No

Quote

Jury Rigged

Question asked by Donovan Morningfire (Paraprhased) :

Can Jury rig be applied to the same item more than once with each rank.

Answer (Paraprhased):

Jury Rigged is a "one item per rank" talent. So each rank has to be applied to a separate item per the RAW.

Thank you for the link. So there is a paraphrased developers RAI but no clarification on the ambiguous RAW. Interesting. I'll have to consider the different scenarios to decide what to do. I appreciate the insight.

Well technically RAW you could use jury rigged on an item twice but you would be better to have each one apply a different result otherwise techically RAW if you use jury rigged rank 1 to add 1 to it's damge so lets say base dmg 4, would raise it to 5 while you use it, doing it again would again raise the damage of the weapon from 4 to 5, because the weapons base damage is the same and didnt change, and jury rigged increases it while that player uses it, someone else picking it up does 4 base damage.

So whike not technically RAW what they say makes sense because you wouldn't get a doubled benefit, but RAW I see nothing wrong with using 2 jury rigged talents, one to raise damage an 1 to lower crit.

40 minutes ago, Ahrimon said:

Thank you for the link. So there is a paraphrased developers RAI but no clarification on the ambiguous RAW. Interesting. I'll have to consider the different scenarios to decide what to do. I appreciate the insight.

It is written a bit ambiguously, but that's why we have a FAQ thread. All betterer.

I looked through it but didn'tfind any mention of Jury Rigged. But I am on my phone so it's a little harder to search. I'll check again when I get to a computer. Thanks again.

Found it. I can't say that I agree with it though. The wording supports doing the same item multiple times, and it makes sense with the narratives of characters really customizing their gear. I would put a restriction where you couldn't select the same feature twice, so no bonus damage or defense twice, but you could increase the defense and then reduce the encumbrance, etc.

I don't think it's game breaking and supported by RAW and to me RAF. Mostly moot point since I don't know when I'll be running a game, but I'll definitely run it by my GM.

Crafting allows you, with enough advantages and/or triumphs, to affect multiple qualities of the item being crafted so it's not unreasonable or game-breaking to allow Jury Rigged to also be used on an item more than once so long as no quality is chosen more than once.

I think you should be allowed...

On ‎05‎.‎05‎.‎2017 at 11:53 PM, Ahrimon said:

Thank you for the link. So there is a paraphrased developers RAI but no clarification on the ambiguous RAW. Interesting. I'll have to consider the different scenarios to decide what to do. I appreciate the insight.

When a developer at first is Intending something and then Writes it down, RAI becomes RAW.

2 minutes ago, Grimmerling said:

When a developer at first is Intending something and then Writes it down, RAI becomes RAW.

I'll respectfully disagree. RAW and RAI are two very different things. Developers and editors are human just like the rest of us and make mistakes and make assumptions about how something reads without taking a step back. Haven't you ever written something then gone back and re-read it only to realize that what you've written doesn't convey the message that you thought it did? So it's important to sometimes clarify what RAW and RAI and RAF are. RAW is what's on paper, and sometimes it can be interpreted multiple ways. RAI is what the developers intended, whether written that way or not. And RAF is is what's fun at your table.

Sometimes in these situations a developer will simply double down on rule that doesn't make sense. Why? Many reasons. Sometimes it's pride. Sometimes it's not understanding an interaction that the players found. And sometimes developers put one thing down and the game evolves but they forget to back and fix it before printing. Sometimes the game changes after printing and the RAI doesn't fit within the greater narrative anymore. Sometimes there are simply rules that don't work or make sense that the developers acknowledge and plan to fix, but simply never get around to.

So RAW is RAW, but that doesn't mean that it has to be mindlessly worshiped. We get to ask developers their intent and find out the RAI at the time and later re-ask to see if the intent has changed within the evolving game. And we get to talk with our players and community to find what is RAF for our tables. GM and player empowerment through RAF is a much better way to run a system and game than RAW any day, in my opinion.

When an authorised body is changing/clarifying rules in an official context, they become the new rules.

1 hour ago, Grimmerling said:

When an authorised body is changing/clarifying rules in an official context, they become the new rules.

It's not an official context though. It's simply a developer stating what their intentions were with something. Now, if it's published in an official FAQ on the main site, not the forums, then it would hold more weight. But it's still not gospel. The number of gamers of a system that frequent forums or even look up FAQs is actually a small amount of the body that play a game.

Developers aren't some magically infallible source who's word should be taken as gospel. It's good to know what their intentions are, what they actually wrote and what you and your group find fun so that you can find what works for you so that your group can decide what works for you.