I find that this is the most common fault of people in my age bracket - or rather, people in general, really. Do you know what one thinks of when they say 'Dragonlance' and 'Wizards' in the same sentence? I would guess that 9 out of 10 people would say the Wizards of High Sorcery. Why? Because they are pretty much the singular, formally organized wizardly organization on Ansalon, and this makes them more memorable. Currently, when someone says 'artificers' and 'Forgotten Realms' in the same sentence, I think 'Imaskari,' 'Vremyoni,' and 'gnomes.' The more facts you try to cram into your memory, the less you remember each one, and the less association, mental or emotional, you can attach to each one. It's a simple limit to the human psyche. I'm sure the fact that the book explicitly states that the members of this particular prestige class exist in Thay, of Faerun, of Toril, of the FRCS says otherwise. Were it generic, it wouldn't be any of that. So you base your entire judgement of the suitability of a PrC to a campaign according to its mechanical requirements? Would we even be having this discussion if it said, under the requirements for Artificer, 'Human from Eberron'? Also, from the DMG: We encourage you, as the DM, to tightly limit the prestige classes available in your campaign. The example prestige classes are certainly not all encompassing or definitive. They might not even be appropriate for your campaign. The best prestige classes for your campaign are the ones you tailor make yourself. Huh, look at this: A. Limit prestige classes in your campaign. I suppose this could mean not to throw in PrCs without a reason for doing so. B. Prestige classes are not definitive to a campaign. That is, the PrCs are not completely suited to given roles in a campaign setting. C. Even the generic PrCs presented in the DMG might not be suitable to certain campaigns. D. The DMG encourages you to custom make PrCs for your campaign, above any other pre-written PrC by WotC. Which is my point. the primary function that artifacers fufill in eberron is essentially a class that uses magic entirely through items through both crafting and temporarily imbueing. their abilities revolve around the creation and use of magic items - something that, in no discerable way, clashes with FR in general. So, how do they fit in, historically/culturally? And their abilities clash with FR because only spellcasters (except in rare cases) have had the ability to create magic items. If this was not the case, the Red Wizards wouldn't be working towards a monopoly on the market. in general. So you agree - in general. That means you should not critisize my reasoning when I use your statements in general (i.e. applying it to other PrCs), unless you previously specified the precise conditions of your conclusions. So, you took two unrelated thoughts out of context and used them to formulate a conclusion on your own and stated that they were my thoughts or that I said them (no, I'm sorry "paraphrasing" them) and yet you claim that you're not "putting words in my mouth." No. I did not at all put words into your mouth. Nor did I take two unrelated thoughts out of context. They were perfectly in context, given the fact that you did not specificy any context in which they could only be used. As far as relation goes, it's one of the wonders of the human mind to be able to relate anything with almost anything else. The question is whether or not the relations made follow a logical series. Do you feel that my assertations were not logically made? If not, please point out specifically why they were not, and I urge you not to believe I should have 'assumed' some things about your statements which you did not specifically express. The red wizard is a prestige class that is integrated into FR and likewise has requirements and abilities that likewise relfect that, unlike, say the artifacer in relations with Eberron. The conclusion I reached, which I have stated earlier, is that it could be made generic with HEAVY MODIFICATION. THe basic idea behind the red wizard could transfer. That idea being that of a super-specialized wizard. Not a "red" wizard, which is FR specific. The reason this is is because the Red Wizard is not generic in the least. In a prestige class representing a specific group of wizards in a specific location in a specific campaign setting. Unlike the artifacer. What are the exact requirements and abilities (besides the 'human from Thay' requirement) that you feel are particularly indicative of FR in a way that the Artificer's requirements and abilities are not indicative of Eberron?
Demetrios 06-15-05, 07:43 PM	Demetrios: Possibly. Though, considering how biased Lantan is towards the worship of Gond, I see no reason why such vague rumors could not be more appropriately attributed to Techsmiths, without having to introduce a foreign PrC into the mix. :) We haven't had any near-specific examples of the sort of individual magic of Lantan that the Artificer PrC could accomplish particularly better than a Techsmith could. True, but personally, as a DM, if someone wanted to play such Eberron-specific things such as an Artificier or a Warforged, I wouldn't have much problem with it if they were from Lantan. I can see all sorts of Eberron-esque technology coming from there - even such things as lightning rail. And with Lantan at the moment being a relatively blank slate (other than the fact that they dabble in strange technologies, which dovetails neatly with all this), I wouldn't have any problem making it a mini-Eberron - mainly because I like some specific details of the setting (mainly what I've mentioned in this post! :D ) But that's just how I would handle it. No doubt everyone else has differring opinions on how to do it..
GothicDan 06-15-05, 07:59 PM	Demetrious, I respect your opinion as to what you would consider viable and fun in your game. :) I obviously do not agree with it, but that's neither here nor there.
The Human Target 06-15-05, 11:01 PM	I like the idea, I like the class, and I think it works fine in the FR. I actually prefer the idea that at some point an artificier came into the Realms from Khorvaire.
The Human Target 06-15-05, 11:07 PM	Just like what Another Gnome said. :) What's the point in introducing PrCs OR Base Classes when there are other ones available that are tailored specifically to a campaign setting? But I don't think there are any PrCs in the FR that fit the Artificer concept. And there are no FR specific classes at all.
GothicDan 06-16-05, 01:40 PM	I can't personally say that I like the class, as I don't know the specifics, but the above opinions I've expressed pretty much go for any new/imported PrC/class/race/etc. from one campaign setting (or even generic D&D) into another. :) Mind you, I think the idea of an Artificer (or several!) arriving from Eberron in-game in the recent history of the Realms would be very cool. It would create a lot of conflict! But when I suggested that in-game explanation, of the Artificer/s arriving from Eberron, was silly, apparently.
The Human Target 06-16-05, 02:59 PM	I can't personally say that I like the class, as I don't know the specifics, but the above opinions I've expressed pretty much go for any new/imported PrC/class/race/etc. from one campaign setting (or even generic D&D) into another. :) Mind you, I think the idea of an Artificer (or several!) arriving from Eberron in-game in the recent history of the Realms would be very cool. It would create a lot of conflict! But when I suggested that in-game explanation, of the Artificer/s arriving from Eberron, was silly, apparently. We'll, I don't think so if that makes you feel better. But I wouldn't mind just adding them to the Realms either no explanation needed.
GothicDan 06-16-05, 09:11 PM	See, now that's something that I would be against. I don't like doing -anything- without an explanation. :) I guess it has to do with me liking that whole physics thing perhaps a little too much for my own good. Or appreciating literature a little too much...
Kuje31 06-16-05, 09:38 PM	I just want to point out, that I to dislike when they add a new class/race/etc/ into the setting without giving it a reason why it's there all of a sudden! And none of this, "It's always been there! You all just didn't know it!" HOW INSULTING!
Gallameed 06-17-05, 05:14 AM	I dont really see what all the fuss is about! I mean, how many times do you read the description of a spell/item/creature and it says "the origins of these things are shrouded in mystery..." or how, or why race X came to be here, is lost to history and many scholars debate their existance at all". To say its bad or whatever to allow new things in Toril and retcon the past a little bit dosent really do much harm, as long as its not massively changing things etc... Not allowing new things in a game that uses and exists in peoples imaginations! now that is insulting to me! To the average realms (npc) person a Psion, Sorcerer, Wizard, Warlock, Cleric or summat would all just be described as a magic user or a mage of some sort... As for the Artificer, I would say Latan would be a fine place for such a class to come from or maybe something to do with Gond? They would be super-rare elsewhere and even then would originate from a Latan/Gnomes/Gond background. If faerun can have space hamsters, spelljammers, flying cities and half-iron-golem-dragon-slayers running around then the Artificer can easily be used with a quick tweak... The only thing that is a problem I can find with playing the Artificer class straight from the Eberron book is on page 29, under characteristics. It reads: "Their magic is neither arcane nor divine and they are not bound by that classification". So change that to divine if your a Artificer of Gond or whatever... No big deal. :p
GothicDan 06-17-05, 11:34 AM	I mean, how many times do you read the description of a spell/item/creature and it says "the origins of these things are shrouded in mystery..." or how, or why race X came to be here, is lost to history and many scholars debate their existance at all". Not all that often in Realms lore, unless it deals directly with the gods. And even if it does say something like this, it is usually applying the IC-knowledge; there are still usually out-of-character explanations in the various supplements for such things. To say its bad or whatever to allow new things in Toril and retcon the past a little bit dosent really do much harm, as long as its not massively changing things etc... I agree with this. Not allowing new things in a game that uses and exists in peoples imaginations! now that is insulting to me! What is truly a challenge is using your imagination without breaking established lore - that is more of an accompishment, and something I'd more likely respect. It's like Robert Frost said, poetry without rules is like playing tennis without a net. Not very hard, and not worthy of all that much respect because of that fact. To the average realms (npc) person a Psion, Sorcerer, Wizard, Warlock, Cleric or summat would all just be described as a magic user or a mage of some sort... Wizard vs. Sorcerer, yes, most probably would, and probably even Warlock. Much of that has to do with the fact that Sorcerers and Warlocks didn't even exist in previous editions, so there hasn't been enough in-game published lore for us to have an idea of exactly how average Realms NPC would react to them in character. But as far as clerics go? Hardly! I mean, just a few years ago they had the gods themselves walking the world! They know that clerics can heal them, that they can rid them of disease, and that they can call upon those same gods that a little while ago were knocking on their very doors when they were youngsters! Even your average Realms citizen knows the difference between a Wizard and a Cleric. After all, when the name, "The Red Wizards of Thay" is mentioned, they know that they aren't talking about clerics! As for the Artificer, I would say Latan would be a fine place for such a class to come from or maybe something to do with Gond? They would be super-rare elsewhere and even then would originate from a Latan/Gnomes/Gond background. If faerun can have space hamsters, spelljammers, flying cities and half-iron-golem-dragon-slayers running around then the Artificer can easily be used with a quick tweak... I don't understand why people keep bringing this fact up, as if it we were discussing this at all. I'm sorry if that sounds rude, I'm just incredibly frustrated. I've already personally admitted that adding Artificers to the Realms provided there are in-character explanations as to their presence, and a way to fit them into the pre-existing culture of the world, would be just fine. But the question is -why- would they need to be added when there are pre-existing groups that already have similar functions, such as the Techsmiths, Vremyoni, Red Wizards, etc.? Is it -just- because someone wants the specific powers associated with that prestige class? If it is, then that's more of a reason to keep them out of the Realms, as far as I'm concerned. So change that to divine if your a Artificer of Gond or whatever... No big deal. :p That's what the Techsmith is for, though. Why do you need an Artificer of Gond when you already have a Techsmith of Gond? You can't really say that it's because the Techsmith doesn't fulfill the same functions as an Artificer, because it does.. Thematically. If it's the powers of the class you're worrying about, though, don't you think that if the followers of Gond were meant to have said powers in the Realms, the Techsmith would have equivalents? That being said, the fact that Artificer's magic naturally isn't arcane or divine probably makes it a major strength of the PrC (since it can't be targetted by those things that give special bonuses/effects against arcane or divine sources). By making them Divine, this would mean that they would be subject to all of the restraints that FR has on Divine magic. For instance, they could not create anything in a Dead Magic Zone. And being Divinely powered, does this mean that they could access the Shadow Weave instead of the Weave? It also gives it a certain Eberron feel to it - the fact that the campaign setting is defying strict thematic rules (such as in the case with the removal of standard alignments), and to remove that restriction would not only take away from the strength of the PrC, but also be an insult to the Eberron campaign setting's natural flair for idiosyncrasy. Also, traditionally in the Realms, besides the Techsmith, it has ALWAYS been Arcane spellcasters that were the producers of magic items on large scales - once more, the Vremyoni, the Imaskari, and Red Wizards. By introducing a Divine-based group, it would upset that theme as well.
Gallameed 06-17-05, 04:57 PM	To Gothic Dan, In general people love new classes and want to try them out, i know my players do. Bring on MORE classes we want em! Anyone can make something fit in the realms with a bit of brain storming and a sprinkle of Ed! :) I love the techsmith but the problem is, you cant be one from 1st level, with an Artificer you can! And about the Cleric thing, yeah your right, most (Joe Bloggs npc) people would recognize a cleric as one of Faeruns many god-botherer's, but only if they actually healed them or if the cleric happened to be dressed like a cleric or waved his/her holy symbol about a bit. My PC adventurers usually only carry a holy symbol while adventuring and just wear their vestments for praying or visiting the church... The realms have been going fer donkeys years now and to me and other newcomers who have only been playing for a couple of years, it can seem like a tough nut to break into, the amount of 2nd ed stuff is very intimidating! I was well chuffed when 3rd Edition/3.5 came out and kind of "rebooted" things, as I'd always loved the FR novels and really wanted to play in the realms with my group and now we do! (but without the giant space hamsters and stuff :D)
GothicDan 06-17-05, 05:04 PM	Heh. I hate new classes/Prestige Classes unless they are made to otherwise fulfill a thematic role in a world. :) I wish WotC would stop publishing new PrCs and Feats altogether in further Realms products unless they were to fulfill roles that existed prior to 3E.
Gallameed 06-17-05, 05:35 PM	Ah-who cares! I just dont like being told my 3rd level Iron golem ninja of umberlee cant do handstands because in 1123 DR (year of the battered cod) Elminster wore tartan slippers. :D But I am glad you Realms-a-holics are around to point us in the proper direction if our Cyborg-ninjas DO get too far off the realmsy track. now I'm off to get blootered, have a good one Dan! :D
GothicDan 06-17-05, 05:53 PM	Realms-a-holics? Pft. It's my third favorite setting. ;) Have fun with that.
Alac Luin 06-17-05, 07:17 PM	Why not simply create a Vremyoni PrC (wizard/sorcerer-based) or a Maztician artificer PrC (rogue-based)? Why "create" a PrC (don't we have to many already?) when we have a perfectly functional Base class that fits the role already? The class "Artificer" as presented in the ECS is a graet set of rules, limited spellcasting, good skills, a little bit of "thief" abilities. A great support charicter, the same way a Bard is thought of as a support charicter. All Artificers are not part of House Cannith, just as all wizards are not Red Wizards. The rules for the Artificer really doesn't have a theme more then "a creator of items, both mundane and magical". How this opposes anything in the FR I cannot see. Now if someone wanted to import the dragon marked families into the realms, well, thats a different story.
TheDarkestOfAngels 06-17-05, 10:38 PM	GothicDan - Excuse the lateness of this reply, but I've been busy as of late. After reading through the past few repsonses and particularly the lengthy response to my last post, I'm not quite sure that we disagree as much as I previously thought that we did and I'm not entirely sure what, specifically, we disagree on. In addition, the posts between the two of us are getting unwieldy, as I've only so much time that I desire to sit down and make one post regarding any particular subject. I'm saying this now to prevent the need to repeat this later, but, correct me if I'm wrong. I'm aware of the fundemental disagreement. You're against new stuff (and implimentation thereof) and I'm not (to put it simply.) My basic philosophy regarding this material is fairly simple; if I can use it, I will. If I can impliment it, I shall. The reasoning behind this is that, assuming I feel that it fits, I'll put it in. I do this for reasons that are somewhat similar to why some people despise character classes and prestige classes at all - to fill in a character concept and to make the game generally more expansive. I feel that limiting myself the way you have, I'll limit the extent to how my I can and how much a campaign setting can, such as FR, immerse a player or group of players in the full breadth of everything the CS has to offer. I don't feel, as you appear to, relate the campaign setting's theme/feel/lore/culture/history to classes and prestige classes in the same way you do. I use them as tools to make individual characters and NPCs to represent, nothing more, nothing less. For example, elves have always been known for the aptitude with magic in the form of wizardry (as opposed to divine magic or sorcery) - especially Sun Elves and Elven High Magic. So, going through a city run by Moon or Sun elves, I'd feel that the city would be highly populated with virtually every type of arcane spellcaster there has been written. Wizards (and specialist wizards) being highly influential in an elven community and the most common non-standard ("standard" being commoner, expert, adept, etc) profession taken. I imagine that Battle Sorcerers and War Mages in addition to regular warriors, fighters, and rangers are the ones that would defend this particular community. Experts, Commoners, magewrights (from Eberron CS - being a purely arcane varient of the adept), and adepts being the bulk of the population. Were I to introduce the artifacer, well, someone has to stock the military with magic weaponry and healing potions and whatnot (if they fill that role, that allows the mages to not have to blow feats to do the same thing and can aid in other ways.) Sun elves aren't particularly known for being artifacers, magewrights, battle sorcerers, or warmages, but there is a place for all of them, because elves are known for their aptitude with magic and virtually anyplace that has magic has magic items to go with it. Perhaps that might or might not be the best place to put these classes, but it makes sense and it doesn't interfere with this particular group of elves' history or culture. Instead, it merely adds to it by providing opportunities for how these elves interact with both each other and others. I would think the warmage would fit into just about any military culture that emphasise the use of magic. Warmages also allow wizards in the military to focus on using their magics for "battlefield control" type spells while the warmage is able to put himself into the battlefield and provide the heavy artilliary, supporting the warriors and scouts. Artifacers would be making whatever items they could for both business purposes and to supply the city's defense and for trading with neighbors as well. Battle Sorcerers would have a position similar to that of Warmages, but their position would be similar to that of the frontline meleeists, but with spell support. Magewrights would have similar positions in society as artifacers and mages, but would be more akin to the expert or adept - ie they'd be the most common form of arcanist, most likely, but with wizards and the like filling in the positions with the most power. This is all, of course, coupled with the positions that every other class would fill in elven society. I'll pull in an example in the actual game that I run. Right now, the average party level is 3~4 and this occurred during the second adventure, where one of my PCs, upon release (and peering through) the complete adventurer, wanted to be a Ninja. So, me, not being the sort of person to arbitrarily say "no," I at least gave it some thought as to how to justify a ninja being in Everlund as opposed to, say, Kara-Tur, where Ninjas would typically be in the FRCS. I did remember, however, that Shar has an order of Monks and Monk/Sorcerers (Dark Moon) that actively worship her. I figure that since Ninjas are, mechanically speaking, magically-powered Monk/Rogues in one 20-level class, I figure it'd be almost a perfect fit. The probably wouldn't be called Ninja's, per se, but their function and ability would fit well with that sort of thing, so I allowed him to be one, assuming he either worshipped shar and was a member of this order, or was at least once was a member of this order (and would likewise be hunted down.) Interestingly enough, his character didn't survive that adventure and was Coup-De-Graced by an assassin, but that's beside the point. I had also decided to treat Shujenjas (but not Wu-Jen or Samurai) in the same manner. I figure they could essentially work as worshippers under Kossuth (and some of the other elemental gods) as especially elemental-inclined priests (though "priest" isnt' the exact word I'm looking for) without necessariy being Druids. For example, if someone wanted to be a Shujenja of Kossuth without necessariy being from Kara-Tur, I figure that'd be fine. They'd be something of an elemental cleric (though I'd replace the spells known from the "order" with appropriate domain spells from the appropriate god, since those orders don't exist, from what I could tell, in Faerun.) But I digress. There's plenty of reason, as I see it, for the artifacer to exist in faerun because what the artifacer does is about as general as any class in in any of the complete books (just of note - the artifacer is a base 20 class and not a prestige class.) After looking at the techsmith and gnome artifacer, I see little reason for the two to be unable to co-exist, as none of the three interfere with each other's roles. In faerun as a whole, I don't see a conflict, despite the reasons you've posted. I mean, lets look at those for a moment. The organization known currently for being THE producers of magic items (the Red Wizards) would fly into a foam-mouthed frenzy at the implication of Artificers, and would have tracked them down and slain all of them as very potential business rivals. And considering they aren't even spellcasters, I don't see Azuth or Mystra being terribly concerned about protecting them - and Azuth, being a patron of wizardry, would probably even lend some secret aid to the crusade. 1) The Red Wizards The red wizards are powerful and influential, but faerun is a big place and if artifacers existed in FR, then I'm sure they'd be just as capable of defending themselves like any other group of persons or organizations the red wizards are working against, though I make no assumption that artifacers are a group or organization themselves any more than any other particular class is. Other than that, they can't be everywhere at once and saying that they'd have slain them all is like saying that "because blackguards are evil, the seven sisters and their allies would have slain them all." Obviously, if they found such a hidiously evil individual, they'd do something about it, but even they are incapable of performing such a feat and they have bigger things, generally, to worry about, such as a certain Lich Necromancer in Thay and his growing army. That also doesn't discount the fact that the red wizards are indeed working toward a monopoly and thus must be working toward a monopoly against someone and artifacers are an obvious rival, plus, there's also the possibility that artifacers could be making items for the red wizards (by choice or not - I'm not saying "red wizard artifacers" I'm saying that, since red wizards do control, almost like a totalitarian state, the Thayan region, they'd also have control over magic item production and those items have to come from somewhere. I mean, the red wizards could either allow artifacers to make items (under their watch) for them or they could take the training themselves and make items at their own pace with their own (limited - due to red wizard's greater level of specialization) spells. Even barring that, there's no reason that bob the blacksmith who's not a mage, but can make one nasty magical sword could be an artifacer as opposed to an adept with item crafting feats. particularly since artifacers can be adventurers as well. 2) Azuth. The first line of the description of his entry in Faiths and Pantheons says "Azuth concerns himself with hte advancement and preservation of hte magical arts. I see little reason for him to be working against artifacers, since the very nature of their abilities create magic items that others can use as well. If anything this advances his cause to some extent (though I wouldn't see artifacers worshipping him, since he's a patron of the magic arts, but artifacers would appear to inadvertantly advance his cause and aid in his worshippers to spead and continue the magical arts than it would to damage it. 3) Mystra. While not spellcasters, per se, they do use magic through the items they make and Mystra is the Mother of all Magic. I see no conflicts. 4) Crusade Artifacers aren't a part of a group like the harpers or red wizards to be crusaded against any more than, say, any other class in particular, though that's not saying that they couldn't be just like any other class. I'm sure that, if they were in faerun, they would be a target by organizations (like the red wizards) but I doubt it would be any different from any other group vs. group or organization vs. organization conflict like so many in faerun. But more on the topic I began this post with, what we do appear to agree on is that it's a bad idea to throw things in irresponsibly and, to an extent, I don't feel as though I'm doing that. You feel that PrC and classes shouldnt' be added without context, when I do add these things, I do make sure it doesn't interfere with any given context to which it is put in. The thing is that I don't think a place's history or culture really does much other than give a direction for a society, which means that individuals of a particular culture would be inclined a certain way. Imiskari, for example, would be inclined to be a powerful mages who are known for their artifacers (which you describe has powerful spellcasting ability as well.) But that doesn't denote that they would have artifacers as easily as mages with minimal item crafting capability. in fact, it would only promote their item-making ability in the sense of their entire culture - so we would be adding some thing. Same thing with any group of peoples where item creation is prevelent (barring specific stipulations otherwise.) I don't feel, however, that a history is an all-encompassing thing and I use our own history as an example. Our written history is vast and expansive but still largely incomplete and filled with holes and, in some cases, outright lies (usually unintentional, I presume, but we can only take what information we're given based upon evidence and theory.) We don't know everything about our own past and Faerun's history and lore is far more incomplete and with much more "history" to have missing information upon. To say that, if artifacers were to be implimented, there would be more than enough space to implant them without disrupting ANYTHING. I mean, I suppose I would ask you to look at it this way - if you wanted to imput the artifacer into FR (without resorting to "portals from or to Eberron",) how would you do it? If you couldn't, I'd like to know why. Part of the reason I dislike the idea of portals from Eberron ... well... let me start by saying that I like the idea of alternate material planes and even portals to the other established campaign settings. Those portals do even officially exist (Mordenkainen's spells *do* exist in faerun, after all), but I don't like the idea of an artifacer coming to faerun and becoming a part of its lore because of that. The reason is because it seems to simply be a cheat in the system to allow for things like that - like an excuse a player would use to bring in a character from one campaign setting into another and that's never flown well with me - not because of the artifacer, but because it has to come from Eberron to work. I like the idea of having the artifacer be in Faerun because I can add it as if it actually developed there and had a place, so there can be realmsian artifacer organizations that come together to defend themselves against the red wizards, who constantly attempt to either subsume them (as in, kidnap them and force them to work for the Red Wizards or die.) And things of that nature. This is because I like using everything at my disposal to fully represent the diversity of a world. Any world. I believe this can be done, even if I'm using a lot of generic material or even material from another campaign setting because I don't think an artifacer from Waterdeep would the same at all to an artifacer from Sharn because they grew up differently, became artifacers for different reasons, and strive for goals reflecting how they grew up in their relative locations. That, I believe, is far more important in creating a respectable campaign setting than PrCs and classes custom-taylored to a specific campaign setting. However, I am not adverse to custom-making classes, prestige classes, or even races (such as the two in my sig, though the human telepaths were not intended to be a part of any particular campaign setting, but the snow elves were.) Though I only do that when I feel it is necessary and I'm more willing to use pre-existing materials than to create custom made ones, because I rarely see it necessary to and I'd rather spend my time creating adventures and immersing my players into the campaign setting through the people and lore and not because a class a person has. For example, if a PC Paladin was looking for someone to forge him a weapon to smite evil bastards, the blacksmith could be any class that can make one - wizard, sorcerer, magewright, cleric, druid, artifacer, or adept who could use spells appropriate for that goal. Heck, even another paladin, ranger, hexblade, warlock, dragon (or other race with inherant spellcasting ability), or bard could as well, and make a weapon reflecting both the sort of spells they have and the goals of the individual to use it. I suppose that the bottom line of my views on this topic is that, unless there's a reason why it couldn't (including the qualifiers that you use) then I'd allow it. If there's an obvious reason why it couldn't, then I'll either try to adapt it to be usable or I'll outright disallow it and allow alternatives, if possible. However, I don't let culture/history/lore/theme to be a straight-jacket. I like the realms precisely because it's a massive campaign setting with a massive amount of history and lore to it, but it's also pliable enough and open enough for things to be able to be added to it without screwing with what already exists. This is part of the reason that I think that Grayhawk is still popular (I like it, though I like FR more) and why FR is as popular as it is. I hope this clears some things up, because as negitive as I might have sounded, it really wasn't intentional and I don't want this to evolve into either a flame war or a debacle over semantics.
GothicDan 06-18-05, 10:43 AM	Why "create" a PrC (don't we have to many already?) when we have a perfectly functional Base class that fits the role already? Because they do not fit it perfectly as well, as I have already pointed out. The Vremyoni were all known for being very powerful wizards and researchers of new spells, which the Artificer class certainly does not provide. The above-mentioned Maztican kit was a rogue kit, which means that they have the backstabbing, lock-picking, sneaking, fighting, Saving, etc. of a rogue. Kits were typically only relatively minor alterations to the base classes. The Artificer class doesn't provide the rogue/thief abilities that are integral to the Maztican kit, given that all of such characters would also have, primarily I might add, the talents of a thief. The class "Artificer" as presented in the ECS is a graet set of rules, limited spellcasting, good skills, a little bit of "thief" abilities. Which is why it doesn't fit, as the spellcasting and thief abilities of the Vremyoni and Mazticans were not at all "limited" or a "little bit"; they came in first among their abilities, and magic item creation only came in secondary. The rules for the Artificer really doesn't have a theme more then "a creator of items, both mundane and magical". And if there was an existing group/organization in the Realms that had this as a primary theme/basis (not secondary), I would see more of a reason to place them there. As it is, the closest group in the Realms that would come to such a theme (The Red Wizards) have it only secondary to their primary theme - of being uber-specialized evil Wizards.
GothicDan 06-18-05, 10:58 AM	TheDarkestofAngels: I see that on some points we are seeing a bit more eye to eye, while on others, we still are not. However, instead of going point by point in a reply, I'll just summarize a few of my thoughts. I believe in "should" rather than "can." I believe that making rulings according to the lore/"fluff" of a setting is anything but arbitrary. I believe that the 3.5 DMG had it right when they said that making your own prestige classes/classes and limiting prestige classes/classes within a campaign setting is 100% true. That's why the Red Wizards of Thay, and the Wizards of High Sorcerery, stick out in Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance. What would I do if someone wanted me to introduce the Artificers to FR? I would start with researching. Lots of it. I would sift through all of the old possible tomes I could find, from all possible regions and historical timelines, and try to find a group/individual from which I could base the origins of the Artificers on. Said group/individual would have to be described in a way that made them unsuited to one of the already-established core Classes and all of the FR-specific PrCs. Namely, they would have had to have been described almost solely as artificers - which I can say now is nearly impossible, given the fact that in 1E and 2E, the creating of any magic item was immensely difficult, and there are no kits that I know of which made it easy. This very reason is why I removed Item Creation feats from my games - because the creation of magical items was never that easy in the past of FR. Artificers make it even -easier-, and that's one of the ways it is inconsistent with the setting's themes. But I digress. Then I would start to map out the history of the organization. I would start looking at surrounding areas in which the possible organization could have been given birth. I would have looked at potential allies/rivals, in terms of contemporary individuals or organizations (churches, rival wizardly organizations, etc.). I would look at the economy of the area of origin during the time, and the surrounding areas, and how it developed to the modern times. I would make a timeline (which would end up looking more like a tree diagram most likely) and account for the organization's ability to have stayed alive, where they came from, how they were granted their powers (or discovered them - such as Elven High Magic being a little bit of Arvandor in every Tel'Quess), how they have impacted the economy and the world around them, etc. In short, I would take weeks to do it. This same dedication to consistency and detail is what has made my current homebrew world hundreds and hundreds of pages long - and I'm not stopping any time soon on it.
Alac Luin 06-18-05, 07:48 PM	The above-mentioned Maztican kit was a rogue kit, which means that they have the backstabbing, lock-picking, sneaking, fighting, Saving, etc. of a rogue. Kits were typically only relatively minor alterations to the base classes. The Artificer class doesn't provide the rogue/thief abilities that are integral to the Maztican kit, given that all of such characters would also have, primarily I might add, the talents of a thief. Points made on the Vremyoni, although I'm personally not completely convinced it would be in appropriate. :) (I'm not talking wholesale change here, never was.) But, the meztican kits did not have all the thief abilities. No back stabbing, no open locks. I'd give you a better list, but I recently reformatted my hard drive and cant read my .pdf files until I get acrobat reader downloaded. :shrug: These were indeed heavily altered. Which is why it doesn't fit, as the spellcasting and thief abilities of the Vremyoni and Mazticans were not at all "limited" or a "little bit"; they came in first among their abilities, and magic item creation only came in secondary.. The Maztican kits were indead limited in spell casting. Level 5 or 6 spells etc. Several thief abilities were not allowed. So, no they were not first and formost in thier abilities. The item creation magic use was first and formost of thier abilities in spell use. Thier most powerful spells were item creation spells, as in they had to create the item to draw the magic from. And if there was an existing group/organization in the Realms that had this as a primary theme/basis (not secondary), I would see more of a reason to place them there. As it is, the closest group in the Realms that would come to such a theme (The Red Wizards) have it only secondary to their primary theme - of being uber-specialized evil Wizards. I don't know, I can see the red wizards employing Artificers to work in the enclaves. I also don't believe everyone needs to be part of an organization. Trained? Sure. Organization? Not needed. I learned from my father, who learned from his father, who learned from guy who had no family of his own...
GothicDan 06-18-05, 09:56 PM	As far as the Maztican kit go - what thief abilities does the kit grant? And spellcasting up to ~6th level is still pretty hefty, almost on scale with a 2E bard's abilities. Does the Artificer simulate such abilities? And no, one doesn't need to be part of an -organization-, but I also can't imagine the very-specific, powerful, and expansive (20 levels) class of the Artificer coming spontaneously out of the studies of a single mortal man, either. At one point in time, there would have had to have been some formal group doing training and experimentation to reach such a codified level of study.
Alac Luin 06-19-05, 06:25 PM	I'm down loading Acrobat at the moment (at least trying to), I'll get back in the next day or two with a better comparison between the Artificer and the Meztican artificers, my meztica info is the free .pdf files. (Here is where I would make the Artificer a blanket change) In General, the Artificer does have access up to 6th level infusions. Infusions are not exactly spells, but similar enough. The main thing is an Infusion needs to be cast onto an item or construct. In most places, this is semantics on how it works. It may be time for me to rewrite my Plumaweaver and Hishnashaper PrCs. I did in fact have them based on the Bard, but felt that it didn't feel right thematically. I see your point on the organizations here as well. The "I learned from my father, who ....." is, IMO, a valid way to explain a 1st level PC who wanted to play one. In the case of the Vremyoni, I can see a small percentage, say 10% for the sake of argument. In general, they are still the battle mages they could be, (the other 90%) but while some focus on spell creation, another sect focuses more on item creation, some of these are the Artificer class, and may not even go past the 12th level, depending on the power structure of DM's individual Realms. Here, they have access to an organization, and can explain some higher level members of the class.
GothicDan 06-19-05, 11:53 PM	I see your point on the organizations here as well. The "I learned from my father, who ....." is, IMO, a valid way to explain a 1st level PC who wanted to play one. In the case of the Vremyoni, I can see a small percentage, say 10% for the sake of argument. In general, they are still the battle mages they could be, (the other 90%) but while some focus on spell creation, another sect focuses more on item creation, some of these are the Artificer class, and may not even go past the 12th level, depending on the power structure of DM's individual Realms. Here, they have access to an organization, and can explain some higher level members of the class. The Vremyoni are only those males in Rashemen that display talent for arcane magic/wizardry. Those who do not (i.e. Artificers) would not even be drafted for acceptance into their ranks.
Alac Luin 06-20-05, 08:43 PM	It is known, the only world that officially have Artificers is Eberron. So a few things about Artificers we have to look to Eberron to make assumptions on how things work. In Eberron, several of the schools that teach Wizardly arts, also teach the Artificer, so are they really that different? A wizard manipulates the elements of magic through words, gestures, material components, and possibly some amount of personal will. (I say that last part, as an untrained person can do the same gestures and words and not have the same results.) An Artificer manipulates the elements of magic by another process. Yes, on Faerun the "elements of magic" is the weave (or shadow weave) The thing is, Artificers do use "arcane arts" while not specifically "arcane spells" Artificers are an INT based for their infusions. Artificers benefit from the spellcraft skill. Artificers have Knowledge (arcana) as a class skill. The way I see it if you choose to allow artificers when a people are said to "test for Arcane ability then send them to be trained" part of this training could involve further testing to see if they have the additional knack for Artificer ability.
GothicDan 06-20-05, 09:28 PM	The way I see it if you choose to allow artificers when a people are said to "test for Arcane ability then send them to be trained" part of this training could involve further testing to see if they have the additional knack for Artificer ability. This is a possibility. But it also implies the fact that Artificing is a natural ability, which would most likely make it Arcane magic, which was not the stance on Artificers that many others in this thread had been taking. That being said, in all previous additions, the Vremyoni, as I said, were not only known for being artificers, but also powerful wizards and spell researchers. This is why I propose to take the Artificer as a base and then mold it into a PrC more in line with this - a PrC that, at the very least, adds to Wizard spellcasting levels, even if it's at every other level, so that way a Wizard 10/Artificer 10 could have, say, a 15th level Wizard caster level and spell capabilities. I am the sort to refit/recreate/make new mechanics than alter the lore. :)
Alac Luin 06-20-05, 10:17 PM	Well, it's not exactly arcane magic, but is much more similar to arcane magic then say divine magic. The Artificer can simulate divine spells in item creation just as one simulates Arcane spells in item creation. Adding an Artificer to a realms game isn't for everone, and thats fine. The Realms does not "need" the class, nor does adding the class break the realms. With a little creative thinking, an Artificer (or many other "alternative" rules) can be added by using what is known. Sure, not "everything" fits into the realms, and thats fine. The Artificer is one of those that (IMO, and in my Realms) can be fit in useing some of the lore, without wholesle changes. Like I suggested earlier, 90% would still be the powerful wizards and spell reserchers, so as a group, they are still that. It adds a little diversity to the group as a whole. (just got adobe reader finally downloaded adobe reader, more to follow on the Meztican kits tomorrow)
Alac Luin 06-21-05, 06:38 PM	The sections in quotation marks are from the Meztican boxed set unless otherwise stated. I did not post everything, and the quotes may not be in order, I wanted to focus on parts that helped show my point, yet I'm admitting some differences. On a few rogue abilities, the pluma weaver did not have the "backstab", while the hishna shaper did. This can be simulated in a specific PrC. Neither had "Open Locks", although at this time I cannot find that in the Meztica book. I know it's there. The Artificer has "Open Locks" as a class skill, for a Meztican character, I would replace this with "Handle Animal" This Change does alter the feel of the Artificer class, but does bring it closer to the society and the kits I am trying to fit them to. "Though these kits are nominally parts of the rogue class, they represent a rather different mindset than that of the thief, in particular. They are rogues, and not wizards, because their training requires them to participate in their world, experiencing and learning things about the environment in a way that makes them considerably more broader-based characters than the typical magic user with his nose buried in a spellbook Too, the spells of pluma and hishna available are not so numerous, nor so potent, as are the spells of the wizard class. The artisan needs additional skills to fall back upon in order to survive in a campaign." This translates to 5th level spells (I wasn't sure earlier, but I can now confirm its 5th level) The Artificer has infusions of 6th level. Big difference? Not really since in 2ed Clerics only had 7th level spells) "The rogue tables provide the information for both of these character types for THAC0, Experience Points and Level . Advancement, and Saving Throws." XP and level advancement are no longer segregated by class, so that leaves THAC0 and Saves. Artificer is the same BAB as rogue, but has WILL as a good save (This is one part the Bard may be better suited) Another point not directly matching, the Meztican kits' spells were WIS and DEX based, while an Artificer is INT. This does not bother me that much as back in 2ed Bards were INT, now they are CHA, so the prereq ability change is not without precedence. "The spells of Maztican magic resemble some of the powers of typical mages and clerics, yet there are many differences. For one thing, the casting times tend to be longer with Maztican magic. Material components are more important. Indeed, they are often the basis for the spell itself rather than mere focusing objects." A note on Artificer infusions from ECS.." Many infusions have long casting times, often 1 minute or more." And also "An Artificer's infusions can only be imbued into an item or a construct." The Imbued into an object sounds, at least to me, a lot like "the basis for the spell itself" at least after a fashion. The 5th level spell of the Meztican Kits is called Create Talisman. "This is the procedure by which a master artisan creates an item of pluma. The object is more than a magic item, however, it is a work of art, and a piece of great personal pride to the artisan. " This was the description from the plumaweaver spell, the hishna shaper spell is the same, except it says "hishna" in place of "pluma" While not perfect, the Artificer is the best match I have seen to base these kits off of. The Artificer is more powerful, but that would only go along the lines of the power increase across the board that 3.X made, and make playing a native of meztica a little more attractive to a player. One (and there were many) of the biggest problems with the Meztica campaign, the kits were made way underpowered to the Faerun equivalents.
GothicDan 06-21-05, 07:29 PM	As far as the Vremyoni vs. Artificer goes - in the Realms, all forms of magic have always been pretty easily categorized into Divine and Arcane. The introduction of the Artificer class with the ability to create items that blurr the lines between Arcane and Divine are a theme that I do not think that the Realms has traditionally supported. And, as I said, we -could- add Artificers into the Vremyoni, except for the fact that one you start altering existing lore simply to fit another aspect into it, the question is - where do you stop? Maybe we could just alter it so that all of the Wychlaran also happen to have Artificers. As well as the Red Wizards, and the Shades, etc. That's what I'm getting at - there really needs to be an in-game reason for their existence, otherwise any existing lore can be altered in order to give them presence. Given, a DM can alter whatever he wants, but then you have to ask yourself why you're playing a premade campaign setting if you aren't going to take its content and history seriously. I mean, we had a specific Vremyoni kit in 2E. Why not just convert that with a few alterations? It would certainly make a lot more thematic sense than trying to throw some Artificers into their ranks.
GothicDan 06-21-05, 07:41 PM	In regards to the Maztican kits: - Can the Artificer's infusions simulate the same kind of spells that they had access to in 2E? - Obviously the fact that the Maztican kits are based on Wis and Dex are reflective of a rather integral part of the culture of the setting! I mean, it really changes the -entire- premise of the group if they go from Wis/Dex-based Rogue Spellcasters -> Int-based Magic Item crafters. I just can't see it - at all. Due to it being a rogue kit, and having spells based on Wis/Dex, it creates a totally different image from the Int-casting magical item entrepaneur that is the Artificer. This is probably the biggest discrepency I see between the kits and the PrC, and one I would never, ever budge on, because the Prime Reqs. for a class entirely held to mold the theme/image of that class. - The reason why is was okay for Bards' primary casting attribute to be switched from Int to Cha is simply because the Prime Req. for all bards in 2E, I believe, was a 16. Not all of those of the Maztican kits would have been likely to have Ints above average, what with them being rogues with partially Wis-based casting. - So, are Infusions actual spells or temporary magical enchantments? The spells of the above-presented kits are just that - spells. They may have relied heavily on material components, but it does not indicate that the components were in any way altered after the Maztican spells were cast using them. - What exact were the powers of the pluma/hishna items? Were they thematically equivalent to the abilities of the Artificer's created items? So far, from the information you've posted, I see how the Artificer would work in some cases, but how it certainly would not in others (namely in regards to spells). One can keep in-theme with a Kit when converting it into a 3.X PrC, while still upping the overall power. I really personally see way too many discrepencies (so far) to implement the Artificer in place of the Pluma/Hishna casters, especially considering how definitive those Kits were for the Maztican setting (i.e. I had heard about them and know nothing about Maztica, for example). The crux of the problem is this: - The Artificer presents the image of a savvy, intelligent, cosmopolitan Int-based magic item creator. - The Hishna/Pluma Kits present the image of a savage, world-wise, nature-based shaman-type who relies heavily on material components (as many, many pagan magical systems did over the millennia), who uses stealth, spells, and rituals to accomplish his goals. I really, really can't synergize the two images in my head, personally.
Alac Luin 06-21-05, 07:47 PM	It does depend on how you want to go about it. A since it is a player who wants to play an artificer, the attempt would be to find a logical place for the characters back story. If the desire was to play a Vremyoni, yea, I'd update the 2ed kit, it if I could get it. ;). ( I don't have all the old stuff, but would be willing to find it). I think we come down to how one looks at how they want to handle rules and fluff. slightly alter fluff for the rules or slightly alter rules for the fluff. Admittedly, I do a little of both. :) On the other post, your right. There are differences. I'll have to post later on the other point, and a few adjustments do need to be made, I'm just saying its a starting point. I'll have to cover this better when I have more time.
GothicDan 06-22-05, 10:20 AM	See, I guess I really am a kind of stuck up DM, I suppose. If a character wanted to play an Artificer in the Realms, I would simply tell him, "Sorry, they don't exist, but here are a few other possibilities - the Vremyoni, the Techsmith, etc." I am not afraid to tell my players "No" if it makes sure the campaign setting and the campaign is going the way that it is meant to go (if not necessarily in the right/same sequence of events). I think that's what makes playing in an established campaign setting unique. It would be pointless to play FR at all if players kept wanting to be Artificers, Wizards of High Sorcery, Defilers, etc., unless that very out-of-placeness (and portal hopping) was part of the campaign itself (which would make it more of a Planescape or Spelljammer game). By introducing too many foreign or generic PrCs/Classes to a campaign setting, that campaign setting loses its inherent identity. Even the 3.5 DMG agrees with this. For instance, in my real life homebrew world, there are no Drow. Why? Because historically/culturally they have no presence on my world. A character wanted to play a Grey Elf. When I told him, "There aren't any" he kind of went, "Aww!" When I said, "But there are Sun Elves, which are similar in personality and theme," he didn't harp on the Grey Elf, but made a Sun Elf instead. I guess it just comes down to the fact that I have a really good group of players, despite a lot of them being their first time playing, and they understand how much time and effort I put into creating my world (hundreds and hundreds of pages long now), and they want to explore it and learn about it without having to bring in elements that weren't meant to be there. They are part of the story, and they like that.
Alac Luin 06-22-05, 11:56 AM	So far, from the information you've posted, I see how the Artificer would work in some cases, but how it certainly would not in others (namely in regards to spells). One can keep in-theme with a Kit when converting it into a 3.X PrC, while still upping the overall power. I really personally see way too many discrepencies (so far) to implement the Artificer in place of the Pluma/Hishna casters, especially considering how definitive those Kits were for the Maztican setting (i.e. I had heard about them and know nothing about Maztica, for example). Part of the problem in this discussion is you do not know what the Artificer base class is. Just as I don't know what the Warlock base class is I have ideas, but they are very likely wrong. An Artificer is a base class that has "infusions" that are similar to spells in many ways, except they need to be placed on an object. In addition, and separate, they gain the magic items creation feats, with a UMD check to fake the required spells or preqreqs requires for the items creation. For the Plumaweaver and Hishnashapers, I definitely do support separate PrCs for each kit to further the separation of the difference of the two. I am saying, the best build I can find is the using the Artificer as the base class, just as the Assassin PrC is based on the Rouge. Basing these PrCs on a non "spellcasting" class like the rouge does these kits a disservice, as these kits were to replace the wizard, just not as powerful. I have built these PrCs, but I based them on Bard, and I felt that had way to many thematic inconsistencies to consider them viable. So, are Infusions actual spells or temporary magical enchantments? The spells of the above-presented kits are just that - spells. They may have relied heavily on material components, but it does not indicate that the components were in any way altered after the Maztican spells were cast using them. Infusions are, rules wise, not spells. But they are, rules wise, treated as spells. Most of them are listed in the spell list of wizards. Like I said, the item creation is separate. A few infusions are Armor Enhancement, Chill Metal which are kind of self explanatory on how they are "infused" into an object. A few others like Bears endurance, shield of faith, Blade Barrier require some thought. I still don't know the explanation for the blade barrier, while Bears endurance and shield of faith would need to be cast onto something the recipient carries, this would be an item the character wears OR carries, such as a talisman would be. Oh, and yes, some of the spells from the kits (create talisman) did create permanent magical items. The crux of the problem is this: - The Artificer presents the image of a savvy, intelligent, cosmopolitan Int-based magic item creator. - The Hishna/Pluma Kits present the image of a savage, world-wise, nature-based shaman-type who relies heavily on material components (as many, many pagan magical systems did over the millennia), who uses stealth, spells, and rituals to accomplish his goals. I really, really can't synergize the two images in my head, personally. I still have the image that a paladin is that of the knight in shining armor, King Arthur / knights of the round table like. (not what may be the actual historical Arthur.) But we all know, the rules governing the Paladin is used for other type of characters. It also depends on what you consider "savage". The pluma weaver and hishnashaper are part of a society that has a deep couture, cites that have centuries old histories, engineering feats that rival what are expected by dwarves and elves, they live in and around cities that are part of what can be called "nations" and even "Empires". Savage to me does not really do them justice. For example "The Itzas are skilled at using pluma to move water, and many fountains decorate and enliven their cities. Even a small village might have a central fountain, surrounded by a clear pool." To me, it sounds like they are a civilized people, I can give other examples, but it should be clear they are not (as a whole) a wondering nomadic society. Obviously the fact that the Maztican kits are based on Wis and Dex are reflective of a rather integral part of the culture of the setting! Actually, I don't see it that way. It was almost arbitrary and one of the things I disagree with about building of these kits. Dex was a prereq only because it was a Rogue kit, just as Bard was a Rogue. At that time, the Bard was the only spellcasting class that was not a priest or wizard (paladins and rangers only gained spells at much higher levels). This and the fact that rouges had a better choise of skills/non-weapon proficiencies etc that would allow them to function in society. With non-weapon proficensies now being simulated by feats and skills, it makes this point basicly moot. Wis was a prereq because pluma and hishna were "gifts from the gods". I see no reason why a Gift from the god cannot be INT based. Heck, the High magic is a gift from the gods for the elves, that is definitely INT based. It's not like Meztica did not have priests, they did. I just went back to the Meztica book, the Hishnashaper does have an INT based prereq (Intelligence 13, Dexterity 12), why their spell casting is WIS based I can barley comprehend. (The plumaweaver is Dexterity 12, Wisdom 13). And following the logic of this considering Hishna is the more evil of the two, intelligence is evil, wisdom is good. (yes, I'm reading into it) This is from the meztican set. Plumaweaver Description: The featherworker is an honored character in Maztican culture, for his weavings of pluma make life a greater deal easier and safer for the rest of the populace. Role: Plumaweavers are encountered in village and city life. They aid neighboring farmers, generally in exchange for food, and also spend a great deal of time working their featherweaving. When he finishes an object, a plumaweaver will often give it as a gift to someone he feels is deserving. Hishnashaper Description: The hishnashaper serves a similar; if slightly darker function than does the weaver of pluma. This is reflected in the nature of the spells available. Role: Hishnashapers tend to be feared by the majority of Mazticans, yet their protection is craved. A hishnashaper dwelling in a jungle village, for example, might bully and harass his neighbors, yet they would put up with him because he represents protection against deeper threats from beyond the village. The shapers of hishna live monastic existences. It is rare for one to take a spouse, and. unlike most Mazticans.they do not usually live with a house full of relatives and friends. Hishnashapers play an important part in warfare, too, for their spells are among the few enchanted powers of Maztican warfare. Nevertheless, they are not as prominently nor as decisively featured as are wizards in a typical Sword Coast brigade. Since these two are so different, there should be the two separate PrCs. The PrCs would include an expanded "infusion list" (think "spell list") to more specify the difference. There is little to suggest needing a high CHA or WIS, besides the word "bully" (intimidate skill), but does a magic user really need the intimidate skill to bully their neighbors? The realms has scores of wizards that do not have this skill, and some with low cha scores that bully their neighbors. And on this note, the hishna shaper is also the one that would more likely be dealing with dangerous animals, which would translate to Handle Animal skill (WIS), and this is the one that has the INT as a prereq.:confused: What exact were the powers of the pluma/hishna items? Were they thematically equivalent to the abilities of the Artificer's created items? An Artificer's ability to make items of any flavor is limited only by their class level, so yes one can thematically duplicate the Meztican items with ease. Some of the items created by the create talsiman spells follow. In the spell description it does say other items are available and the listed are suggestions. There really seams to be no consistency in the balance of these. Pluma items Bands of Might-basically Gauntlets of Ogre Power, but feathered armbands. Feathertoken- (IMO overpowered) +3 to AC, magic resistance of 90% (would be SR 18 in 3.5), and featherfall spell once per day. Moccasins of Free Movement - boots of elvenkind + and they also allow him to move his full movement allowance, whatever the footing cross swamps, wade shallow water (but not swim), even cross a pool of sticky tar, as if he walked upon smooth, level ground. Plumalitter - used as a wagon, similar to a drow drift disk. Plumastone - basically a weapon enchantment for the obsidian weapons, increases hardness. Skin of Pouring-pour forth water at the rate of 1 gallon per round, that should be one minute in 3.X, or just a decanter of endless water without the geyser. Hishna items Fire Peppers- similar to a reversed goodberry Heartseeker- a +2 spear that slays on a critical hit (natural 20) Sandals of Speed - boots of speed, no AC bonus, no rest needed. Spiderwalker- a construct made from dried tarantula Talon of Zaltec- a claw weapon, deals poison, and has a blinding powder (2-24 doses of powder available) See, I guess I really am a kind of stuck up DM, I suppose. If a character wanted to play an Artificer in the Realms, I would simply tell him, "Sorry, they don't exist, but here are a few other possibilities - the Vremyoni, the Techsmith, etc." I am not afraid to tell my players "No" if it makes sure the campaign setting and the campaign is going the way that it is meant to go (if not necessarily in the right/same sequence of events). <snip> And I have no problems telling a player no either. In my home brew (which I no longer use, but that is besides the point), I allow much more then I would in my realms. For example, psionic races in my Realms? Dromites, Elans, Half-giants, maenads, xephs. No way, ain't gonna happen. I may give on the Elans (due to another thread) but the other races do not fit, in any way that I see, the Realms. I don't see the point in the "races of..." books. I don't get the need for all the "Complete..." books. If someone in my realms wanted to play a Ranger and not have a patron Deity, sorry no alternate ranger class, you are straight from the PHB without the spells, the player is only cheating themselves out of the spells. I do have the Eberron book, and I have no issues with this class. I find that it is acceptable with the realms.
GothicDan 06-22-05, 12:38 PM	Part of the problem in this discussion is you do not know what the Artificer base class is. Given. :) An Artificer is a base class that has "infusions" that are similar to spells in many ways, except they need to be placed on an object. In addition, and separate, they gain the magic items creation feats, with a UMD check to fake the required spells or preqreqs requires for the items creation. How exactly would you explain this in the case of Plumaweavers and Hishnashapers, then? I really doubt that they were ever able to create magical items of such proficiency, especially given the fact that they could only cast up to 5th level spells. From what you've posted about the kits, they had a -very- limited ability to create magic items (Talismans), and the Artificer core class seems like that's their entire point. I am saying, the best build I can find is the using the Artificer as the base class, just as the Assassin PrC is based on the Rouge. Basing these PrCs on a non "spellcasting" class like the rouge does these kits a disservice, as these kits were to replace the wizard, just not as powerful. Here is the problem of 2E clashing with 3E. In 2E, you didn't have to 'base' kits on other classes; they were inherently a part of another class from 1st level. That meant that you didn't have the problem of having to have a given Maztican character who for some reason could not cast spells until 6th level (taking a PrC to gain access to spells after taking 5 levels of Rogue). If anything, I would posit creating an entirely new, separate core class if you feel that this is a problem. I personally would not. If anything, in 3E, I would make the Hishnashaper and Plumaweaver PrCs that could be most easily taken by Rogues and Rangers. And, as you said, these kits were to replace the Wizard - which had the primary purpose, in 2E, of casting spells. It was mighty difficult to create -any- kind of a magic item in 2E for a Wizard. If you truly felt that it was the 2E Kits' roles to replace the roles of the Wizard in 2E, then you should focus on what the role of the Wizard in 2E was - which was spellcasting, not magic item creation primarily. Oh, and yes, some of the spells from the kits (create talisman) did create permanent magical items. Some of the spells, you say. But permanent item creation was obviously not their primary ability, then, which IS the Artificer's primary ability (along with Infusions, apparently, which are just a variation of creating temporary magical items, it seems). I still have the image that a paladin is that of the knight in shining armor, King Arthur / knights of the round table like. (not what may be the actual historical Arthur.) But we all know, the rules governing the Paladin is used for other type of characters. The Paladin is one of the most controversial classes in 3E that I can think of. Their code is based on the roles of the Western European Medieval Knight. That's the way they were in 1E, and that's the way they were in 2E. Anything deviating from this path is not a Paladin, but rather a crude facsimile that shows the game designers merely did not want to create a more-suited class, and did not want to rename their strange new concoction. It also depends on what you consider "savage". The pluma weaver and hishnashaper are part of a society that has a deep couture, cites that have centuries old histories, engineering feats that rival what are expected by dwarves and elves, they live in and around cities that are part of what can be called "nations" and even "Empires". Savage to me does not really do them justice. When I say Savage, I refer to a certain level of interconnectedness with the natural world (as opposed to most humans not having such a thing), and a reliance more upon nature than on technology. For example "The Itzas are skilled at using pluma to move water, and many fountains decorate and enliven their cities. Even a small village might have a central fountain, surrounded by a clear pool." To me, it sounds like they are a civilized people, I can give other examples, but it should be clear they are not (as a whole) a wondering nomadic society. This example is really next to nothing that the Elves and Dwarves of the main body of Faerun can do. And this is exactly how it should be, given the fact that Maztica was meant to feel less innately magical than the main body of Faerun. That's equivalent to calling the adquaducts of Rome contemporary to our modern water transportation systems. Brilliant for their time, but still crude compared to modern standards and technology. Actually, I don't see it that way. It was almost arbitrary and one of the things I disagree with about building of these kits. Why do you feel they were arbitrary? It seems perfectly fitting to me, given the feel of Maztican culture. Dex was a prereq only because it was a Rogue kit, just as Bard was a Rogue. At that time, the Bard was the only spellcasting class that was not a priest or wizard (paladins and rangers only gained spells at much higher levels). And the fact that it was a Rogue kit was a conscious choice that the designers made for a reason, obviously. The only possibly better class I could have imagined for this Kit would have been the Ranger, who is still based much more on Wis and Dex than Int. This and the fact that rouges had a better choise of skills/non-weapon proficiencies etc. that would allow them to function in society. Actually in 2E, Wizards and Clerics/Priests were the leaders in Nonweapon Proficiencies. Wis was a prereq because pluma and hishna were "gifts from the gods". I see no reason why a Gift from the god cannot be INT based. Because this would be starting a new standard in D&D with absolutely no precedent. If you started down this path, you would have to come up with a viable reason to then tell a Cleric why he couldn't be an Int-based caster, or a Wizard why he couldn't be a Wis-based caster, etc. ALL Divine casters, from 1E to 3E, have been based on Wisdom, from Priests to Clerics to Druids to Rangers. Why in the world would you change the dynamics of 30 years of gaming to force a 2E Kit into the role of a 3D Class? Heck, the High magic is a gift from the gods for the elves, that is definitely INT based. And in 2E, Elves had to have a very hefty Wisdom to ascend as a High Mage. Not as high as Int, but to reach the final rank of High Mage, one had to have a Wisdom of 20 - which was next to impossible in 2E rules, especially since no Tel'Quessir subraces got Wisdom bonuses. I just went back to the Meztica book, the Hishnashaper does have an INT based prereq (Intelligence 13, Dexterity 12), why their spell casting is WIS based I can barley comprehend. (The plumaweaver is Dexterity 12, Wisdom 13). I would consider this becase Hishnashapers seem to be more similar to Arcane spellcasters, and Plumaweavers seem to be more similar to Divine spellcasters. There is little to suggest needing a high CHA or WIS, besides the word "bully" (intimidate skill), but does a magic user really need the intimidate skill to bully their neighbors? The realms has scores of wizards that do not have this skill, and some with low cha scores that bully their neighbors. A high Intelligence can effectively simulate a high Charisma, as far as I'm concerned. "Bullying" implies more of a pure show of will and personality. Wizards tend to use logic - if you don't do this, I blow you up. That's threatening, not really bullying as much, per se. An Artificer's ability to make items of any flavor is limited only by their class level, so yes one can thematically duplicate the Meztican items with ease. And the key flaw in the argument is right here. Hishnashapers and Plumaweavers had a rather defined, narrow range of magical items/effects they could create. They were based around tribal talismans, simple, subtle abjurations, simple enchantments, etc. (from the information you've given me). What's to stop them from suddenly creating Wands of Fireballs, Staves of the Magi, etc.? Surely after having been enmeshed in Maztican society for centuries, there would have been some very powerful members of these Kits, and if they had been Artificers, they would have created such powerful items. And this would totally ruin their themes, and the very feel of Maztica. Just the idea of Mazticans running through the forest with the full magical item supply of any Wizard is a little... Wrong. I mean... Really. Is it that time-consuming to make a Plumaweaver or Hishnashaper PrC based on Rogue or Ranger, directly (or pretty directly) converted from the Maztican kits? Or even Core classes? As I said, I've done it myself - made dozens of Core Classes and PrCs to represent the cultures and traditions of my homebrewed world - and I consider the time spent on it 100% worth it. It's better than trying to deal with discrepencies and trying to explain away/remove/alter powers that I don't like. As the DMG says, it's best to make things specific to a campaign setting rather than trying to squeeze other things into them.
Damien_Hiro 06-22-05, 01:24 PM	Gothic Dan, I think that you should read the description and class features of the Artificier. You are making a decision based on ignorance. Your case san be thrown out entirely because youa re arguing against a class based on the reasoning that because it is not FR then it does not belong. Get informed and then make a decision. These arguements you provide are obtuse because it has no merit on the class itself. Infusions are the characters spells. Artificers get creation feats as a bonus. I am not attacking you, but it is ludacris to argue about something you have not looked at yourself.
GothicDan 06-22-05, 02:06 PM	Actually, in accepted Western debate forums, it's the Affirmative's burden to show proof. As the Negative, I don't have to look -anything- up. I merely have to refute the arguments that the Affirmative makes. Not to be offensive or anything, either, but that's merely how debate works. If more proof is brought up to counter my refutes, then I will gladly concede defeat on a case-by-case basis. Infusions are obviously not the equivalent of spells because they are not handled like spells of a typical Wizard/Cleric. Item Creation feats are not at all thematically correct regarding the Plumaweaver and Hishnashaper Kits, since they obviously had a very limited array of magical items they could create, and one of the moods of the Maztica setting was that it had a lower level of magic than Faerun. Obviously, they should not have the means to create magic items more efficiently and in greater bulk than the Wizards of Faerun.
Damien_Hiro 06-22-05, 02:16 PM	I am not a westerner so I did not understand how you were debating. Strange way of arguing, so by your reasoning we could debate something I know about and you do not and I would have to prove to you it makes sense? Interesting, weird, but interesting. I do not see any reason why the plumaweavers cannot be exceptional magical item creators. Are they supposed to be inferior to the Realms? Why can't the pluma weavers be better at creating things than their western components?
GothicDan 06-22-05, 02:22 PM	I am not a westerner so I did not understand how you were debating. Strange way of arguing, so by your reasoning we could debate something I know about and you do not and I would have to prove to you it makes sense? Interesting, weird, but interesting. I recommend you do some reading regarding the formal laws of debate if you wish to continue doing so with me, then, because those are the rules I naturally follow. And yes, that's exactly what you would have to do. It's based on science. As a negative, I could say, "Well, tell me why you think your theory makes sense?" and it would be up to you to explain it properly, while I would point out flaws in your arguments. The Scientific Theory is rather from where the typical rules of debate have evolved. I do not see any reason why the plumaweavers cannot be exceptional magical item creators. Are they supposed to be inferior to the Realms? Why can't the pluma weavers be better at creating things than their western components? Maztica was to the West of Faerun, actually. That being said, it's because they were never written that way. If you change that aspect of them, you are changing the entire history of Maztica, and if you are changing one of the bases on which Maztica was built, there is no reason to even call them Plumaeweavers and Hishnashapers any more, or to even call the continent Maztica, because it no longer is.
Alac Luin 06-22-05, 02:51 PM	How exactly would you explain this in the case of Plumaweavers and Hishnashapers, then? I really doubt that they were ever able to create magical items of such proficiency, especially given the fact that they could only cast up to 5th level spells. From what you've posted about the kits, they had a -very- limited ability to create magic items (Talismans), and the Artificer core class seems like that's their entire point. Did you see some of the permanent items they created with just a 5th level spell? IMO, these things were way overpowered if compared to what can be done with a 5th level spell. We can also admit, the 3.X wizard/Cleric/bard can be much more proficient in item creation then they were in 2ed. Here is the problem of 2E clashing with 3E. In 2E, you didn't have to 'base' kits on other classes; <snip> - which was spellcasting, not magic item creation primarily. Some of the spells, you say. But permanent item creation was obviously not their primary ability, then, which IS the Artificer's primary ability (along with Infusions, apparently, which are just a variation of creating temporary magical items, it seems). I understand many of the issues in converting 2ed kits to 3.X :) But these kits do focus on item creation from level 1 And on the other side, The Artifcer's magic item creation is limited at first and expands as it gains levels. The Paladin is one of the most controversial classes in 3E that I can think of. Their code is based on the roles of the Western European Medieval Knight. That's the way they were in 1E, and that's the way they were in 2E. Anything deviating from this path is not a Paladin, but rather a crude facsimile that shows the game designers merely did not want to create a more-suited class, and did not want to rename their strange new concoction. I think we agree here, at least 95%. The fact remains, the rules covering Paladin are still used for the other character types. When I say Savage, I refer to a certain level of interconnectedness with the natural world (as opposed to most humans not having such a thing), and a reliance more upon nature than on technology. Sure this is a society thing. But they still lived in cities, they did not have wagons (beasts of burdens is disrespecting the animal) so the transported goods and crops on the plumalitter. In the example that I gave about the fountains, it shows that they use their magic to enrich the life and society as a whole. This example is really next to nothing that the Elves and Dwarves of the main body of Faerun can do. And this is exactly how it should be, given the fact that Maztica was meant to feel less innately magical than the main body of Faerun. That's equivalent to calling the adquaducts of Rome contemporary to our modern water transportation systems. Brilliant for their time, but still crude compared to modern standards and technology. That example was not in itself to show they rival what we expect from dwarves and elves, It was to show that these are a cultured people and not the embodiment of what is called into my mind when I hear "savage". The meztican pyramids are wondrous sites. Exactingly built. The priests are able to track the time passage based on where the sun shines inside temples. Many of these pyramids are known to stand hundreds and even thousands of years. Considering they are not made out of something as sturdy as stone (because stone is not an available natural resource in the area) it is rather amazing. Dwarves can Learn something here) In Nexal, they have found a way to increase thier ability to grow crops, by using the natural elements creating "Rafts" in a lake to provide extra space to plant crops. This manipulateing of the natural setting is akin (in my mind at least) the way elves go about things. The limits on their engineering and craftsmanship is due to the limit on the availability on natural resources; stone and iron. Givin what they have to work with, they have done amazingly well. A force from Faerun would have an extremely hard time replicating what the Mezticans are able to accomplish with just the natural resources of the area. In fact, even with what they are able import from Faerun, the colonies in Meztica are crude. Why do you feel they were arbitrary? It seems perfectly fitting to me, given the feel of Maztican culture. And the fact that it was a Rogue kit was a conscious choice that the designers made for a reason, obviously. The only possibly better class I could have imagined for this Kit would have been the Ranger, who is still based much more on Wis and Dex than Int. The choice was made because the Bard was a rouge. I gave the reasons I felt it was arbitrary. They don't reflect the kits place in society, or the game. Actually in 2E, Wizards and Clerics/Priests were the leaders in Nonweapon Proficiencies. Not the numbers, but the types. And since being a wizard was already ruled out, that left Warrior, Rouge and priests. The Warrior already had their own PrCs, and the Priests were taken by the priests, it left rouge. Because this would be starting a new standard in D&D with absolutely no precedent. If you started down this path, you would have to come up with a viable reason to then tell a Cleric why he couldn't be an Int-based caster, or a Wizard why he couldn't be a Wis-based caster, etc. ALL Divine casters, from 1E to 3E, have been based on Wisdom, from Priests to Clerics to Druids to Rangers. Why in the world would you change the dynamics of 30 years of gaming to force a 2E Kit into the role of a 3D Class? Who is changing 30 years of tradition? They are NOT Divine casters. These spells were not granted to these kits by the Deities as a clerics spells are. The knowledge of how to use these spells was given to the mortals in ages past. And in 2E, Elves had to have a very hefty Wisdom to ascend as a High Mage. Not as high as Int, but to reach the final rank of High Mage, one had to have a Wisdom of 20 - which was next to impossible in 2E rules, especially since no Tel'Quessir subraces got Wisdom bonuses. And a wisdom can still be a prereq for the plumaweaver PrC. I would consider this becase Hishnashapers seem to be more similar to Arcane spellcasters, and Plumaweavers seem to be more similar to Divine spellcasters. But their spells were wis based not INT, this goes to show part of the weakness on the rules from this book. And I repeat, they are not divine spell casters. A high Intelligence can effectively simulate a high Charisma, as far as I'm concerned. "Bullying" implies more of a pure show of will and personality. Wizards tend to use logic - if you don't do this, I blow you up. That's threatening, not really bullying as much, per se. 100% agreed, this wasn't really part of an argument of mine. We would have to decide what was in the designers mind when he wrote this. And the key flaw in the argument is right here. Hishnashapers and Plumaweavers had a rather defined, narrow range of magical items/effects they could create. They were based around tribal talismans, simple, subtle abjurations, simple enchantments, etc. (from the information you've given me). What's to stop them from suddenly creating Wands of Fireballs, Staves of the Magi, etc.? Surely after having been enmeshed in Maztican society for centuries, there would have been some very powerful members of these Kits, and if they had been Artificers, they would have created such powerful items. And this would totally ruin their themes, and the very feel of Maztica. Just the idea of Mazticans running through the forest with the full magical item supply of any Wizard is a little... Wrong.. This falls into the same category of what stops a character from doing anything in 3.X. What stops one from running through the jungles with the full magical item supply / equipment of any Fighter? It's not the amount, it's the type. In my mind, all characters should have the same value in equipment at the same level. Its that darn 3.X mindset of Balance. I mean... Really. Is it that time-consuming to make a Plumaweaver or Hishnashaper PrC based on Rogue or Ranger, directly (or pretty directly) converted from the Maztican kits? Or even Core classes? Basing them on a rouge or ranger does not do them justice. Besides, in a Meztican Campaign, a ranger is more suited to the Eagle and Jaguar knights. As I said, I've done it myself - made dozens of Core Classes and PrCs to represent the cultures and traditions of my homebrewed world - and I consider the time spent on it 100% worth it. It's better than trying to deal with discrepencies and trying to explain away/remove/alter powers that I don't like. As the DMG says, it's best to make things specific to a campaign setting rather than trying to squeeze other things into them. I've done several PrCs myself, but my one attempt at a Base class, well, lets not mention it.:) If I was to make a base class for the meztican kits, it would strongly resemble the Artificer.
Alac Luin 06-22-05, 03:19 PM	Infusions are obviously not the equivalent of spells because they are not handled like spells of a typical Wizard/Cleric. Actually, they are handled like spells. You have a number of uses a day depending on level, etc... The thing here, is all infusions have a range of "touch" The calling them "infusions" as opposed to spell, is to signify they do not automatically qualify for every PrC that has spell caster class as a prereq. You know, they don't thematically fit them all. I do not see any reason why the plumaweavers cannot be exceptional magical item creators. That being said, it's because they were never written that way. Yes, they were, at least in my mind. The plumaweaver makes the items that used to transport goods from place to place. They make the fountains... For Example "A master artisan will try to create one ultimate talisman during his life. Those who truly succeed have contributed a great artifact to Maztican history.the pluma litter that carried the Revered Counsellor through Nexal was one such; so was the caldron of the Deepfyre. Incidentally, both artifacts, so far as is known, vanished during the Night of Wailing." In this case, A master artisan is an accomplished member (high level) of these kits. And these are Artifacts!!! not just mere magic items.
GothicDan 06-22-05, 03:44 PM	Actually, they are handled like spells. You have a number of uses a day depending on level, etc... The thing here, is all infusions have a range of "touch" The calling them "infusions" as opposed to spell, is to signify they do not automatically qualify for every PrC that has spell caster class as a prereq. You know, they don't thematically fit them all. As long as those Infusions are thematically equivalent to the spells of these Kits in 2E, that would be fine. How many of those spells were Touch? And do the Infusions mirror the kind of spells that the Hishnashaper and Plumaweaver could use in 2E? Yes, they were, at least in my mind. The plumaweaver makes the items that used to transport goods from place to place. They make the fountains... I am not really talking about opinions, here, but rather the actual purpose of the Maztica setting, in that it differed from Faerun because its magic was less powerful and less profusive. The Plumaweaver's litters are nothing more than Float spells (I believe, from the 2E Wizard's Spell Compendium), which are only second level. It's nothing different than casting an Extended Levitate spell on something - no actual "Infusions" needed. And the making fountains part? I really can't see why that's so particularly awe-inspiring. For Example "A master artisan will try to create one ultimate talisman during his life. Those who truly succeed have contributed a great artifact to Maztican history.the pluma litter that carried the Revered Counsellor through Nexal was one such; so was the caldron of the Deepfyre. Incidentally, both artifacts, so far as is known, vanished during the Night of Wailing." In this case, A master artisan is an accomplished member (high level) of these kits. And these are Artifacts!!! not just mere magic items. And compare that to the sheer number of Artifacts that the Wizards of Faerun has created. In 1E, a single Dwarf could create an Artifact-level weapon in their lifetime. Does that qualify them, thematically, for this class too? Not at all, as far as I'm concerned. You're trying to take isolated examples that could be reproduced by any of a number of already-existing Wizard or Cleric spells and trying to justify them for the use of the Artificer class. Why not simply use what is already existent in the Realms?
Alac Luin 06-22-05, 04:09 PM	As long as those Infusions are thematically equivalent to the spells of these Kits in 2E, that would be fine. How many of those spells were Touch? And do the Infusions mirror the kind of spells that the Hishnashaper and Plumaweaver could use in 2E? I would say yes. I am not really talking about opinions, here, but rather the actual purpose of the Maztica setting, in that it differed from Faerun because its magic was less powerful and less profusive. The Plumaweaver's litters are nothing more than Float spells (I believe, from the 2E Wizard's Spell Compendium), which are only second level. It's nothing different than casting an Extended Levitate spell on something - no actual "Infusions" needed. Well, since in essence, infusions are spells,... I am just showing they make magical items. And the making fountains part? I really can't see why that's so particularly awe-inspiring. Nothing Awe-inspiring at all. I originally mentioned them in relation to "savage". I bring them up again, because in the quote earlier, it does say it was due to Pluma magic. It is only working with what is already present in the thread. And compare that to the sheer number of Artifacts that the Wizards of Faerun has created. Compare the one paragraph I quoted to the sheer volumes of material that is written about Faerun.... In 1E, a single Dwarf could create an Artifact-level weapon in their lifetime. Does that qualify them, thematically, for this class too? Not at all, as far as I'm concerned. You're trying to take isolated examples that could be reproduced by any of a number of already-existing Wizard or Cleric spells and trying to justify them for the use of the Artificer class. Why not simply use what is already existent in the Realms? Why, now that you mention it, Dwarves would make Excellent Artificers!!!! Another example of a culture that has high crafting abilities. I'm surprised nobody mentioned Dwarves before. Of course, it would be much more prevalent in Dwarves born after the Thunder Blessing. Thanx for reminding us about the Dwarves ;)
GothicDan 06-22-05, 04:13 PM	Did you see some of the permanent items they created with just a 5th level spell? IMO, these things were way overpowered if compared to what can be done with a 5th level spell. We can also admit, the 3.X wizard/Cleric/bard can be much more proficient in item creation then they were in 2ed. Which is why I don't allow Item Creation feats in any my homebrew setting, and why I wouldn't allow them in any of the previously established 2E settings, in which magical items were always rare and difficult to make. Since the class is a part of Eberron, there's no problem with having it there, since there's no 2E magical themes to conflict with (i.e. It hasn't been stated before that in the Eberron CS that magical items were difficult to create, because it was non-existent in 2E). I understand many of the issues in converting 2ed kits to 3.X But these kits do focus on item creation from level 1 And on the other side, The Artifcer's magic item creation is limited at first and expands as it gains levels. How do they focus on Item Creation if they cannot create magical items until they gain access to the 5th level spell? That's like saying that the Wizard class focuses on Item Creation because they could gain access to Enchant an Item as a 6th level spell... I think we agree here, at least 95%. The fact remains, the rules covering Paladin are still used for the other character types. Yes, but this discussion really isn't about just rules. Since, by the rules, we can do pretty much whatever we want as long as there are no mechanical conflicts. Obviously there are no mechanical conflicts with the Artificer in FR. We are discussing appropriateness, in terms of consistency, theme, and i intent. Sure this is a society thing. But they still lived in cities, they did not have wagons (beasts of burdens is disrespecting the animal) so the transported goods and crops on the plumalitter. In the example that I gave about the fountains, it shows that they use their magic to enrich the life and society as a whole. Which, according to typical Elven cities, is still pretty savage/crude. Take one look through Myth Drannor. And you can find in various sources that Myth Drannor was not at all a singular Elven city in terms of power/beauty/scope/technology - it was merely an example, not a paragon. Givin what they have to work with, they have done amazingly well. As did the Aztecs, Romans, and Egyptians. But I am looking at things analytically, not qualitatively. I am not trying to justify or decry the reasons for the Mazticans' lack of technology or heavy magic use, I am merely pointing it out. The choice was made because the Bard was a rouge. I gave the reasons I felt it was arbitrary. They don't reflect the kits place in society, or the game. I think they reflect the Kit's place perfectly in the society and game. They are woods-savvy, respected, tribal craftsmen, much like shamans, it seems. I have yet to see where they have been described as brilliant, or how their awesome intelligence allows them to craft magical items. Not the numbers, but the types. And since being a wizard was already ruled out, that left Warrior, Rouge and priests. The Warrior already had their own PrCs, and the Priests were taken by the priests, it left rouge. Please note that the word is 'rogue.' I am not poking fun at you, but the fact that you have spelled it incorrectly consistently is suggestive of the fact that you were ignorant of its correct spelling. And in 2E, the number of weapon proficiencies was as good as anythng, considering you could pick up a non-class NWP at double the normal cost. When one had a high Intelligence and a naturally quick acquisition of NWP, the number of class-NWP wasn't really that large of an issue. In any event, you are implying that the Rogue's NWPs best fit those needed by the Hishnashaper and Plumaweaver, which is why they chose this class. The fact that these are Rogue NWP is at least somewhat indicative of the theme of the Rogue class overall, don't you think? It's telling that they seemed to share the same NWP-requirements as Rogues. Who is changing 30 years of tradition? They are NOT Divine casters. These spells were not granted to these kits by the Deities as a clerics spells are. The knowledge of how to use these spells was given to the mortals in ages past. In 2E, you did not have to have spells granted to you by a Deity for them to be considered Divine in origin. A Ranger, for example, could be said to learn the secrets of nature from his experience in it, and his spells were (and are) still Wisdom-based. This shows a deeper connection with the natural world, something more intuitive, than Int-based magic could signify. The Mazticans were sensitive to the natural world; that is a sign of Wisdom, not Intelligence. And a wisdom can still be a prereq for the plumaweaver PrC. So how exactly do you try to switch the spellcasting being Int-based for the Artificer to it suddenly being Wis-based for a Plumaweaver when you take the PrC? That would be awkward, and how would you explain it in character? It's just trying to smash two dissimilar themes together in one character, and not likely to work out very well. It's like trying to give a Wizard levels in Heirophant. But their spells were wis based not INT, this goes to show part of the weakness on the rules from this book. And I repeat, they are not divine spell casters. Note how I said 'similar to.' Please be careful of my exact diction. I was referring to the feel of the Kit itself and the type of spells that they used, many of which seemed more Divine in origin than Arcane. The fact that they were Wisdom based alone is, I feel, reason to justify them being closer to Divine in origin than Arcane - and when I say Divine, I do not necessarily mean 'Granted by a God,' but rather something based on faith, intuition, empathy, and prudence - such as Druids and Shamans. This falls into the same category of what stops a character from doing anything in 3.X. What stops one from running through the jungles with the full magical item supply / equipment of any Fighter? It's not the amount, it's the type. In my mind, all characters should have the same value in equipment at the same level. Its that darn 3.X mindset of Balance Exactly. And the fact that the Artificer Class does not give any real restrictions as far as type goes means it's entirely possible for a Maztican with levels in it to start tossing around wands of fireball like candy canes. This is the kind of thing I mean when I say that PrCs and Classes should be created specifically to promote the desired theme/mood for the world and culture in which they are set. Basing them on a rouge or ranger does not do them justice. Besides, in a Meztican Campaign, a ranger is more suited to the Eagle and Jaguar knights. I've done several PrCs myself, but my one attempt at a Base class, well, lets not mention it. If I was to make a base class for the meztican kits, it would strongly resemble the Artificer. How exactly does it not do them justice when the ORIGINAL case we have seen of them being presented was in the context of a Rogue kit? We are talking about how they meant to be implemented by the designers - not the vision that we individually have in our heads, because that's not Maztica. That's what we feel Maztica should be. That being said, once more, I would make a Core Class for them, combing aspects of Ranger, Rogue, and -maybe- a little bit of Artificer, but I would cherry pick all three classes with great discrimination. Making it strongly similar to the Artificer would just not fit the Kit closely enough, in my opinion. I would toss out the idea of 'Infusions' for normal spells like in 2E, first of all, and I would remove all Item Creation feats, as I have removed them from all spellcasters in my game. So, without Infusions, without bonus Item Creation Feats, and with a levels (5) of spells... What is left of the Artificer class?
GothicDan 06-22-05, 04:21 PM	I would say yes. As I don't have the Artificer class and its Infusions in front of me, I cannot further comment here, though note that I do not necessarily agree. Well, since in essence, infusions are spells,... I am just showing they make magical items. Exactly. Since Infusions are spells, what's the point in even implementing them when we can just keep spells like they've always been? Is there anything that Infusions can do that spells cannot? And moreso, are those additional things the sort of things that Plumaweavers/Hishnashapers could do that normal Wizards or Priests in 2E could not do? Nothing Awe-inspiring at all. I originally mentioned them in relation to "savage". I bring them up again, because in the quote earlier, it does say it was due to Pluma magic. It is only working with what is already present in the thread. The fact that it's not awe-inspiring, as far as I'm concerned, makes it pretty savage compared to the awe-inspiring magic of your typical Elven cities. Compare the one paragraph I quoted to the sheer volumes of material that is written about Faerun.... So without further evidence from Maztica, this part of the argument cannot be won or lost by either side. Why, now that you mention it, Dwarves would make Excellent Artificers!!!! Another example of a culture that has high crafting abilities. I'm surprised nobody mentioned Dwarves before. Of course, it would be much more prevalent in Dwarves born after the Thunder Blessing. Thanx for reminding us about the Dwarves High crafting abilities, yes, but no talent for magic outside of Priestly magic. Dwarves have been this way since 1E, and their ability to create a powerful weapon once in their life was much more a reflection of their innate skill, I believe, than anything very magical - much like Masterwork weapons. Dwarves, I give, are known for crafting magical weapons and armor, but those are Divine in nature. It is for that reason that I am making a Warsmith Dwarven PrC based off of a Core Priest class, which is devoted solely to the smithing of magical armors and armor. And nothing else. Because we have no evidence of dwarves being prolific creators of other forms of magical items.
Damien_Hiro 06-22-05, 04:41 PM	Maztica was to the West of Faerun, actually. Well actually I have always seen Faerun as an Europe facsimilie, so before adventurers "discovered" Maztica, it would have been the Western most of the the "known " world. Much like Europe is Western and Asia is the Far East, Faerun is Western and Kara-Tur is Far East. High crafting abilities, yes, but no talent for magic outside of Priestly magic. Dwarves have been this way since 1E, and their ability to create a powerful weapon once in their life was much more a reflection of their innate skill, I believe, than anything very magical - much like Masterwork weapons. Dwarves, I give, are known for crafting magical weapons and armor, but those are Divine in nature. That was first and second edition, whether you recognize it or not, dwarves can be arcane spell casters, like wizards, sorceror and bards. Things have changed and grown since then. Classes are not restricted by race anymore. One can have a gold dwarf wizard now, unlike earlier editions when it was not possible to be those classes. Dwarves now can craft magical weapons and armor through an arcane class. Therein lies your flaw; you still play with the old mindset of past editions. Already there are precedents for the new changes. The campaign setting book has changed much of what the older editions defined. The old editions are good for fluff, but they are no longer applicable to the game mechanics, unless you are playing the older editions. Even the map of the realms has changed. Prestige classes have been introduced and monsters updated. Instead of dismissing a promising class and the new mechanics, embrace the changes and stubble forward, instead of circling in the past.
GothicDan 06-22-05, 04:47 PM	Well actually I have always seen Faerun as an Europe facsimilie, so before adventurers "discovered" Maztica, it would have been the Western most of the the "known " world. Much like Europe is Western and Asia is the Far East, Faerun is Western and Kara-Tur is Far East. Well, the truth of the matter is that the core of Faerun was never meant to be seen as a reflection of any part of the real world. Ed Greenwood specifically did not incorporate real-world images into Faerun when he wrote it. Instead of dismissing a promising class and the new mechanics, embrace the changes and stubble forward, instead of circling in the past. Spoken like a true youth, with the premise that moving forward is always the best thing to do. I like what I like. I play what I like. I am not dismissing the class - I am saying it has no place in Faerun. It does in Eberron, and it should stay there, just like the Wizards of High Sorcery should stay in Krynn, and the Shadow Adepts should stay in Faerun. I do not embrace change that I don't like. I do embrace change that I do like. It's as simple as that. So, here in return is a kernal of wisdom for you: Do not let the bright glare of a newly rising sun blind you to what lies behind you. Does that little piece of poetry somehow enlighten your poor, deluded soul? Does it make you want to throw down all of 3E's changes because I've made you see the light? Do you feel like I've shown some great secret to you? I don't think it does. Your statements have no more affect on me, either, because it's simply a matter of personal preference. 3E is not intrinsically better than 2E; 2E is not intrinsically better than 3E. I never even played 1E, and I prefer many aspects about FR that were in place then, after having looked back and read about things that existed before I was even born. To ignore the past because you are ignorant of it, and favor the present because it's the easier path, isn't a very good way to lead one's campaign setting - or one's life, really. And, actually, I do play with 3.5 mechanics. I am already having players begging me to switch back to 2E. I have done what I can to modify 3.5's rules to reflect the flavor of 2E, and hopefully it's enough.
The WarOverlord 06-23-05, 07:29 AM	I would see the Artificer as a good PrC for Rhaumatar...They were experts in craftsmanship and constructs...Maybe they introduced warforged to Faerun. But I dont think Red wizards need that kind of support...They are far too proud of their magic to accept the fact that some guy can craft magical items without their precious magic... My two cents ;) Then they would have a heart attack with Ether circuts that allow the harnesting of the "Weave" to power machinery and and "Spell circuts" that allow Machines to harnest and create spell effects "Techo-Magical" devices they are called and they would have total seizures with Nano-probes in a "commoner" bloodsteam making them able to cast spells just like a Wizard or Sorcerer or a AUtmation or Driod that can cast magic spells via their Ether and Spell circuts.....Magical Cyborgs, and a cross of technology and magic being crissed-crossed to where magic is just another natural force and not such a mystery as the Stuffy old mages make it out to be
Damien_Hiro 06-23-05, 09:27 AM	Well, the truth of the matter is that the core of Faerun was never meant to be seen as a reflection of any part of the real world. Ed Greenwood specifically did not incorporate real-world images into Faerun when he wrote it. But it is so very obvious that is a reflection of the real world. He may not have intended it that way, but that is the way it turned out. I mean the is a "new" contient inhabited "mezticans." The is an arab equivalent in Zakharra and Kara-Tur is blantly Asian. The only culture not represented is a African one, but the people in the shining south oculd be. Spoken like a true youth, with the premise that moving forward is always the best thing to do. If this is the same Gothic Dan that I knew a couple of years ago, I do believe I am older than you. Evolution and revolution are nature's ways of moving forward. It is advancement. Things change and most things adapt or do not. Adaption is human nature. We adapt and overcome. There is always free will not to do so, but the world changes regardless. To ignore the past because you are ignorant of it, and favor the present because it's the easier path, isn't a very good way to lead one's campaign setting - or one's life, really. "How do you know where you are going, if you do not know where you are from?" The present will always be easier than the past, because it is occuring now. I can change a campaign's past because it is not set in stone. I can change or add anything to a setting, becasue it is not set in stone. Unlike life I control all facets of the timeline in my realms. I like to add rather than take away, because it gives my players more options. And, actually, I do play with 3.5 mechanics. I am already having players begging me to switch back to 2E. I have done what I can to modify 3.5's rules to reflect the flavor of 2E, and hopefully it's enough. I think 2E is terrible now. I have not and would not want to go back and play in it ever again. Even the flavor of 2E would be foul. compared to 3.5E, 2E was terrible. It was good for a time, but I am glad that it is over. So as the OP asked , before the thread was held hostage and a great deal of demands sent out and finally met. I think the artificer has great ptotential in the realms. It fills a nice niche that is currently unexplained in some cultures and greaat new ones for different ones.
CuttinCurt 06-23-05, 11:28 AM	Not that I am bringing anything up that is new, but isnt there a prc in the magic of faerun book that is called magic artificer? I dont have it infront of me as I write this, but it was called that or gnomish artificer. But I seem to recall it being something that allowed making potions higher than 3rd level in spells, or something of the sort. Is the artificer that is in the Magic of Faerun book the type that faerun is wanting to have, and not one that is as versatile as the artificer in the Ebberon Campaign Setting...? CC
Alac Luin 06-23-05, 12:37 PM	Not that I am bringing anything up that is new, but isnt there a prc in the magic of faerun book that is called magic artificer? I dont have it infront of me as I write this, but it was called that or gnomish artificer. But I seem to recall it being something that allowed making potions higher than 3rd level in spells, or something of the sort. Is the artificer that is in the Magic of Faerun book the type that faerun is wanting to have, and not one that is as versatile as the artificer in the Ebberon Campaign Setting...? It is called "Gnomish Artificer" I don't have that book to check on it's abilities, but I doubt they have that potion thing (some reason I think that's the Mystic Wanderer from the same book, but I can very wrong on that point). The issues with that PrC, is you have to be from Lantan, human or Gnome, most likely an illusionist, and have Gond as a patron Deity The abilities are extremely Tech heavy. (To me, it feels more FF than FR, but that's me). This is a very limited PrC, in abilities and ability to qualify for. There is also the Techsmith. Again, Gond worshiper, very Tech heavy, a wizard or a cleric of Gond (with the right domain) can qualify. Plus, not only do you have to go to Lantan(a place never really detailed), you have to a specific building on Lantan. And here is your biggest benefit, you make a "wind up" man. (why not just take the Craft Construct Feat?) The thing is, if your not a Gond Worshiper with an intimate knowlege of Lantan, your out of luck.
Alac Luin 06-23-05, 12:42 PM	Then they would have a heart attack with Ether circuts that allow the harnesting of the "Weave" to power machinery and and "Spell circuts" that allow Machines to harnest and create spell effects "Techo-Magical" devices they are called and they would have total seizures with Nano-probes in a "commoner" bloodsteam making them able to cast spells just like a Wizard or Sorcerer or a AUtmation or Driod that can cast magic spells via their Ether and Spell circuts.....Magical Cyborgs, and a cross of technology and magic being crissed-crossed to where magic is just another natural force and not such a mystery as the Stuffy old mages make it out to be Without any thought about the warforged, you do realize that this is more likely to happen with the Gond worshiping PrCs that are in the game then the Artificer class from Eberron?
GothicDan 06-23-05, 01:07 PM	But it is so very obvious that is a reflection of the real world. He may not have intended it that way, but that is the way it turned out. I mean the is a "new" contient inhabited "mezticans." The is an arab equivalent in Zakharra and Kara-Tur is blantly Asian. The only culture not represented is a African one, but the people in the shining south oculd be. Ed Greenwood did not add those - others created them. So while Maztica = South America, Zakhara = Middle East, and Kara-Tur = Asian, Faerun does certainly not = Western. Sure you can draw a few similarities, but it's easy to find things when you expect to find them. If this is the same Gothic Dan that I knew a couple of years ago, I do believe I am older than you. Evolution and revolution are nature's ways of moving forward. It is advancement. Things change and most things adapt or do not. Adaption is human nature. We adapt and overcome. There is always free will not to do so, but the world changes regardless. I did not say that you were a youth. I said that you were speaking like one. That being said, Evolution is not nature's way of moving forward. Evolution is nature's way of species propagation. Read Darwin's "The Origin of the Species" to learn more about it. That being said, nothing about what you said denies the fact that sometimes adaption is harkening to earlier states of civilization or being. America = Rome, anyone? As a physicist, it's the law of nature that, naturally, all things tend to lead into greater states of chaos, and thus, destruction. Man's entire theme of existence is control - that is, stopping the chaos, building instead of destroying (unless it's usually to build something better in one's eyes). Mankind's adaption is so successful because they analyze situations and have the ability to compare them to the past, and to draw analogies to the past in order to better adapt for the future. So, stasis is just as much a part of humanity as flux. "How do you know where you are going, if you do not know where you are from?" The present will always be easier than the past, because it is occuring now. I can change a campaign's past because it is not set in stone. I can change or add anything to a setting, becasue it is not set in stone. Unlike life I control all facets of the timeline in my realms. I like to add rather than take away, because it gives my players more options. Precisely. So what exactly do you have against me changing the present (and thus, the future) if I like the past more? I would be more worried about changing the future than the past, myself, since we still have to experience the future. I think 2E is terrible now. I have not and would not want to go back and play in it ever again. Even the flavor of 2E would be foul. compared to 3.5E, 2E was terrible. It was good for a time, but I am glad that it is over. Other than a few mechanical changes, I feel exactly the same about 2E. If I had already written hundreds of pages of 3E mechanics/references, I would switch my entire campaign setting back to 2E and never look at 3E again. So as the OP asked , before the thread was held hostage and a great deal of demands sent out and finally met. I think the artificer has great ptotential in the realms. It fills a nice niche that is currently unexplained in some cultures and greaat new ones for different ones. I am still waiting for references to these unexplained niches in various cultures that could be filled better by the Artificer class than by the existing Classes. Better yet, I am looking for an existing niche left unexplained that could be filled by the Artificer class better than creating one's own class to specifically reflect the Realms lore as already written.
GothicDan 06-23-05, 01:11 PM	The thing is, if your not a Gond Worshiper with an intimate knowlege of Lantan, your out of luck. Don't you think that the only two artificing-geared PrCs in FR, both happened to be so innately tied to certain cultures/religions, is a rather telling statement about the tradition of FR? Also, the PrC to which you are referring regarding the potions is the Alchemist, I believe. Basically, we have artificers in FR. We have PrCs to reflect the style and theme of artificing as it's been established in FR. Why do we need the Artificer? Why do we need to dilute the uniqueness of the already-existing Artificer PrCs, particularly when they are -already- tied directly to the lore of the setting?
Damien_Hiro 06-23-05, 01:32 PM	Ed Greenwood did not add those - others created them. So while Maztica = South America, Zakhara = Middle East, and Kara-Tur = Asian, Faerun does certainly not = Western. Sure you can draw a few similarities, but it's easy to find things when you expect to find them. Well by apply Occum's Razor then Faerun would be equal to a Western, simplest being the most correct. And if a=a, b=b, c=c then d=d. There are some minor differences but on a whole they are the same. I am still waiting for references to these unexplained niches in various cultures that could be filled better by the Artificer class than by the existing Classes. Better yet, I am looking for an existing niche left unexplained that could be filled by the Artificer class better than creating one's own class to specifically reflect the Realms lore as already written. I previously wrote that artificer would fill a nice niche in the Gnomish culture of Lantan by advance Gond's will through technology, the dwarves of the great rift with their mix of magic and technology(check out the Shining South) and a human from waterdeep becasue of all the mixing of cultures and their unique flavors. The Pluma weaver are also ideal canidates because of their magical item creation talents. That is the role Artificers fill in my campaign. I would even allow them to be Rashemon because of the role male spellcasters play in item creation in that culture. It even fits well with Thay. Sure a Red wizard could make a wand for sale, but why would he if he had a working class artificer doing it so he can reap the profits? Artificers can fit into any campaign steing easily. If I wanted a Tower of High Sorcery in Faerun I could because of the meetings between Dalamar and Elminster. They met together and the world is most definitly big enough for the two of them. There is a precedence in older Dragons magazines. Dan you can have whatever you want in your world, but in my world Artificers are here to stay. I know it bothers you themantically, but I can do things my way because I control my Realms world. You can continue to "debate" in your way, but it is obvious that you will not change your opinions, no matter how ignorant of the subject at hand. I have to say debating with you has been an experience. I hope I will never have to speak about sports or religion with you. Some things can only be taken on faith.
Alac Luin 06-24-05, 07:02 PM	Don't you think that the only two artificing-geared PrCs in FR, both happened to be so innately tied to certain cultures/religions, is a rather telling statement about the tradition of FR? The artificers from Eberron on not the tech savvy Gond worshipers. They are crafters of magic. The tradition of FR is a magic friendly place. The two Gond PrCs class are geared to technology plain and simple. The "Techsmith" makes a Robot. The "Gnome Artificer" makes Flame throwers, jumping shoes, smoke generators, and other such items. So yes, Tech heavy use does show something about a connection to certain cultures/religions. The Eberron's Artificers make magic items at most, nothing more. Their abilities do not surpass of stray that wildly from what a wizard or cleric can do. They deal in Magic, plain and simple. And as we know, magic is spread widely across Faerun.
Alac Luin 06-24-05, 07:25 PM	More ideas for the Artificers.... Cormyr keeps them on the pay role to make the magic items they supply to the Purple Dragons and War Wizards. The clergy of Oghma as developed them to as a counterbalance to Gond's Tech heavy clergy. Oghma doesn't want to stifle idea's and creating, but Gond's tech heavy approach does bother him. Zents have a few artificers to make arms and armor for their elite troops. An artificer has appeared at mage fare, tradeing in magic items. She has actually bought known cursed objects. Halurra has found that teaching actual craftsmen in the production of their skyships has streamlined production time, freeing actual mages to do more important things.
GothicDan 06-24-05, 08:02 PM	Well by apply Occum's Razor then Faerun would be equal to a Western, simplest being the most correct. And if a=a, b=b, c=c then d=d. There are some minor differences but on a whole they are the same. Occum's Razor would imply that the simplest solution has the most chance of being correct (though I know this isn't the technical definition). And the simplest answer is that from the creator of the campaign setting, not any analogies that you or I try to make. The very fact that you seem to assume that just because the Realms were made by a Westerner means that they are Western in culture is a little offensive. So, please do not insinuate things contraditory to Ed Greenwood's words unless you have proof to back it up. I previously wrote that artificer would fill a nice niche in the Gnomish culture of Lantan by advance Gond's will through technology, That's what Techsmiths are for. They are specifically made for this, in fact. the dwarves of the great rift with their mix of magic and technology(check out the Shining South) Which they already do using Divine Magic and engineering skills. I have yet to see how the Artificer class would particularly promote a mingling of technology and magic. and a human from waterdeep becasue of all the mixing of cultures and their unique flavors. Mixing of cultures being the key point. What exactly is the culture that the Artificer is from who now finds his place in Waterdeep? The Pluma weaver are also ideal canidates because of their magical item creation talents. If you choose to ignore or change all of the previous edition's rules about th Plumaweaver, yes. While there is a certain skeletal similarity between the two, I wouldn't say that they were more compatible than say a third of the way. And if you are all into changing previous lore, than go for it - but don't engage in a discussion that is specifically focused upon how Artificers would fit into the already-existing Realms. I would even allow them to be Rashemon because of the role male spellcasters play in item creation in that culture. You mean those males who are accepted into the ranks of the Vremyoni only if they display arcane talent at an early age, naturally? Have you seriously read this entire thread, or are you just bringing up references without actually having read (and refuting) the arguments I've made against them? Sure a Red wizard could make a wand for sale, but why would he if he had a working class artificer doing it so he can reap the profits? Because they would be a threat to their overall magical domination in Thay. They could just as easily enslave Sorcerers, too, but they don't, because they believe in the supremacy of wizardly specialists above all else, and are extremely aggressive and discriminatory to the point of being irrational. This would obviously include their opinions towards Artificers, as much as it would Sorcerers, if not more. If I wanted a Tower of High Sorcery in Faerun I could because of the meetings between Dalamar and Elminster. They met together and the world is most definitly big enough for the two of them. There is a precedence in older Dragons magazines. The traveling of one type of campaign-specific class member into another Prime World is something I'm not against at all. But note that you could not have a Tower of High Sorcery function in FR because of its lacking of the three moons of magic to support the Robes' unique powers. Ed Greenwood himself discussed this, in saying that anyone traveling to the FR cosmology would have to take some time to 'adjust' to the workings of its specific Weave, and would lose any benefits/restrictions dependent upon abilities specific to their original Prime Material world. Thus, a Wizard of High Sorcery in FR would lose all of his/her Robe-specific abilities (i.e. the Wizard of High Sorcery Kit/PrC), and become a standard Wizard. Dan you can have whatever you want in your world, but in my world Artificers are here to stay. I really don't mind what you do in your world. I'm talking about the world of Abeir-Toril, and Faerun in particular. This is not your world, or my world. It is Ed Greenwood's world. We are all just borrowing it. Some things can only be taken on faith. If this is your stance, I hope I will never have to "debate" with you either. Please feel free to never speak to me again, and have a good day!
GothicDan 06-24-05, 08:05 PM	The artificers from Eberron on not the tech savvy Gond worshipers. They are crafters of magic. The tradition of FR is a magic friendly place. The two Gond PrCs class are geared to technology plain and simple. The "Techsmith" makes a Robot. The "Gnome Artificer" makes Flame throwers, jumping shoes, smoke generators, and other such items. So yes, Tech heavy use does show something about a connection to certain cultures/religions. The Eberron's Artificers make magic items at most, nothing more. Their abilities do not surpass of stray that wildly from what a wizard or cleric can do. They deal in Magic, plain and simple. And as we know, magic is spread widely across Faerun. So, Artificers are all about magic and not technology? Interesting, as that seems to go against Damien's opinions about the class being able to blend magic and technology. :) But that's neither here nor there. If they -are- all about magic, I really wouldn't consider them applicable for the clergy of Gond, who is the god of technology and craftsmanship. I would consider the specific creation of magical items to be more in the purview of Azuth. As to your other ideas - I'm glad to see that you are actively thinking about the thematic placement of Artificers. While I would still not use them (because I feel that there's no point in adding more to a campaign setting than is needed, because it detracts from what is there - less is more and all), I think you are being respectful of FR's theme in still trying to thoughtfully place them.
Alac Luin 06-24-05, 08:45 PM	If you choose to ignore or change all of the previous edition's rules about th Plumaweaver, yes. While there is a certain skeletal similarity between the two, I wouldn't say that they were more compatible than say a third of the way. And if you are all into changing previous lore, than go for it - but don't engage in a discussion that is specifically focused upon how Artificers would fit into the already-existing Realms. And basing them on rogue is less then 1/3 of the way. The plumaweaver and hishna shapers had no thief abilities, absolutely none. I still have no idea where Ranger fit in, but that not here or there. These kits were, first and foremost nothing but craftsmen with magical abilities. Apparently some people were swayed by my opinions We went round and round on this, so I'll let it drop. You mean those males who are accepted into the ranks of the Vremyoni only if they display arcane talent at an early age, naturally? Have you seriously read this entire thread, or are you just bringing up references without actually having read (and refuting) the arguments I've made against them? The possibility of a small percentage of Vremyoni being Artificers still exists. and has not been illiminated. EDIT: I said this wrong at first :embarrass Having the ability to manipulate magic is part of both the Wizard and Artificers requirements. Because they would be a threat to their overall magical domination in Thay. They could just as easily enslave Sorcerers, too, but they don't, because they believe in the supremacy of wizardly specialists above all else, and are extremely aggressive and discriminatory to the point of being irrational. This would obviously include their opinions towards Artificers, as much as it would Sorcerers, if not more. In "law", sure. But it is known that many red wizards do take non-mulon as apprentices, and this is against the law. They do this as an aprentice is seen as good recorce they can exploit. The same with the Artificer So, Artificers are all about magic and not technology? Interesting, as that seems to go against Damien's opinions about the class being able to blend magic and technology. :) But that's neither here nor there. Point is the gond worshipers focus on mechanical manipulation, more so then Magic, even if magic is a small part of the equation. Sure an Artificer may be responsible for "technological" advances, say running hot and cold water. An Artificer is more likely to do this with decater of endless water and a heat metal spell. The Gond PrCs are more likely to heat the water with a furnace. If they -are- all about magic, I really wouldn't consider them applicable for the clergy of Gond, who is the god of technology and craftsmanship. I would consider the specific creation of magical items to be more in the purview of Azuth. Since they are not proper spell casters (even in infusions are just spells), I'd see Azuth not right. Mystra sure, as on Faerun they would have to interact with the Weave on an intimate level. EDIT: Small point, Artificers are craftsmen, so they Gond still be applicable in his "patron of craftsman" role. As to your other ideas - I'm glad to see that you are actively thinking about the thematic placement of Artificers. While I would still not use them (because I feel that there's no point in adding more to a campaign setting than is needed, because it detracts from what is there - less is more and all), I think you are being respectful of FR's theme in still trying to thoughtfully place them. I also believe ever other suggestion I made was done with thought, but ...eh.
GothicDan 06-24-05, 10:06 PM	And basing them on rogue is less then 1/3 of the way. The plumaweaver and hishna shapers had no thief abilities, absolutely none. I still have no idea where Ranger fit in, but that not here or there. These kits were, first and foremost nothing but craftsmen with magical abilities. Apparently some people were swayed by my opinions We went round and round on this, so I'll let it drop. The Thief abilities which they did not have were hardly ALL of them. :) Not every Thief is the same, and some Kits had abilities that others did not. Just because Undead Master Necromancers had access to the school of Enchantment/Charm and did not have access to the schools of Alteration and Greater Divination didn't mean that they should not have been based on the Wizard/Necromancer class as a base. But, as you said, we'll let this drop. We obviously have a purely opinion-based conflict on it, as opposed to something we can actually look up in the rules/stats and find a solution. The possibility of a small percentage of Vremyoni being Artificers still exists. and has not been illiminated. EDIT: I said this wrong at first Having the ability to manipulate magic is part of both the Wizard and Artificers requirements. Of course it exists, but in canon FR lore, they do not. I am not at all arguing that the possibility isn't there - just it's not there in any game that I would run, based purely on Realms lore. ;) Because, ultimately, Artificers do not have the same natural talents as Wizards, so they will not have been drafted into the ranks of the Vremyoni when they were tested. Perhaps another, separate, even rarer group of Artificers who work -with- the Vremyoni could develop, but I wouldn't go as far as calling them Vremyoni. That's needlessly altering an already-existent facet of Realms lore simply to smash something new into the setting. Adding something new -without- altering the past, but rather integrating it into the setting as it stands, is something I'm far more in favor of. Of course, then you would have to stop and ask yourself this: the Rashemaar put females with spellcasting talent into the Wychlaran, and males into the Vremyoni. What about a female with the talent for being an Artificer..? And how common is this talent among youths - of either gender? How long has it been around? A simple addition like this, if you try to retcon it instead of add it in-game, in the current state of the Realms (i.e. having a group of Artificers recently arrived from Eberron), you really have to look at the ripple effects. The entire gender-based social-structure of Rashemen would most likely have been significantly latered if Artificers were introduced. At the very least, they would be a caste of people able to use magic, outside of both the Vremyoni and Wychlaran.. And most likely it would be gender-mixed. Which would really throw the entire feel of Rashemen through a circle. Ripple effects.. Holistic approaches... That's how I think. It's good for physics, and I think it's pretty applicable to the societal, historical, and cultural analysis of a gaming world, too. :) In "law", sure. But it is known that many red wizards do take non-mulon as apprentices, and this is against the law. They do this as an aprentice is seen as good recorce they can exploit. The same with the Artificer I really think you are exaggerating this. It's stated in Spellbound and UE that -sometimes- the Red Wizards take in a non-Mulan apprentice. And it's only if they are intelligent and/or influential enough to keep them under wraps, so to speak, that their fellows do not come down on them. Having any more than one or two Artificers, and using their abilities in such a way that a Red Wizard would seriously benefit, would probably make the other Red Wizards grow jealous enough to actually unite against the first one of their ranks, and actually turn the full force of the law against them. It's the same reason that Shadow Adepts are so rare in Thay, when one would think that they would otherwise be jumping at the opportunity to access a non-Mystra-controlled Weave, especially since Shar is a pretty big deity over there. Point is the gond worshipers focus on mechanical manipulation, more so then Magic, even if magic is a small part of the equation. Sure an Artificer may be responsible for "technological" advances, say running hot and cold water. An Artificer is more likely to do this with decater of endless water and a heat metal spell. The Gond PrCs are more likely to heat the water with a furnace. That was the point I was making. Thanks. :) Since they are not proper spell casters (even in infusions are just spells), I'd see Azuth not right. Mystra sure, as on Faerun they would have to interact with the Weave on an intimate level. EDIT: Small point, Artificers are craftsmen, so they Gond still be applicable in his "patron of craftsman" role. He is patron of craftsmen, yes, but in a more specific sense, he favors those which have technological advancements. Otherwise, anyone who crafts/creates ANYTHING would primarily worship him, and given the fact that he is not one of the most powerful deities in the Faerunian pantheon, this is obviously not true. I think that the creation of new items that can utilize spells certainly would fall into Azuth's portfolio (as well as Mystra's, of course), given the fact that any item that casts or utilizes a spell is technically drawing on his portfolio responsibilities. Thus, those who craft magical items would also have to pay respect to him. I also believe ever other suggestion I made was done with thought, but ...eh. Oh, they were. Much more thought than the majority of people who have been the Affirmatives during this debate. And while, as I said, I do not agree with most of them, I still respect you for thinking them out. I simply did not want to go through the entire list of your new responses and point out an argument for each one, because it's obvious from your entire gaming paradigm that the arguments I made would not sway you from your path, as you seem to be more about a certain gaming mindset rather than outright facts or logic in regards to the already-existing lore of the game. This is not at all me trying to bash you. I admit that I am a pretentious, stubborn, exasperating bastard. And those just happen to be the type of people that I also enjoy gaming with. :)
Alac Luin 06-25-05, 07:37 PM	The Thief abilities which they did not have were hardly ALL of them. :) Not every Thief is the same, and some Kits had abilities that others did not. <snip>But, as you said, we'll let this drop. We obviously have a purely opinion-based conflict on it, as opposed to something we can actually look up in the rules/stats and find a solution. Backstab? no for the plumaweaver, yes for the hishnashaper. Neither had what I think of as "thief abilities" Pick Pockets, Open Locks, Find/Remove Traps, Move Silently, Hide in Shadows, Detect Noise, Climb Walls, Read Languages. It was basically a d6 caster with less spells then a wizard, working as a craftsmen casting magic through their arts and crafts. I'm only mentioning this for I felt to clarify what I meant by "No thief abilities" What about a female with the talent for being an Artificer..? Barring any player charicter worthy backstory (IE, siomthing extream and/ or unlikely), Wychlaran. The Wychlaran are to busy running the society to have much time focusing on item creation. And how common is this talent among youths - of either gender? How long has it been around? A simple addition like this, if you try to retcon it instead of add it in-game, in the current state of the Realms (i.e. having a group of Artificers recently arrived from Eberron), you really have to look at the ripple effects. The entire gender-based social-structure of Rashemen would most likely have been significantly latered if Artificers were introduced. At the very least, they would be a caste of people able to use magic, outside of both the Vremyoni and Wychlaran.. And most likely it would be gender-mixed. Which would really throw the entire feel of Rashemen through a circle. The Vremyoni are known, in part, as the item creators. They spend almost all their time hidden away in the mountains practicing their "crafts", they have no country to run. We all know, not everyone is fit for the same things. Some of the Vremyoni will be more proficient in creating spells, some will be better at hurling battle magic some will be better craftsmen. I feel it is very likely, out of a group of the last type, the Artificer class could emerge. A young male is tested, he is found to poses talent to manipulate Arcane Energy, off to the mountains for training. Typicily at an early age, many people will show a talent for "crafting". This may be like 10%, I'm just putting out a number. These natural crafters would be groomed from an early age to specifically work on item creation (this is where the Artificer class would fit in). Just as the most active children will groomed to battle magics, the most ingenious creative thinkers would be groomed to be spell inventors. It's about finding natural talents, and expanding on them. I really think you are exaggerating this. It's stated in Spellbound and UE that -sometimes- the Red Wizards take in a non-Mulan apprentice. <snip>, especially since Shar is a pretty big deity over there. I think you are exaggerating a bit here also. So the other Red Wizards came to destroy the red wizard that has an artificer. The Artificer escaped, wala, the start of an Adventurer. (I will admit, The Red Wizard idea is the one I think is most unlikely, and most likely wouldn't use it myself. :) ) That was the point I was making. Thanks. :) Then I fail to see what the point you are making is. Hot and cold running water is something we have seen in the realms. Mostly thought to be done with a joint effort between craftsmen and wizards. IIRC, this has been done in places like Cormyr and Silverymoon, far from the Lantan Island. The Artificer does have Knowledge(Arcitecture and enginearing) as a class skill. It's not like the class as a whole has a predisposition to such indexers, nor do they have any supernatural affinity with "tech". Heck, I could probably make a 1st level Expert more tech savvy then the Average 4th level Artificer. He is patron of craftsmen, <snip> Thus, those who craft magical items would also have to pay respect to him. Point was, they were craftsmen, and an Artificer could take Gond as a patron, not that they needed to. I made would not sway you from your path, as you seem to be more about a certain gaming mindset rather than outright facts or logic in regards to the already-existing lore of the game. Hmm, a few ideas of mine were just whimsical flights of fancy (Oghma developing them to combat Gond tech savvy..) But even those have a bit of logic based on facts focused on growing the setting that is my Realms. This is not at all me trying to bash you. I admit that I am a pretentious, stubborn, exasperating bastard. And those just happen to be the type of people that I also enjoy gaming with. :) No offense taken, (even when you pointed out my rouge rogue misuse, on the same note, I consistently misspelled Maztica) I'm familiar with your posts, and knew what to expect. Even when we went down the Maztica heavy tangent. Sorry to other people that line may have bored. :D
Alac Luin 06-27-05, 10:14 PM	One last possibility. There is a supper secret organization on Faerun called the "Brickmen". They only have one obscure mention in an accessory that supposedly didn't sell that well. Even if everyone that has it raves about it. (Arura's Whole Realm Catalogue) They loosely resemble the Masons. That is all I will say. (Let those who know, understand)
Roxlimn 07-14-05, 12:09 PM	GothicDan: Since you seem to constantly be referring to the Eberron Artificer as a PrC, I was wondering whether you were even familiar with exactly what it was you so vehemently deny is appropriate for Faerun. I happen to think that the Artificer is an excellent base class addition to the setting myself.