Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
GM Hooly

Tinkerer Talent: Is there a Limitation to the size?

Recommended Posts

If you sell something you don't suffer a loss, someone gives you something in return.  You didn't "lose" anything.

 

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/lose

 

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sell

 

If I sell you a cookie that I baked, it is no longer my cookie. It would be removed from my possession and owned by you.

Just because I knew the magic to balance extra chocolate chips on it, does not mean this knowledge/power/awesomeness conveys to you just because it was once mine. Even if I put that extra chip on, due to your lack of knowledge/power/awesomeness it is very likely it will fall off before you can eat its yummy goodness.

 

So in summary, it is lost from my possession and gone. I can Tinker with the next cookie with out any ill effects... I am that awesome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always felt it made more sense to first consider what ability is described by a talent and why mechanical limitations would make sense within the reality of the game world.

 

Tinkerer describes that the character is more capable at modifying equipment than the average technician, therefore so he is able to install more mods than would normally be possible.

 

Of course, increasing the number of hard points indefinatelly would drastically alter the way how equipment works, which means there has to be a mechanical limitation to this ability. Within the game reality we can sinply state that there is just so much any talented tech can do to alter the specs of any kind of equipment, wich translates to only one tinkering per piece of equipment.

 

But of course a tinkerer would tinker with all of his equipment, so what stops him from just adding 1 hard point to all of his equipment? Simple: make the talent ranked and he can only modify as many peces of equipment, as he has ranks in tinkerer. Within the game reality this could be explained as follows: tinkered equipment needs permanent maintenance and in downtime the tinkerer will replace some minor parts, re-adjust some settings, etc. And he is only skilled enough to do this in his limited spare time for a number of items equal to his ranks in tinkerer. If he stops maintaining the part - guess what, his modifications stop working.

 

By this logic, there would be no problem to tinker with other characters equipment or space ships, or whatever. It just means max ONE additional hard point for any piece of equipment and continued availability of the tech wizard to take care of the modification, or else it stops working.

 

Just my two credits...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If you sell something you don't suffer a loss, someone gives you something in return.  You didn't "lose" anything.

 

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/lose

 

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sell

 

If I sell you a cookie that I baked, it is no longer my cookie. It would be removed from my possession and owned by you.

Just because I knew the magic to balance extra chocolate chips on it, does not mean this knowledge/power/awesomeness conveys to you just because it was once mine. Even if I put that extra chip on, due to your lack of knowledge/power/awesomeness it is very likely it will fall off before you can eat its yummy goodness.

 

So in summary, it is lost from my possession and gone. I can Tinker with the next cookie with out any ill effects... I am that awesome.

 

You didn't lose anything.  You got money.

 

Take your TV into your driveway and smash it.  File a claim with your insurance company.  They will explain the difference between the word loss and idiot to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If you sell something you don't suffer a loss, someone gives you something in return.  You didn't "lose" anything.

 

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/lose

 

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sell

 

If I sell you a cookie that I baked, it is no longer my cookie. It would be removed from my possession and owned by you.

Just because I knew the magic to balance extra chocolate chips on it, does not mean this knowledge/power/awesomeness conveys to you just because it was once mine. Even if I put that extra chip on, due to your lack of knowledge/power/awesomeness it is very likely it will fall off before you can eat its yummy goodness.

 

So in summary, it is lost from my possession and gone. I can Tinker with the next cookie with out any ill effects... I am that awesome.

 

Hm. That cookie allegory made me hungry. But I think it is kind of flawed, because following the rules it would be more like you added some extra choclate to the cookie, that magically disappears and can not be tasted by anyone, if it is no longer your cookie. The question remains: can anyone taste it if you gave it to them while it was still warm?

Edited by DaFloh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

If you sell something you don't suffer a loss, someone gives you something in return.  You didn't "lose" anything.

 

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/lose

 

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sell

 

If I sell you a cookie that I baked, it is no longer my cookie. It would be removed from my possession and owned by you.

Just because I knew the magic to balance extra chocolate chips on it, does not mean this knowledge/power/awesomeness conveys to you just because it was once mine. Even if I put that extra chip on, due to your lack of knowledge/power/awesomeness it is very likely it will fall off before you can eat its yummy goodness.

 

So in summary, it is lost from my possession and gone. I can Tinker with the next cookie with out any ill effects... I am that awesome.

 

Hm. That cookie allegory made me hungry. But I think it is kind of flawed, because following the rules it would be more like you added some extra choclate to the cookie, that magically disappears and can not be tasted by anyone, if it is no longer your cookie. The question remains: can anyone taste it if you gave it to them while it was still warm?

 

 

Well adding a mod slot is like "being able to see where I personally could add another chip on the cookie".

 

The part I don't understand is why you and Pirate seem to think that the only way the item is lost is if it is destroyed. If you sell it, how would you ever know when he ate it? to be able to get your mojo back to find the extra chip slot?

 

You guys are adding complicated where it is not required to be complicated. It is lost when it is no longer in your possession. Only you are able to balance that Cookie with that extra chip slot.

 

If you want to add extra book keeping and allow for the game breaking levels of hard points that transferring the item to another person opens up, that is fully allowable, but as I stated in my original comment, at my table where I GM I would never allow that method.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

If you sell something you don't suffer a loss, someone gives you something in return.  You didn't "lose" anything.

 

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/lose

 

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sell

 

If I sell you a cookie that I baked, it is no longer my cookie. It would be removed from my possession and owned by you.

Just because I knew the magic to balance extra chocolate chips on it, does not mean this knowledge/power/awesomeness conveys to you just because it was once mine. Even if I put that extra chip on, due to your lack of knowledge/power/awesomeness it is very likely it will fall off before you can eat its yummy goodness.

 

So in summary, it is lost from my possession and gone. I can Tinker with the next cookie with out any ill effects... I am that awesome.

 

Hm. That cookie allegory made me hungry. But I think it is kind of flawed, because following the rules it would be more like you added some extra choclate to the cookie, that magically disappears and can not be tasted by anyone, if it is no longer your cookie. The question remains: can anyone taste it if you gave it to them while it was still warm?

 

 

Well adding a mod slot is like "being able to see where I personally could add another chip on the cookie".

 

The part I don't understand is why you and Pirate seem to think that the only way the item is lost is if it is destroyed. If you sell it, how would you ever know when he ate it? to be able to get your mojo back to find the extra chip slot?

 

You guys are adding complicated where it is not required to be complicated. It is lost when it is no longer in your possession. Only you are able to balance that Cookie with that extra chip slot.

 

If you want to add extra book keeping and allow for the game breaking levels of hard points that transferring the item to another person opens up, that is fully allowable, but as I stated in my original comment, at my table where I GM I would never allow that method.

 

Honestly, if you read my first post on the matter, you would see that I did not say the only way to lose the effects of tinkerer would be to destroy the item. Your definition IS flawed, because, what if you lend an item to your crew mate for a day - is this lost or not? I agree that "being able to see where I personally could add another chip on the cookie" is what is described, but you have to clarify if and how you could tell anyone where to place the chip. Read my first post if you're really interested in my take on the matter. Of course your definition is a way to look at it, but not the only possible way to interpret the talent.

 

Edit for clarification:

 

Ok, I seem to get your definition. I understand that you would attribute the ability to use the additional modification would depend on being the tinkerer that built it. This is of course a possible way to look at it, but I feel this definition does not satisfyingly reflect the limitations of the talent: 1. only one item per rank; 2. may be reassigned to other item.

 

It is ofcourse absolutely valid but - as I said - I find it lacking. For example: you lost your carefully tinkered blaster pistol and applied your tinkerer to something else. Months later you found your pistol again but now your mod stopped working. I find lack of maintenance would be the best explanation for that.

 

And yes, this is just an opinion.

Edited by DaFloh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, if you read my first post on the matter, you would see that I did not say the only way to lose the effects of tinkerer would be to destroy the item. Your definition IS flawed, because, what if you lend an item to your crew mate for a day - is this lost or not? I agree that "being able to see where I personally could add another chip on the cookie" is what is described, but you have to clarify if and how you could tell anyone where to place the chip. Read my first post if you're really interested in my take on the matter. Of course your definition is a way to look at it, but not the only possible way to interpret the talent.

 

The way I would handle it at my table is if it is lent and not returned within the same scene, the benefit is lost and must be reapplied when it is returned. The intent I see from the talent is the person that has the talent gets the benefit, not anyone that happens to know the person with the talent gets that benefit. Other GMs are allowed to read more than is written and add rules where they have none.

 

I look at it from a Roll20 perspective. For the 2nd person to be able to "use" it, it has to be on their equipment list. And 1 item doesn't magically spawn a clone, so it would have to be removed from the 1st person's sheet.

 

It is now "lost" from the first sheet and may be "found" later but it is "gone".

 

My definition is not flawed, it is just different than yours. Calling my method of reading the exact words that are written and you ADDING WORDS is tragic on your part.

 

As most of the threads go on this forum I will exit before it gets more hostile than insulting my ability to read words as they are printed.

 

One last note: Just because my opinion and yours different does not make one or the other "better" keep that in mind before you throw out words like "flawed" towards others. This is a game meant to be fun and I was listing how I would do it at my table. You are not at my table nor would you be welcome there anyway, so there is no reason for my opinion on the matter to anger you so much that you resort to insults.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still waiting for a reply... I hope I get it soon. This is getting ridiculous. :ph34r:

 

I get it. There are different ways to interpret and define "lose", and I get that vehicles may and may not be considered equipment. That there is no other way to add HPs to vehicles ... that there is a rationale for letting members of the group benefit from the talent, even within reason... I guess we should all do as we want and makes sense within our groups.

 

I just hope I get a reply soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Honestly, if you read my first post on the matter, you would see that I did not say the only way to lose the effects of tinkerer would be to destroy the item. Your definition IS flawed, because, what if you lend an item to your crew mate for a day - is this lost or not? I agree that "being able to see where I personally could add another chip on the cookie" is what is described, but you have to clarify if and how you could tell anyone where to place the chip. Read my first post if you're really interested in my take on the matter. Of course your definition is a way to look at it, but not the only possible way to interpret the talent.

 

The way I would handle it at my table is if it is lent and not returned within the same scene, the benefit is lost and must be reapplied when it is returned. The intent I see from the talent is the person that has the talent gets the benefit, not anyone that happens to know the person with the talent gets that benefit. Other GMs are allowed to read more than is written and add rules where they have none.

 

I look at it from a Roll20 perspective. For the 2nd person to be able to "use" it, it has to be on their equipment list. And 1 item doesn't magically spawn a clone, so it would have to be removed from the 1st person's sheet.

 

It is now "lost" from the first sheet and may be "found" later but it is "gone".

 

My definition is not flawed, it is just different than yours. Calling my method of reading the exact words that are written and you ADDING WORDS is tragic on your part.

 

As most of the threads go on this forum I will exit before it gets more hostile than insulting my ability to read words as they are printed.

 

One last note: Just because my opinion and yours different does not make one or the other "better" keep that in mind before you throw out words like "flawed" towards others. This is a game meant to be fun and I was listing how I would do it at my table. You are not at my table nor would you be welcome there anyway, so there is no reason for my opinion on the matter to anger you so much that you resort to insults.

 

Calm down, dude. No need for hostility. I already altered my original post. And a flawed definition is not an insult, but - in my eyes - an incomplete defnintion. You clarified it in your last post- I tried to interpret the meaning of the rules, you said you want to do it more on a item slot basis. All nice and dandy, you may do as you please and be even closer to the rules as intended, but the rules as written allow for both of our interpretations.

 

"The character makes one piece of equipment more modifiable. He chooses one piece of equipment and increases its number of hard points by one. He can only do this once per piece of equipment, but can modify a number of pieces of equipment equal to his ranks in Tinkerer. If he loses a modified piece of equipment, he may apply Tinkerer to a new one."

 

It does not say he has to hold it in his hands for it to work, nor that it stops working if anyone else uses it. It only says he can't lose it.

Edited by DaFloh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are you trying to find a loophole in the rules? The designers aren't lawyers. Ask yourself what they intended with the trait.

Why are you bothering me with these questions? Ask your GM. If he agrees to what you want and you abuse it, you are just making the game less fun for everyone at your table. Every GM is different as you can see from the replies in this thread.

Why are you bothering the devs with these questions? I'd much rather they continue to work on more content for the game then to say what they would do in their own game if someone wanted to abuse hard points.

Edited by Zar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought we were just having a discussion on possibilities how to interpret the rules? Does there have to be a right answer? I really only want to provide a point of view. I am sorry, if it looked like I picked on fatedtodie's definition and I want to make it clear that I think his view is viable and I think many people will handle it likewise. Hopefully my ideas are helpful to someone.

Edited by DaFloh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought we were just having a discussion on possibilities how to interpret the rules? Does there have to be a right answer? I really only want to provide a point of view. I am sorry, if it looked like I picked on fatedtodie's definition and I want to make it clear that I think his view is viable and I think many people will handle it likewise. Hopefully my ideas are helpful to someone.

 

To be fair, you are the only person in this whole thread that has stated anyone's opinion is wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was not my intention. Please accept my sincere apology for the rude phrasing. I have since stated repeatedly that I think you DO have a point. I hope I could make it clear in what way my own interpretation differs from yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always felt it made more sense to first consider what ability is described by a talent and why mechanical limitations would make sense within the reality of the game world.

 

Tinkerer describes that the character is more capable at modifying equipment than the average technician, therefore so he is able to install more mods than would normally be possible.

 

Of course, increasing the number of hard points indefinatelly would drastically alter the way how equipment works, which means there has to be a mechanical limitation to this ability. Within the game reality we can sinply state that there is just so much any talented tech can do to alter the specs of any kind of equipment, wich translates to only one tinkering per piece of equipment.

 

But of course a tinkerer would tinker with all of his equipment, so what stops him from just adding 1 hard point to all of his equipment? Simple: make the talent ranked and he can only modify as many peces of equipment, as he has ranks in tinkerer. Within the game reality this could be explained as follows: tinkered equipment needs permanent maintenance and in downtime the tinkerer will replace some minor parts, re-adjust some settings, etc. And he is only skilled enough to do this in his limited spare time for a number of items equal to his ranks in tinkerer. If he stops maintaining the part - guess what, his modifications stop working.

 

By this logic, there would be no problem to tinker with other characters equipment or space ships, or whatever. It just means max ONE additional hard point for any piece of equipment and continued availability of the tech wizard to take care of the modification, or else it stops working.

 

Just my two credits...

 

Why am I the only person who thinks this makes sense. I endorse this post!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would I, as an ever GM allow tinkerer to apply to a starship? Yes. The reason being, partly, that I want the players to grow attached to their ship and items, rather than trying to steal/loot every single new piece of equipment an enemy has.

Han didn't take any ship he could, he was attached to the Millenium Falcon.

As to having multiple tinkerers working on a single ship. I'd allow that too. It is a aignificant investment of experience, that if all the party are nothing but tinkerers putting more weapons won't help if no one can fire them, or fast engines if no one can pilot.

As to the infinite hard points, that is a no. If your character is around the item, even if not yours, the player can maintain the item. Like Han and Chewie. If the character dies, or leaves, the modifications can't be maintained and any particular mechanical eccentricities can't be maintained and break down, losing the benefit.

This is how I would run it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So I got a reply from Sam in the end.

 

The basic idea? If the GM thinks starships should count as equipment that's cool, although, and now I'm quoting: "You may end up with some unexpectedly potent spaceships, however, so GMs who wish to do so should proceed at their own risk, as it were."

 

Furthermore it can easily be used on companion gear, if the PC wants to.

 

And quoting again regarding losing the item: "“Losing” the equipment means the character no longer has the ability to benefit from it. And benefiting it really does include the benefits you get from your buddy or an ally having a sweet modded piece of equipment. So if it’s thrown down a trash compactor, lost, stolen, left behind when you fled the scene of a crime, or snapped in half by your wookiee buddy, all those count as lost, I’d say."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And now, taking into account the new talent for signature vehicles in the Modder tree, I'd say Tinkerer cannot be used on starships, or any other vehicle.

 

Ironically I would say it that the modder has this thinkerer exactly for this purpose in his tree. Modder is a a star ship specialization, with signature vehicle, gunnery, mechanics and piloting(space) career skills. Having 3 HP for your signature vehicle and a few other ships to mod for a single extra HP sounds perfectly fitting to the theme. Thinkering with the starships of your flight, tuning to the max your own signature ship. 

Edited by SEApocalypse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, disagree. One side is obviously starship orientated, whereas the other is gear/weapon/armour orientated. To me it goes against the spirit of the game and the system. The whole idea to define a starship as a "piece of gear" makes little sense to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't allow Tinkerer on starships.  It's for adding HP to gear, and to me that means items in the "Gear" section of the book, ie armor and weapons.  Starships aren't listed as gear.

 

And aim is not listed as a star ship maneuver, yet you can take it, the attachment and mod rules from the gear section apply and are than slightly adjusted for the bigger scale, etc … the whole starship and vehicle section is not standing on its own feet, but rather just a few things to up the scale from personal to planetary. 

 

And I the feeling that FFG left this point vague intentionally, they seem to prefer in these things to be vague enough that a GM can decide how he likes. Not a fan of …

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't allow Tinkerer on starships.  It's for adding HP to gear, and to me that means items in the "Gear" section of the book, ie armor and weapons.  Starships aren't listed as gear.

 

And aim is not listed as a star ship maneuver, yet you can take it, the attachment and mod rules from the gear section apply and are than slightly adjusted for the bigger scale, etc … the whole starship and vehicle section is not standing on its own feet, but rather just a few things to up the scale from personal to planetary. 

 

And I the feeling that FFG left this point vague intentionally, they seem to prefer in these things to be vague enough that a GM can decide how he likes. Not a fan of …

 

May I lead your attention to page 232 under the heading Maneuvers. Read that whole paragraph, particularly the last few sentences. So in this case, while not listed it is still called out as a maneuver that can be used.

 

In the aim case, and the case of attachments and mods it is specifically called out that it is similar, adjusted or can be used and applied, not so with Tinkerer, which speaks against your ruling. That's not to say you can't do it of course, but nothing really supports it if you want to use the CRB as a basis for you argument. Not that the CRB is necessary to play the game as you see fit :)

 

Of course there's Sam's response that I paraphrased and quoted above: in short, starships are not gear, unless you as a GM decides to define it as such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×