Has anyone noticed the Talent “Creative Design” is worthless to holy crap why did I use this? It says: "As part of resolving a successful crafting check, the character may also apply a result equivalent to spending a number of (Advantage) equal to his ranks in Creative Design. The GM may then apply a result equivalent to spending that same number of (Threat)."

Up to three ranks of this.

Me: Yippie! 3 Advantage!

GM: Tough noogies, 3 Threat!

WHY? Am I missing something here?

Please explain because I just don’t get it.

This allows the crafter up to 3 extra advantages over what they rolled when picking benefits to the item. The trade off is the GM can then apply a negative effect with the same number of threat.

So if you really want you weapon to get have accurate at level 2, but were 2 advantages short. The. You use this talent for those 2 advantages and the GM then gets 2 threat to apply negative effects.

This is really good for crafting, i also really like since the weapon will end with some draw backs where normally they all get canceled out on the crafting rolls.

Hope that helps!

Yeah...first, note that the Advantage and Threat options given by the talent don't cancel each other out. You don't *get* 3 Advantage; you can just *spend* 3 Advantage on top of whatever you rolled.

Second, note that the GM "may" spend Threat. It's not a given, and it's not necessarily always going to be equivalent when it does happen.

Generally the one and two threat crafting results are less bad than the one and two advantage results are good. There are some tables you wouldn’t want three, though.

I'd assume that actually means the number of times you have that talent reduces the number of threat you actually rolled?

Unless they're Galen Erzoing it so you can add additional threat to a constructed ship/battlestation and/ or moon?

I would say it’s a discussion with the individual GM and see their thoughts

Personally I do find the talent oddly balanced but can see the logic behind the cost

OK, the Talent specifically says that you may spend from the chart as if you rolled advantage equal to ranks. IF you decide to go for those extra goodies, then the GM may choose to spend an equivalent on the negative chart. Meaning, it is the only way to get both positive AND negative qualities from the same chart at the same time. (as awayputurwpn and damnkid3 mentioned earlier)

Example: Shipwright rolls for an engine and has 3 ranks of Creative Design. He rolls (after canceling) 1 success and 1 advantage. Really hoping to get some speed from the engine he decides to use the Creative Design to give him the equivalent of 3 advantage (for the chart only) buying +2 Speed for 4 Advantage (1 rolled + 3 equivalent granted from Creative Design). Since he wanted to use Creative Design, the GM decides to use the 3 equivalent Treat (for the chart only) the GM decides that a few of the parts weren't up to quality and will overheat critically at times by spending his 3 on Unreliable Output. If the Shipwright had rolled 3 advantage and only used 1 point of Creative Design, the best the GM could have done on the chart was This is a Tough One since the player only used 1 point, the GM only has 1 point as well.

Nothing really interpretative, it's GM's option, spelled out pretty clear (to me at least) on page 30.

My engineer can create get enough Schematics off the first roll or two that additional constructions have no threat. So adding in this talent after that means I might get enough Advantage to really bump the item up. Also, I could use that for the first versions that I don’t intend to keep so that I can make more Schematics and don’t care about the threat. It is a trade off, but with this talent, the inventive talents to add boosts and speak binary ranks you can become a god crafter. I’m up to an average of 17 Advantage per roll. (Journeyman tools and a specialty workshop adding in other bonuses... it’s pretty awesome)

It seems to me that people ( @Jareth Valar @awayputurwpn @damnkid3 ) are canceling advantage and threat in their crafting. However going by the crafting rules it says that the crafter spends advantage and then the gm spends threat... no canceling involved. The only way to cancel threat in the crafting that I'm aware of is to use schematics to reduce the diffculty to nill... unless I'm misunderstanding or mistaking what it says.

3 hours ago, jayc007 said:

It seems to me that people ( @Jareth Valar @awayputurwpn @damnkid3 ) are canceling advantage and threat in their crafting. However going by the crafting rules it says that the crafter spends advantage and then the gm spends threat... no canceling involved. The only way to cancel threat in the crafting that I'm aware of is to use schematics to reduce the diffculty to nill... unless I'm misunderstanding or mistaking what it says.

OK, just re-read the crafting section in Fully Operational (just to be sure, I have made mistakes like this before) and I cannot find any mention of "no canceling". All checks require a regular successful skill roll. Regular rolls cancel all normal results (except Despair and Triumph of course).

The only way I can see you getting this idea (from FO in any case) is where it states the player may spend Advantage and/or Triumph on the chart and then the GM may spend Threat and/or Despair. To me, that just states the order of operation and if successful, the GM may spend any Threat/Despair generated (if any generated) after the player spends any Advantage/Triumph (if any left over).

OK, just went back through the crafting rules in Keeping the Peace and Special Modifications. Both state the exact same thing, that the character must first succeed at a crafting check. Unless there is something I am completely missing, you still cancel advantage/threat and success/failure on this check. The mention of spending the results, to me, are just how to use the chart.

I just think that if they were to change the fundamentals of how checks work for these specific rolls, it would be more clearly defined as such.

2 hours ago, Jareth Valar said:

OK, just went back through the crafting rules in Keeping the Peace and Special Modifications. Both state the exact same thing, that the character must first succeed at a crafting check. Unless there is something I am completely missing, you still cancel advantage/threat and success/failure on this check. The mention of spending the results, to me, are just how to use the chart.

I just think that if they were to change the fundamentals of how checks work for these specific rolls, it would be more clearly defined as such.

I do agree with you in that... but there is not much reason for the schematic option, and the wording of the books could have been more relaxed... " pc's and gms spend uncancelled advantage or threat on the chart" as opposed to "pc spends advantage THEN gm spends threat"

And all a successful check requires is an uncancelled success and not uncancelled advantage...

I understand how the rules are throughout the books but the wording used here in the crafting allows for a more unique item with more variety and lends the crafter more incentive to use schematics.

I would love for someone to prove me wrong, preferably with an answer from the devs, but I see no reason for a "first, then" type sentence if the gm isn't able to alter your finished product and effectively cancel your light weight with his heavier than expected...

See the chart IS the cancelltion of advantage / threat! Just in a more unique and interesting manner.

I agree with @Jareth Valar on this. The rules for canceling advantage and threat are core to the game mechanics. If crafting was to be an exception, I would expect that the exception would be specifically detailed.

The phrasing in the crafting sections probably includes an order of operations because Triumphs and Despairs do not cancel. So the crafter might spend Triumphs before the GM spends Threats and Despairs, or the crafter might spend Advantages and Triumphs before the GM spends Despairs.

53 minutes ago, jayc007 said:

but there is not much reason for the schematic option, and the wording of the books could have been more relaxed... " pc's and gms spend uncancelled advantage or threat on the chart" as opposed to "pc spends advantage THEN gm spends threat"

Two things:

1. You haven't included Triumph & Despair in your evaluation, and that makes all the difference. Players spend Advantage/Triumph, THEN the GM spends Threat/Despair. That's how the core check resolution works.
2. More of a question, but how exactly does this make schematics not useful? I'm not seeing it.

I'm a big fan of adding sub-optimal quirks to characters, so the idea of a ship with some problems (due to the GM spending threat and despair) is appealing to me. Plenty of RPG's allow PC's to take disadvantages to gain more build points during character creation. This talent sort of allows a PC to do the same for their ship. It's fun stuff.

I've considered adding a one for one or one for two system for crafting. That way players can make what they want, but if the roll isn't good enough (enough advantage) there will be some drawbacks.

7 hours ago, awayputurwpn said:

Two things:

1. You haven't included Triumph & Despair in your evaluation, and that makes all the difference. Players spend Advantage/Triumph, THEN the GM spends Threat/Despair. That's how the core check resolution works.
2. More of a question, but how exactly does this make schematics not useful? I'm not seeing it.

2... well there is less need to reduce the difficulty if the threat will just be cancelled out. So why bother rushing to spend advantage on that to make it simple. If you are rolling a good ability pool then do you really care if the roll is simple or hard? I am over simplifying this statement and I realize that it does still make sense to take schematic under this interpretation... Just that i see it as less useful than under my understanding of the method of cancelling advantage / threat

1... I am not disregarding the triumph despair results. But they don' cancel in any case so they are not really integral to the discussion... As I see it anyway

2 hours ago, jayc007 said:

2... well there is less need to reduce the difficulty if the threat will just be cancelled out. So why bother rushing to spend advantage on that to make it simple. If you are rolling a good ability pool then do you really care if the roll is simple or hard? I am over simplifying this statement and I realize that it does still make sense to take schematic under this interpretation... Just that i see it as less useful than under my understanding of the method of cancelling advantage / threat

1... I am not disregarding the triumph despair results. But they don' cancel in any case so they are not really integral to the discussion... As I see it anyway

You are, of course, more than welcome to run your games in any way you wish and I hope it works well for you and you players. However, this is a House Rule if you do.

Reason being is common sense and the lack of need to reprint the most basic fundamentals of the game system (to save space and provide new content). Since there are no actual examples of item creation in any of the Crafting sections (Special Modifications, Keeping the Peace, Force & Destiny Gamemasters Screen, Endless Vigil, or Fully Operational) one has to look at the rules as they have been presented so far.

First, in Step 3: Construction, the player must make and succeed in a check from the associated table. What is a skill check and how do you make one? Pages 30 and 31 of the Age of Rebellion Core Rules describe, in detail how that occurs and the order of operation. Early in the book it breaks down over a page and a half how the basic mechanics of skill checks work (pages 30-33 if you wish to include all skill checks, but only the basic skill checks are important here I believe) and here it specifically mentions "each Threat symbol cancels one Advantage symbol". OK, basics established.

Two, since the basic skill check does not include tables for optional uses of Advantage and Threat (ignoring Triumph and Despair since, as you mentioned are not integral to the discussion) we shall look at the wording in the first section to include tables, Combat pages 217&218 to be exact. Notice that they re-iterate the basic mechanics, but do not go into as much detail on how to perform a check, assuming you have read the fundamentals earlier. However do note one thing, verbiage and descriptions do change. First under step 4 Resolving Advantage and Triumph it states "...the player controlling the active character determines how his character spends Advantage or Triumph..." Then under step 5 Resolving Threat and Despair is states "...the GM then determines how any Threat and Despair are spent...". The same basic "This/Then" wording as in the Crafting rules, not that unique. By your interpretation, Combat should also not follow the basic skill mechanic.

I have no problem with the rules generating more interesting results, heck I have players that often suggest far more interesting ideas for the encounter than I do. However, saying that something does/doesn't work by the same basic mechanics as the rest of the game because 'I think it's cooler that way' and 'It doesn't state it doesn't work the way I think" doesn't mean it does work that way.

I'm not saying you are wrong in how you handle this in your game, House Rule away (I have a few of my own), but to try and hair split on wording that has pretty much been copy/pasted since Crafting rules have been added and say that's how they should be seems , to me at least, deliberately obstructive.

2 hours ago, Jareth Valar said:

You are, of course, more than welcome to run your games in any way you wish and I hope it works well for you and you players. However, this is a House Rule if you do.

Reason being is common sense and the lack of need to reprint the most basic fundamentals of the game system (to save space and provide new content). Since there are no actual examples of item creation in any of the Crafting sections (Special Modifications, Keeping the Peace, Force & Destiny Gamemasters Screen, Endless Vigil, or Fully Operational) one has to look at the rules as they have been presented so far.

First, in Step 3: Construction, the player must make and succeed in a check from the associated table. What is a skill check and how do you make one? Pages 30 and 31 of the Age of Rebellion Core Rules describe, in detail how that occurs and the order of operation. Early in the book it breaks down over a page and a half how the basic mechanics of skill checks work (pages 30-33 if you wish to include all skill checks, but only the basic skill checks are important here I believe) and here it specifically mentions "each Threat symbol cancels one Advantage symbol". OK, basics established.

Two, since the basic skill check does not include tables for optional uses of Advantage and Threat (ignoring Triumph and Despair since, as you mentioned are not integral to the discussion) we shall look at the wording in the first section to include tables, Combat pages 217&218 to be exact. Notice that they re-iterate the basic mechanics, but do not go into as much detail on how to perform a check, assuming you have read the fundamentals earlier. However do note one thing, verbiage and descriptions do change. First under step 4 Resolving Advantage and Triumph it states "...the player controlling the active character determines how his character spends Advantage or Triumph..." Then under step 5 Resolving Threat and Despair is states "...the GM then determines how any Threat and Despair are spent...". The same basic "This/Then" wording as in the Crafting rules, not that unique. By your interpretation, Combat should also not follow the basic skill mechanic.

I have no problem with the rules generating more interesting results, heck I have players that often suggest far more interesting ideas for the encounter than I do. However, saying that something does/doesn't work by the same basic mechanics as the rest of the game because 'I think it's cooler that way' and 'It doesn't state it doesn't work the way I think" doesn't mean it does work that way.

I'm not saying you are wrong in how you handle this in your game, House Rule away (I have a few of my own), but to try and hair split on wording that has pretty much been copy/pasted since Crafting rules have been added and say that's how they should be seems , to me at least, deliberately obstructive.

First and foremost, thanks. I was hoping for a definitive answer to this subject and I believe that this counts.

Second I'm not a gm... Just a player.

Third... this (mis)interpretation that I have been under is actually worse for a crafter than the rules of cancelling as part of the roll (which yes I was well aware of, I had just read this particular instance as an exception)... unless you like the idea of the gm being able to add 3 enc to a missile launcher that you had just taken down to 1 enc for it's portability... As an example.

Also I have been reading the rules as such since SM so phooee to me ?

And I'd like to take a moment to appologize for derailing this thread... Not my intention but I am glad I was proven wrong.

4 minutes ago, jayc007 said:

unless you like the idea of the gm being able to add 3 enc to a missile launcher that you had just taken down to 1 enc for it's portability... As an example.

Total **** GM move though ?

Yeah not so nice. Now I get to slap him upside the head. ?

Of course some of the other builds were interesting.

For what it is worth, the developers have already clarified that, per RAW/RAI, the crafting rules work like a normal check and results cancel normally, I think as far back as the Order 66 podcast interview covering Keeping the Peace. They have said that it's an interesting way to resolve those checks, but it's a house rule; actually, that may be some of the motivation for these talents.

Also, and I could be wrong, think about the line it’s in, the Rebels are under a lot of pressure so come up with cool designs and builds but at a cost

21 hours ago, jayc007 said:

See the chart IS the cancelltion of advantage / threat! Just in a more unique and interesting manner.

This should be already answered in the FAQ topic. You can go with that as house rule, it's cool, but not playing as intended. It's a standard roll, you cancle results first.

missed by one hour °_^

Ok everybody, thanks for the perspective. Still not sure I get why something I'm spending XP to acquire should essentially be neutralized. At least adding blues or blacks you have the randomness of the roll. Just seems odd.