I wanted to get some feedback for some house rules additions to the crafting rules. I love the rules as written but I pondered some options that allow players to take a little of the randomness of the qualities of the end product out -- for a price. For the specific rules:

A player who's using the crafting rules (in Special Modifications, or Forged in Battle) may choose to do one (and only one) of the following:

Design Goal: The player can choose one of the options from the Advantage spending table to elect as the project's design goal. If the check succeeds, the end product will have that feature. The option must have an Advantage cost (options that can only be granted by Triumphs are ineligible) and the option must be a permanent effect applied to the product of the crafting check.

For every Advantage that the option requires, the crafting check gains one Setback die.

Design Compromise: Instead of the option above, the player may nominate one or more options that cost Threat as the project's design compromise. The player allows for deliberate flaws in his product, meaning that if the check succeeds, the result automatically has those options and all negative effects. Each option must have a Threat cost (not exclusively Despair) and must be a permanent effect applied to the end product.

For every two Threat of cumulative cost for the selected options, the crafting check gains one Boost die. A maximum of two Boost dice can be acquired this way.

The rationale: The rules as written are simple and elegant, but don't allow for the end product to have both good qualities and bad qualities from the results spending chart. I also lamented the fact that there isn't otherwise a way to be sure what the end product is going to be, as far as extra qualities or stats go.

If the character picks a Design Goal, they're ensured to have at least one desired quality, but are more likely to fail or end up with design flaws than if they had made a vanilla crafting check. I can't remember if there are any Talents that remove Setback dice from Mechanics checks (or I suppose where pertinent, Survival checks) but I think that's still balanced well.

A character who isn't confident about making a Daunting or Formidable check (or even just needs to ensure the likelihood of succeeding the check of lower difficulty, perhaps due to lack of resources to try again in a dire situation) can sacrifice the best case quality of the end product in exchange for Boost dice. Boost dice might be a small benefit but I figured they're significant enough to warrant a 2 to 1 rate with Threat.

I'd like to hear how this sounds to people. Particularly, if there are any concerns about balance with these house rules.

The results can be both good and bad. A PC can roll successfully with Triumphs and Threats showing.

Yeah, strictly speaking that's true. In practice that doesn't really happen very often, does it?

I was really looking for some feedback on these house rules additions in the context of improving player experience without unbalancing the game, thanks.

I think the RAW are fine and the crafting rules are designed for more advanced PCs to be more confident of success.

...Then why comment on this thread at all? Your feedback isn't feedback at all.

Sure it is, it's me telling you your house rule isn't necessary in my opinion. Just because you're working yourself into a snit and don't like it doesn't mean it isn't feedback. If you can't take the heat, don't post.

Your house rule is bypassing character development. The Talents add Boosts, increase the number of Advantages available, allow the re-roll of a Mechanics check, remove Setbacks from Mechanics checks, decrease cost, etc. In fact your house rule comes into direct conflict with some Talents like Gearhead.

The rules as written do not add Setback dice to crafting checks unless someone is attempting to craft without tools. Which a) aren't generally hard to come by and b) that gets negated for characters who have the Mental Tools talent anyway. And arguably Utility Belt as well. Or, I guess, if you're crafting in the middle of a foggy swamp or in a workshop filled with a poisonous atmosphere? Because I feel like a character's time would be better spent investing a minute or two turning on the sump pump and exhaust fans in the workshop before spending eight hours on crafting, you know?

Just so we're clear, you're never expecting a character to start with the Droid Tech or Cyber Tech specs? That such characters are supposed to spec something else first, or sit on their hands until they're sufficiently "advanced" enough to try crafting? Because you said you think crafting should only be done by "advanced" characters.

I'm in a snit because you're citing Rules As Written and then demonstrating you're not actually even proficient with said rules.

In fact, I wrote these rules with Gearhead in mind. The house rules I wrote do not remove Setbacks. In fact, they offer an opportunity to add Setback to a Mechanics check for crafting -- which normally doesn't gain Setback dice except in trying to craft in absurd situations, which makes Gearhead suddenly relevant to crafting when it wasn't before.

Seriously, did you even read my first post? At all?

I'm in a snit because you're citing Rules As Written and then demonstrating you're not actually even proficient with said rules.

You mean like how you admit in your first post you don't know if there are rules that remove Setbacks from Mechanics checks? It's called Gearhead, look it up.

Maybe when you state you can't have both good and bad qualities on a crafted item and I point out you can succeed with Triumphs and have Threats leftover which would result in an item with both good and bad qualities.

Would those be examples of not being proficient with the rules?

In fact, I wrote these rules with Gearhead in mind. The house rules I wrote do not remove Setbacks. In fact, they offer an opportunity to add Setback to a Mechanics check for crafting -- which normally doesn't gain Setback dice except in trying to craft in absurd situations, which makes Gearhead suddenly relevant to crafting when it wasn't before.

Seriously, did you even read my first post? At all?

Uhhh you said you didn't know if there was a Talent that removed Setback dice from a Mechanics checks in your first post, so I'm not quite sure I buy that you wrote your house rule with it in mind.

Did you read your first post?

Quote the specific house rule aspect I wrote that conflicts with Gearhead.

I said it "comes into conflict" as in, it is rendered irrelevant by Gearhead.

Look I'm sorry you lack the maturity to have your ideas picked apart in a public forum but that's not my problem. Your idea isn't well 'crafted', it both tries to side step advancement, as well as, the features that make individual specs shine, both of which are in place to balance the whole system.

Do as you will at your own table. Good day.

I've seen your one sentence throwaway posts on other threads. I guess I should ignore your trolling like most of the other people here do. Sigh.

I've seen your one sentence throwaway posts on other threads. I guess I should ignore your trolling like most of the other people here do. Sigh.

Absolutely, that would be why I've only got just shy of 13,000 likes, sigh.....

Same reason Trump's got a voter base.

Same reason Trump's got a voter base.

I thought you were ignoring me?

No, I said I should be ignoring you. This is the part where your inability to read before posting gets you a wrong answer.

No, I said I should be ignoring you. This is the part where your inability to read before posting gets you a wrong answer.

Drat, whatever shall I do?

I'm not sure anybody really actually cares.

Thanks for ruining another thread before serious discussion can take place. You're such a sweetheart.

The rationale: The rules as written are simple and elegant, but don't allow for the end product to have both good qualities and bad qualities from the results spending chart. I also lamented the fact that there isn't otherwise a way to be sure what the end product is going to be, as far as extra qualities or stats go.

I read the crafting rules the way you did initially as well, but you need to read them again. They do allow for both good and bad results. Unlike most checks, you do not cancel advantage and threat. You spend both.

I think in regards to who got snippy first you ruined your own thread.

The rationale: The rules as written are simple and elegant, but don't allow for the end product to have both good qualities and bad qualities from the results spending chart. I also lamented the fact that there isn't otherwise a way to be sure what the end product is going to be, as far as extra qualities or stats go.

I read the crafting rules the way you did initially as well, but you need to read them again. They do allow for both good and bad results. Unlike most checks, you do not cancel advantage and threat. You spend both.

No, you still make a standard roll and use the end results.

The rationale: The rules as written are simple and elegant, but don't allow for the end product to have both good qualities and bad qualities from the results spending chart. I also lamented the fact that there isn't otherwise a way to be sure what the end product is going to be, as far as extra qualities or stats go.

I read the crafting rules the way you did initially as well, but you need to read them again. They do allow for both good and bad results. Unlike most checks, you do not cancel advantage and threat. You spend both.

No, you still make a standard roll and use the end results.

On Page 75 of Special Modifications under the steps for construction it instructs the player to make a check to see if they can craft the item. It then instructs for the player to first spend advantage and triumph, followed by the GM spending threat and despair. As it makes no mention of cancelling advantage or threat, I can see how this could be read both ways. I personally do not cancel the results allowing for both positive and negative traits in an item, I also believe that this is the simplest solution.

The rationale: The rules as written are simple and elegant, but don't allow for the end product to have both good qualities and bad qualities from the results spending chart. I also lamented the fact that there isn't otherwise a way to be sure what the end product is going to be, as far as extra qualities or stats go.

I read the crafting rules the way you did initially as well, but you need to read them again. They do allow for both good and bad results. Unlike most checks, you do not cancel advantage and threat. You spend both.

No, you still make a standard roll and use the end results.

On Page 75 of Special Modifications under the steps for construction it instructs the player to make a check to see if they can craft the item. It then instructs for the player to first spend advantage and triumph, followed by the GM spending threat and despair. As it makes no mention of cancelling advantage or threat, I can see how this could be read both ways. I personally do not cancel the results allowing for both positive and negative traits in an item, I also believe that this is the simplest solution.

Advantage and threats cancel each other out; it's a basic rule from the CRB, full stop. So, if a future publication doesn't explicitely override it in a special context, it will stand.

Your "interpretation", I'd consider it a houserule. Quite a practicable one, with a minor concern: Everybody nearly always will roll threats; by your rationale, it's nigh impossible to craft a flawless item, if you don't allow the player's option of: Advantage - cancel one threat.

To the OP: Notwithstanding your row with the pirate, the concern with Gearhead levering your rule is still holding true. Especially as it were better than Eye for Detail in this context.

When I encountered the issue of the very simplicity of the crafting rules, my first impulse had been to allow for designing items with inbuilt threats and advantages: Before the check the craftsperson can choose a couple of "flaws" and "enhancements" of equal value to be incorporated. But, let me tell you: There will be exploitation attempts.