A few questions on this topic

1) attachments require no skill roll (that's not a question, I admit)

2) under what circumstances would I ever get a despair if I only ever roll difficulty dice?

3) the first mod is hard difficulty. Each existing mod after that increases the difficulty by one. Does this imply a maximum of mods allowable (since I can't exceed 5 difficulty?) Or am I misunderstanding how each type of mod applies to this penalty? (if I have the option of 2 accurate mods and 2 pierce mods, for example)

Possibly more later.

Thanks and Happy Holidays

Some people play it so once you are at DDDDD, the next increase actually becomes an upgrade instead, so CDDDD. Also, a GM could spend a destiny point, and I think some criticals upgrade checks.

Some people play it so once you are at DDDDD, the next increase actually becomes an upgrade instead, so CDDDD. Also, a GM could spend a destiny point, and I think some criticals upgrade checks.

The first would make sense - since you'd have somewhere to go past formidable (DDDDD) which as I read it you'd hit once you added a couple of mods. I wasn't sure how people ran it but i felt the GM spending destiny points like this (outside of combat) would be sort of cheesy. If you wanted to add mods to Bobba Fett's carbine - maybe. But I'd have a hard time spending GM destiny points during this kind of 'off hours' maintenance unless there was a really compelling story reason.

Thanks very much!

Each mod applies only to a particular attachment, as I recall. Therefore, there is a limit to the number of mods that can be made to one specific attachment, but however mods one attachment has does not impact any mods on a different attachment.

The source of my confusion is the number of available mod options (as an example, take the blaster actuating module) per attachment versus the 5D limit for the skill checks.

It's a hard check (DDD) for the initial mod install (say +1 damage); so it would be DDDD for the 2nd +1 damage, and DDDDD for +1 pierce. It has the option for a 2nd +1 pierce - which exceeds the 5D limit (the upgrade to CDDDD makes sense and introduces the option for the despair)

The number of mods doesn't impact the required number of hard points does it? A blaster actuating module requires 1 HP. Adding the max number of modes still requires only the 1 HP, correct?

The modifications do not use hard points, you are just tinkering with the attachment already using the hard point.

It's a hard check (DDD) for the initial mod install (say +1 damage); so it would be DDDD for the 2nd +1 damage, and DDDDD for +1 pierce. It has the option for a 2nd +1 pierce - which exceeds the 5D limit (the upgrade to CDDDD makes sense and introduces the option for the despair)

If you’re going for the fully array of all possible mods to a particular attachment, I think the developers were assuming that you might have some talents that help reduce the difficulty of applying mods, thus you might still have a 5D difficulty, after the calculations are done.

This would allow someone who was really, really good at this sort of thing to take things that are “difficult” and make them look easy, while things that are “impossible” become merely “difficult”.

Unmatched Expertise in Far Horizons reduces the difficulty of career skills by up to 2 difficulty.

IIRC, Force Sensitive Exile also has a talent that will let them reduce the difficulty of some task.

Can you provide an example please? That does make sense - it is 'impossible' for most, but merely 5D for the truly talented.

I see the inventor talent can give a boost or 2 to the mod check. But I don't see one that will reduce the difficulty.

If we return to this interpretation (that it's not possible without some talent to remove the difficulty) - is the only possibility of despair if the GM leverages destiny points?

I don't think he was suggesting that anything past 5 dice is unrollable for anyone without those talents. The book describes "impossible" difficulty as still being 5 dice, however it shouldn't be rolled often.

Continuing to increase the difficulty by upgrading once you reach formidable seems like a fine interpretation. It can even work with those talents as described above.

Unmatched Expertise in Far Horizons reduces the difficulty of career skills by up to 2 difficulty.

Thanks - that one isn't in my library yet.

Can you provide an example please? That does make sense - it is 'impossible' for most, but merely 5D for the truly talented.

I see the inventor talent can give a boost or 2 to the mod check. But I don't see one that will reduce the difficulty.

If we return to this interpretation (that it's not possible without some talent to remove the difficulty) - is the only possibility of despair if the GM leverages destiny points?

I don't think he was suggesting that anything past 5 dice is unrollable for anyone without those talents. The book describes "impossible" difficulty as still being 5 dice, however it shouldn't be rolled often.

Continuing to increase the difficulty by upgrading once you reach formidable seems like a fine interpretation. It can even work with those talents as described above.

I think either interpretation is palatable to me. I could certainly live with upgrading past the 5 dice if my PCs wanted to do so.

As per RAW: The fourth mod becomes an impossible task. As such, the PC needs to spend a destiny point just to attempt the roll (ie, no upgrade to skill). Difficulty remains at 5x purple dice.

As advice to fellow GM's, only let them attempt this at the start of a session, not at the end when destiny points are about to get wiped clean anyhow.

But it can pay off, a fully modded BAM makes for one mean pistol!

As per RAW: The fourth mod becomes an impossible task. As such, the PC needs to spend a destiny point just to attempt the roll (ie, no upgrade to skill). Difficulty remains at 5x purple dice.

As advice to fellow GM's, only let them attempt this at the start of a session, not at the end when destiny points are about to get wiped clean anyhow.

But it can pay off, a fully modded BAM makes for one mean pistol!

...so RAW the only way an attempt to mod an attachment will result in a despair is if the GM invests a destiny point following the PCs investment of the one destiny point required to attempt.

Oh, another reason to make a PC attempt at the start of the game: I will bet that anyone attempting an impossible mechanics check has the Natural Tinkerer talent (reroll once per session).

We have also been experimenting with using triumphs and threats for boost and setbacks for following rolls on the same attachment, which can be nice, or very difficult.

Another two things to watch for:

* If you miss the first Pierce mod (for example), you shouldn't be able to try the second.

* The difficulty and price of the mod go up based on the number of mods successfully installed.

Funny story: Two of us were working skilled assist on blaster upgrades. We rolled for four different pistols during the time between sessions. One Blaster Actuating Module ended up with 2 mods, one with 3, and It just happened that the only pistols that just happened to hit all four mods were the matched heavy blaster pistols of one of our game's characters who the GM later informed us had changed his mind and decided not to let us tinker with them (for some unaccountable reason, since the 'common fund' was paying for the attachment.). Oh well! Too bad, so sad

* If you miss the first Pierce mod (for example), you shouldn't be able to try the second.

Yes you can as per Sam's response posted in the forums under "FFG Developer Answered Questions" here.

In another example, let's look at the Augmented Spin Barrel. The Spin Barrel has two "Damage +1" Mods. If the PC attempts to install one Damage +1 mod and fails, he does not install that mod and may not install it again. However, he may attempt install the other Damage +1 mod.

The Blaster Actuating Module has "2 Weapon Quality (Pierce +1) Mods" and each one is separate and failing to install one does not prevent installing the other.

Hmm, yes, maybe I was reading the Edge core Mod rules on page 187 too restrictively.