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.

PCs spend Advantages and Triumphs by default and GMs spend Threat and Despair by default. They aren't going to reprint all of the dice mechanics rules every time they release a supplement with a new rule, however common sense would tell someone if they were going to flip the entire dice mechanic system on its head just for crafting they might jot a sentence down saying that. The dev answered sticky thread is replete with examples of assuming you can do something because it isn't written you can't is not correct.

I believe they did specify that canceling symbols works as normal for crafting on the Order 66 podcast.

I haven't really thought there were many issues with the crafting rules myself, but I do like the notion underlying this that someone will set out with a goal to build a piece of equipment with a specific quality. Someone may well set out to design an amphibious piece of armor. The potential outcome of them successfully making something that isn't amphibious would be a bit odd. (Don't quote me on the hard points working out here, it was just the quick and dirty example that sprang to mind).

I'd be more inclined to go with Upgrading the skill check, or Upgrading the difficulty than adding Setback/Boost die. It also prevents someone with sufficiently high ranks of Gearhead from gaming the system.

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

Well, the rule seems . . . .unnecessarily.

A skilled engineer with labs and assistants and practice will be able to generate what they need to hit their mark most of the time. My Tech is just about 200 points (give or take) and I'm building what I want, no problem.

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.

Granted, certainly, with regards to exploitation and that always has to be a concern.

It's your impression then that this house rule is imbalanced in its interaction with Gearhead? I did write the house rule with the idea that a certain Talent might negate those Setback die, even if I didn't remember that it was called Gearhead or which classes it shows up in. My thought is that it was a legitimate use, and rewards a player for having Gearhead. I suppose in fairness, as an apples to apples comparison, two ranks of Gearhead means that you can spring for the automatic application of +1 Hard Point (which costs two Advantage if I recall) with penalties negated.

I'm not sure if I consider that so unbalanced. The character will have paid a fair amount into getting two ranks of Gearhead (don't have ready access to my books as of this posting, sigh, but as I recall there is at most one spec with more than one ranks of Gearhead in its tree, so stacking it is going to be a multi-spec investment) Like I said earlier, Setback dice are highly situational and don't usually show up in crafting checks. And I feel like a GM who's going to throw Setback on that kind of check arbitrarily is being kind of overly hostile to the player (a failure is going to permanently cost the character all of the time and credits with nothing to show for it, after all). I suppose I was trying to go for something that would be like "aiming" for crafting. The player can choose to take on setback to narrow the end result at the cost of an increased chance of failure or side effects.

Do you think there's anything that would balance it in a way that would assuage your concerns about play balance? An extra setback die for doing the Design Goal option at all? The check taking extra time or more credits in crafting material?

Just a short answer: With your rule Gearhead (general talent) ist better than Eye for Detail (special talent). There lies my concern.

Elaboration later today, hopefully.

Just a short answer: With your rule Gearhead (general talent) ist better than Eye for Detail (special talent). There lies my concern.

Elaboration later today, hopefully.

Ah. I look forward to the post you'll make later but, yeah, that is a good point. Though I suppose some of my impetus for this house rule pondering emerges from the fact that Eye for Detail only exists on two very focused specs (Droid Tech and Cyber Tech, and also one of the Mustafarian subspecies) so I didn't consider it viable for the "garage tech tinkerer" concept I'm envisioning.

I haven't really thought there were many issues with the crafting rules myself, but I do like the notion underlying this that someone will set out with a goal to build a piece of equipment with a specific quality. Someone may well set out to design an amphibious piece of armor. The potential outcome of them successfully making something that isn't amphibious would be a bit odd. (Don't quote me on the hard points working out here, it was just the quick and dirty example that sprang to mind).

I'd be more inclined to go with Upgrading the skill check, or Upgrading the difficulty than adding Setback/Boost die. It also prevents someone with sufficiently high ranks of Gearhead from gaming the system.

I'd be a bit concerned that upgrading your skill check giving you more chances in the case of Design Compromise might be unbalanced. Triumphs are rare, maybe, but when they come up (especially if you get more than one on a single roll) they can be pretty powerful. A Triumph will get you any single row on the "goodies" chart, plus pay for half of the double Triumph option. You would have the chance to make a really awesome result with a comparatively small price tag, speaking in terms of game mechanics.

I do like the idea of Design Goal upgrading difficulty instead, though. That doesn't create the potential over-synergy with Gearhead and it introduces the possibilities of Despair, which will either neutralize your sweet, sweet crafting check Triumphs or give you a piece of equipment that does what you want, and then has the chance to do something you really don't want it to do too.

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

Well, the rule seems . . . .unnecessarily.

A skilled engineer with labs and assistants and practice will be able to generate what they need to hit their mark most of the time. My Tech is just about 200 points (give or take) and I'm building what I want, no problem.

Which specs does your Tech have, out of curiosity? I'll admit the idea in my head that it's difficult to set out to make what you want might be a perception thing that belies actual practice. I haven't had as many opportunities, with the character I'm playing whose utilizing the crafting rules, to make a large number of crafted projects just yet.

Which specs does your Tech have, out of curiosity? I'll admit the idea in my head that it's difficult to set out to make what you want might be a perception thing that belies actual practice.

Lets see - and we've had a month off, so I might not be 100% on the numbers here - but she's an Mechanic with Outlaw Tech as a secondary tree. Her intellect is 3 bounced up to 4 with a Dedication. Her Mechanics is 3, and I've got the goo gun, belt sander and the smart tool kit. I'll often throw a Destiny Point at the roll and she has an Artisan sister who throws a blue die into the mix as her assistant.

Now, I did have to waste some time and money on learning the templates, getting the difficulty down (and the harder stuff like the Really Nice Armor I've not had the resources to throw away on prototypes). But once you start getting the templates down to easy or simple, you're golden.

Does this take time to do all that? Oh god yes - but then banging out weapons in the workshop is not suppose to be a quick hobby.

Now, I did have to waste some time and money on learning the templates, getting the difficulty down (and the harder stuff like the Really Nice Armor I've not had the resources to throw away on prototypes). But once you start getting the templates down to easy or simple, you're golden.

Does this take time to do all that? Oh god yes - but then banging out weapons in the workshop is not suppose to be a quick hobby.

Aha! You know, I'd completely overlooked the fact that accruing template schematics from practice work will lower the difficulty, basically permanently, of newer (and better) equipment you craft? That in and of itself is probably enough to accommodate the notion of consistently designing your crafted gear toward a goal. So yeah, these house rules really aren't necessary.

Thanks again for the feedback! Those of you who were nice enough to give it.

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.

As mentioned above, the Design Goal is overpowered in my opinion. Not only does it unduly privilege Gearhead. In addition, the value of an advantage exceeds the cost of a setback by far: There's only a 1/3 chance of rolling threat (thereby cancelling the advantage) and a 1/3 chance of failure (only really of concern if cancelling the last success, and possibly mitigated by Eye for Detail). So, the extra advantage is, at least, half again as valuable as the setback.

You should, at least, consider increasing the cost and the time needed by, let's say, minimum 10%.

The Compromise, on the other hand, is looking fairly balanced, at first glance. Just don't allow Cumbersome being tailored to the beneficiary!

What I did:

I declared the schematics from the book basic schematics, available to everyone. Then I ruled, that any generic item from the core book could be acquired as an advanced schematic; either by obtaining blueprints or by reverse engineering (effectively destroying) a sample item. For a certain item I found the basic schematic that could best emulate it with sufficient advantages/threats, compared the price for the intended item to the one that most resembled the basic schematic, did a little maths, a little more thumb-ruling, and came up with an increased cost, time, and difficulty.

E.g HBP: The HBP is an energy pistol, that needs five advantages and four threats, it costs cr 700 compared to cr 400 for a BP (two advantage energy pistol). An energy pistol requires cr 200 and 12 h to build at (PPP). Setting the cost for an advantage at cr 50 and 2 h (extra success = 2 h; success ~ advantage), the BP would cost cr 300 and 16 h to build. For the HBP I assumed a threat would reduce the cost by cr 10 and 1/2 h: about cr 400 and 20 h. I declared anything beyond two advantages a major alteration and slapped an extra (P) on the difficulty for the HBP.

Interesting solution. I'm not sure how I feel about having players reverse engineer and copy an existing design but the rules are sensible. Though, would you still let players spend advantage/triumph to further boost such a product? Or does this only let players scratch-build their own copy with the same exact stats? I'd lean to the latter, since the former would allow for unbalanced weapons, I'd think.

I kind of wish, if anything, there were a clear baseline for building attachments if anything else, since really that's a good vehicle for customizing a specific piece of gear. Though I suppose that wouldn't take any special rules... for simplicity and balance, I was pondering you use the same rules for building as buying them, whereas the credit cost as listed represents raw materials to do the construction and instead of a Streetwise or Negotiation check, you make a Mechanics check at the same difficulty vis-a-vis Rarity to abstract the construction process.

But of course, they can! As I'm only allowing generic weapons like the HBP. Considering such weapons as the "Dragoon" and the "Nova Viper": Good luck, crafting one of those against (PPPP).