A player in our group has opted out of combat entirely and gotten multiple ranks in Tinkerer as an Outlaw Tech and has decided that he wants to use Tinkerer to upgrade other player's items.

I interpret the talent as meant to improve yourself and your gear but RAW it does not exclude other PCs gear. As he wanted to do that I informed him that as I felt this way about the talent's purpose that if he chose to upgrade other players gear that item would have to as per RAW be lost or damaged not just replaced with a better item later meaning that barring a narrative event he would not be able to reapply Tinkerer ranks for items owned by other players. He decided that it he was fully able to destroy an item of his own volition in that case and continue as intended and I renewed my objection and told him that would not be an option.

Am I completely off base on this?

Tinkerer allows him to add a single HP to a piece of equipment, anyone's not just his, and he can do this to a number of items equal to his ranks in Tinkerer. If he has 3 ranks, he can add a single HP to 3 pieces of equipment.

You're off-base. Have you asked yourself why his character shouldn't be allowed to do what they do best? How often is his changing the bonus from his buddy's holdout blaster to his buddy's new light blaster going to be an issue?

Quick question, would anyone allow Tinkerer to add a HP to the parties ship?

I'd let him use it to modify another player's gear, but I wouldn't let him change it around every so often. Pick one item and stick with it until it's lost or destroyed. If your players are that casual about trashing their equipment, especially if it has attachments and/or mods on it, they have too much money on their hands.

And no, I'd not allow it for a ship. Personal equipment only is how I interpret that rule. And that's not just to be mean, but I suspect future career books (like Smuggler or Technician) might have more stuff that alters starships.

Quick question, would anyone allow Tinkerer to add a HP to the parties ship?

Depends on the GM, ours did as long as the character who did the tinkerering was maintaining it. He also allowed Jury Rigged for enhancements. So the ship became the tech's baby and boy did he cry (if Droids could cry ) when the pilot was not as good as pilot that he made out to be (don't trust a Bothan ).

Another question would be if you would allow it to boost NPC droids (I don't thing a PC droid would like to be destroyed when the tinkerer wants to tinker something else.)

You're off-base. Have you asked yourself why his character shouldn't be allowed to do what they do best? How often is his changing the bonus from his buddy's holdout blaster to his buddy's new light blaster going to be an issue?

Part of the issue is that I am intepreting talents as improving yourself or your gear otherwise it's as if a single Outlaw Tech turns everyone into a gadgeteer. Suddenly the Marauder has shock gloves with Concussive basicly fusing two characters XP totals into one as the Tech has yet to act in more than 2 rounds of combat per encounter, one to take cover and one for a random action with 3-7 rounds of "I do nothing." I feel like the character is little more than a 3 computer checks per session NPC rather than a participant most times.

You're off-base. Have you asked yourself why his character shouldn't be allowed to do what they do best? How often is his changing the bonus from his buddy's holdout blaster to his buddy's new light blaster going to be an issue?

Part of the issue is that I am intepreting talents as improving yourself or your gear otherwise it's as if a single Outlaw Tech turns everyone into a gadgeteer. Suddenly the Marauder has shock gloves with Concussive basicly fusing two characters XP totals into one as the Tech has yet to act in more than 2 rounds of combat per encounter, one to take cover and one for a random action with 3-7 rounds of "I do nothing." I feel like the character is little more than a 3 computer checks per session NPC rather than a participant most times.

How many ranks in Tinkerer does this guy have? Six? Seven?

How many ranks in Tinkerer does this guy have? Six? Seven?

Considering (I think) between the classes with Tinkerer that there are 5 ranks total between Gageteer, Outlaw Tech & Scientist I think you are exaggerating to make a point so please do make it.

I'm not defensive of my opinion in that I need to be right or I need you to be wrong. I feel that talents with the exception of Heightened Awareness are to meant improve a character first and thru that to assist the party, there is nothing RAW which objected to it but the statement of "Oh I'll just disassemble the part when we want to upgrade" struck me as not kosher so I came to ask for opinions from what has typically been a rather helpful and creative community of varied opinions.

To answer your question as written there are 2 ranks of Tinkerer at 5 XP in Outlaw Tech so he has 2 at the start of the second session.

You said it seemed like a single Outlaw Tech turned everybody into a Gadgeteer. It just seems to me like it might not be TOO big a problem if the Tech only has one or two ranks in Tinkerer.

Basically I don't think I'd have a problem with our Outlaw Tech in our game using his ranks of Tinkerer to add a hard point to items belonging to other party members. (within the rules, of course, which I interpret as meaning that, at most, he could add one hard point each to two weapons total.)

I agree with you, it's a bit munchkin-y for him to just say he'll disassemble or destroy the items in question when he wants to change what they do. I guess, first of all, they'd be items belonging to other characters. Our Pilot certainly isn't going to let our Outlaw Tech destroy his X-30 Lancer pistol just because the Tech wants his rank in Tinkerer back.

Second, I'd try to gauge if the other characters are OK with it and it started feeling like a problem. Are they destroying objects and buying new weapons every other session just to change the hard points around? This doesn't seem likely to happen, in my judgment, but if it started to, then I'd feel it was a meta-gaming problem where the players are taking advantage of the rules in a way that's weird.

If I had to deal with it within the game, that is without just telling the players I'd rather they didn't do that, then I might start introducing complications on how often and how well they're able to acquire gear. If they were just saying "I'm disassembling the attachment I put on this pistol last week, in order to put a different attachment on", I'd introduce narrative effects and this weapon would potentially become more fragile because they keep adding crap to it and taking crap off of it.

Anyway, those are just some thoughts. Unless the players really worked hard to game the system in a lame way, I wouldn't feel it'd be a problem using Tinkerer on other people's gear.

My reading of RAW says he can apply a HP to one item per rank. It doesn't specify that it must be his own item.

I don't see that it's anything to be worried about; it's a single hard point. The player still has to pay for the attachments and mods. I'd also suggest that a player should not be able to disassemble the attachment/mod and reapply it (if that was what he was suggesting), but that atachments and mods must be repurchased for each individual weapon.

If you aren't excessively generous with the credits that should impose it's own limit to the thing.

I interpret Tinkerer to mean they can add 1 HP to an item, but it requires more or less constant maintenance to keep it there. Therefore if someone takes it on a side venture for more than a day or so (without the Tinkerer), it will begin to degrade and eventually fail. The worst part is that if it merely degrades, it will break a random attachment on the weapon. It is much better to have the Tinkerer remove the attachment than let it break on its own. In other words, Tinkering overstresses the weapon. If you can't maintain it, it will break.

You're off-base. Have you asked yourself why his character shouldn't be allowed to do what they do best? How often is his changing the bonus from his buddy's holdout blaster to his buddy's new light blaster going to be an issue?

Part of the issue is that I am intepreting talents as improving yourself or your gear otherwise it's as if a single Outlaw Tech turns everyone into a gadgeteer. Suddenly the Marauder has shock gloves with Concussive basicly fusing two characters XP totals into one as the Tech has yet to act in more than 2 rounds of combat per encounter, one to take cover and one for a random action with 3-7 rounds of "I do nothing." I feel like the character is little more than a 3 computer checks per session NPC rather than a participant most times.

I'm not sure if you're confusing Tinkerer with Jury Rigging. All Tinkerer does is add a HP to an item.

In regards to the other concern, while I understand some don't want a combat focused character, I have to say personally if I was the guy getting shot at all the time and someone else was lounging behind cover and expecting a full share..........we would have a disagreement................I think if he doesn't think he needs to contribute to combat you should shoot at him.............alot................

Also, if your Outlaw Tech feels his character is just standing around useless during fights, this has more to do with how you as a GM design your encounters than anything else, in my opinion.

You can create many options for Computers checks, Mechanics checks, or even just ways for an observant character to help out in a combat that don't necessarily involve being an expert shot.

Are there speeders around? Use Mechanics to rig one of them to drive toward the enemies and knock them out of cover.

Are there computers around? Slice into them and close blast doors, blocking off escape or reinforcement.

What's the environment like? You could have construction cranes moving boxes around over the combat area. A quick Computers or Mechanics check could divert those boxes, dropping them on the enemy.

I've planned an encounter in a public city square for our game tomorrow, and hovering over the city square are giant electronic billboards. It'll be possible to use Computers to hack into those and move them about, causing obstructions or danger for the enemy. There are speeders in the square which can be hotwired or jury-rigged. There are food stalls which have open flame that could cause a problem if an observant character decided to mess with them.

Before I do an encounter, I make up a list of stuff that people could do with various non-combat skills to make the encounter more interesting.

Also, if your Outlaw Tech feels his character is just standing around useless during fights, this has more to do with how you as a GM design your encounters than anything else, in my opinion.

You can create many options for Computers checks, Mechanics checks, or even just ways for an observant character to help out in a combat that don't necessarily involve being an expert shot.

Are there speeders around? Use Mechanics to rig one of them to drive toward the enemies and knock them out of cover.

Are there computers around? Slice into them and close blast doors, blocking off escape or reinforcement.

What's the environment like? You could have construction cranes moving boxes around over the combat area. A quick Computers or Mechanics check could divert those boxes, dropping them on the enemy.

I've planned an encounter in a public city square for our game tomorrow, and hovering over the city square are giant electronic billboards. It'll be possible to use Computers to hack into those and move them about, causing obstructions or danger for the enemy. There are speeders in the square which can be hotwired or jury-rigged. There are food stalls which have open flame that could cause a problem if an observant character decided to mess with them.

Before I do an encounter, I make up a list of stuff that people could do with various non-combat skills to make the encounter more interesting.

All the examples you give are excellent things to have happen during a combat encounter. However, I would argue that in this system in particular the responsibility for crafting a combat encounter does not rest solely on the GM's shoulders. Through use of Advantage and Triumph players can have those things appear in the encounter themselves, rather than relying on the GM to constantly provide them with opportunities to use their skills. That's the greatest strength of this incredible dice system that FFG has created. Does your technician feel that there isn't enough for him to do in combat? Then he should make a check - any check - and use whatever Advantage or Triumph he may get to create something for himself to do. This system is an awesome opportunity for the players to get involved in the crafting of the adventure rather than just being passive consumers of it.

Quick question, would anyone allow Tinkerer to add a HP to the parties ship?

Personally? No, I see that as far more powerful than the Talent is intended to be. But I could see that being part of a Technician Signature Ability when the Technician book comes out.

Quick question, would anyone allow Tinkerer to add a HP to the parties ship?

Personally? No, I see that as far more powerful than the Talent is intended to be. But I could see that being part of a Technician Signature Ability when the Technician book comes out.

Maybe a new career in the tech book, Designer, or something like that. Geared towards modifying ships instead of personal gear.

I would totally allow somebody to Tinker up a companions stuff. I see no rules or logical reason not to. If a person wants to basically create a support class, where rather than contributing directly to the combat they assist others I don't see why they shouldn't. It's the EotE equivalent of specializing in Buff spells in a fantasy game.

As far as adding to ships, I'd probably allow it, but would have to think about it for sure. I like the idea of allowing it, bu the Tinkerer must be around to maintain it, otherwise it will eventually start failing.

Quick question, would anyone allow Tinkerer to add a HP to the parties ship?

Personally? No, I see that as far more powerful than the Talent is intended to be. But I could see that being part of a Technician Signature Ability when the Technician book comes out.

Maybe a new career in the tech book, Designer, or something like that. Geared towards modifying ships instead of personal gear.

I'd say that's too niche. I already see the Pilot spec as very niche: it's nice when you need it, but doesn't offer much when you're not in a vehicle. I prefer specs to give good options both in- and out of vehicle. The "everyone can make any skill roll" thing helps with that, but I don't care for a full talent tree gearing solely to in-vehicle stuff mainly because being in personal scale is likely to occur much more often.

In regards to the other concern, while I understand some don't want a combat focused character, I have to say personally if I was the guy getting shot at all the time and someone else was lounging behind cover and expecting a full share..........we would have a disagreement................I think if he doesn't think he needs to contribute to combat you should shoot at him.............alot................

I always think that the suggestion of PvP as an inter-PC conflict-resolution mechanic, even if joking, is the worst possible idea to plant in someone's head.

That said, a character should not spend every round of most combats doing literally nothing. That player doesn't sound plugged-in to the game at worst, or maybe doesn't know how to contribute in combat aside from directly shooting, which he may not want to do. That's exactly the situation to Aid or use Maneuvers to affect the environment with the skills you have if you're not going to put blaster bolts downrange into moving targets.

In regards to the other concern, while I understand some don't want a combat focused character, I have to say personally if I was the guy getting shot at all the time and someone else was lounging behind cover and expecting a full share..........we would have a disagreement................I think if he doesn't think he needs to contribute to combat you should shoot at him.............alot................

I always think that the suggestion of PvP as an inter-PC conflict-resolution mechanic, even if joking, is the worst possible idea to plant in someone's head.

That said, a character should not spend every round of most combats doing literally nothing. That player doesn't sound plugged-in to the game at worst, or maybe doesn't know how to contribute in combat aside from directly shooting, which he may not want to do. That's exactly the situation to Aid or use Maneuvers to affect the environment with the skills you have if you're not going to put blaster bolts downrange into moving targets.

In regards to the other concern, while I understand some don't want a combat focused character, I have to say personally if I was the guy getting shot at all the time and someone else was lounging behind cover and expecting a full share..........we would have a disagreement................I think if he doesn't think he needs to contribute to combat you should shoot at him.............alot................

I always think that the suggestion of PvP as an inter-PC conflict-resolution mechanic, even if joking, is the worst possible idea to plant in someone's head.

That said, a character should not spend every round of most combats doing literally nothing. That player doesn't sound plugged-in to the game at worst, or maybe doesn't know how to contribute in combat aside from directly shooting, which he may not want to do. That's exactly the situation to Aid or use Maneuvers to affect the environment with the skills you have if you're not going to put blaster bolts downrange into moving targets.

Who said PvP? I was referring to the GM. If I had a player that thought they're going to walk into a gunfight, let the other players do the work, and they won't get shot at, I'd show them how quickly it's time for Plan B.

Ah, thought you meant the rest of the PC team should shoot him for doing nothing in combat.

Ah, thought you meant the rest of the PC team should shoot him for doing nothing in combat.

This is America, he could have meant the other PLAYERS should shoot him!

Ah, thought you meant the rest of the PC team should shoot him for doing nothing in combat.

Well, if he's an easy target it might be worth it for the shooter to get some Strain back!