10 hours ago, Sturn said:

No I'm not pretending that a reasonable reading of Brace makes it into Expert Tracker. I'm saying an UNreasonable reading of Brace makes it nearly as good as Expert Tracker plus several other talents. It becomes a catchall if too widely interpreted.

Except you'd need to interpret it far more liberally than has been honestly suggested by anyone here to do what Expert Tracker does.

10 hours ago, Sturn said:

You didn't answer this.

I would allow Brace to remove a setback as long as it falls under the umbrella of its listed effects - which is narrower than Expert Tracker's setback remover.

Quote

This reminds me of the argument from some people back in the day, How can you 'aim' a melee attack?

Anybody with only the slightest experience in Martial Arts or Knife Fighting / fencing would never ask such a question.

16 hours ago, Sturn said:

I'm not sure if sarcasm or not? If so, good one.

If not, how do you prepare yourself to be able to more clearly see through fog? I don't think squinting or holding your hand above your eyes is going to help.

I completely agree that the odds of someone changing their mind on this topic is approximately 3,720 to 1.

I love this narrative system. However, I still like it to have some semblance to reality.

It comes down to the narrative dice. You’re simply removing some of the chance of failure or threat because you’re used to dealing with inclement weather. Rather than relying purely on sight, maybe you’re using audio cues to inform where you should be looking. Maybe you’re registering slight changes in smell or air pressure. Maybe you’re taking the time to look through the fog to see where shadows are shifting in the light.

What it seems like you’re talking about here is a scenario where “the fog so dense that it’s impossible to see through, and the character is making a check to see through it anyway.” If THAT is the case, then why are you throwing a setback die at him? You should be using the mechanics for an Impossible check.

But if it’s a light fog that only introduces a setback die or two for a general Perception check, I would personally allow Brace to be used.

1 hour ago, awayputurwpn said:

Rather than relying purely on sight, maybe you’re using audio cues to inform where you should be looking. Maybe you’re registering slight changes in smell or air pressure. Maybe you’re taking the time to look through the fog to see where shadows are shifting in the light.

Even if you ignore the name of the talent, the description says, "As a maneuver, the character may brace himself. This allows a character to remove Setback..." This description in no way mates with "using audio cues", or "changes in smell or air pressure", or "to see where shadows are shifting in the light". Can you at least give that the person who created that description did not intend the talent to include noticing changes in air pressure, smells, or sounds to remove setback to Perception actions? Since none of that is in the description? Of course, at your table, you may do what you wish. But, can you at least give that it is going beyond the rules as written? And perhaps there is a reason it wasn't intended to be such an all-encompassing setback-removal talent?

Long ago there was an argument that Brace should remove setback provided from Cover since a large rock or some such is a physical obstacle (yes I know no one is arguing that in this thread). There were two sides to that argument with no one wishing to concede much even while noting the description didn't mention anything about attacks versus cover. Finally a game designer was asked (Sam) and his answer was, unequivocally, no. For me, the idea of Brace removing Perception setbacks caused by visual obstructions (only) is equal to the attacks vs. Cover arguments. There's as much in the description for Brace to remove Cover penalties as visual penalties. Which is little if any.

Yes, yes I know this won't convince anyone. I also house rule things to my liking so I would be an **** to say others shouldn't change Brace to their own liking. But, you must admit it's a huge stretch to argue the talent, as written, was intended to do things such as remove penalties from visual obstructions or covered targets. I think it's pretty plain that it was intended for physical disruptions involving movement such as gravity changes, being jostled about in a storm, thrown about in a tumbling spaceship, on a catwalk during an explosive battle, etc.

6 hours ago, Sturn said:

I think it's pretty plain that it was intended for physical disruptions involving movement such as gravity changes, being jostled about in a storm, thrown about in a tumbling spaceship, on a catwalk during an explosive battle, etc.

All of which make it harder to make out something, if only because you're being thrown around and can't focus on what you're trying to see.

According to you, the talent would remove the setback for being thrown around (the physical disruption), but you'd still suffer the effect being thrown around has on you (being unable to properly focus on what you're trying to see). That's not consistent.

And nobody has tried addressing what the scholar is supposed to be doing with Brace. The only skill from Colonist: Scholar that might fall under the restrictive reading of Brace is Perception, everything else is people and knowledge skills.

2 hours ago, Stan Fresh said:

And nobody has tried addressing what the scholar is supposed to be doing with Brace. The only skill from Colonist: Scholar that might fall under the restrictive reading of Brace is Perception, everything else is people and knowledge skills.

Maybe if rain is getting on your book when you're trying to read it...? Brace your umbrella up while you read. That's gotta be it.

Or you're doing research on a datapad, WHILE free-falling through a hailstorm in upper atmosphere.

That actually sounds fun.

5 minutes ago, awayputurwpn said:

Maybe if rain is getting on your book when you're trying to read it...? Brace your umbrella up while you read. That's gotta be it.

Or you're doing research on a datapad, WHILE free-falling through a hailstorm in upper atmosphere.

That actually sounds fun.

Yeah. The talent's presence in the Scholar spec is a strong indicator that it works on scholarly skills, too.

9 hours ago, Sturn said:

Even if you ignore the name of the talent, the description says, "As a maneuver, the character may brace himself. This allows a character to remove Setback..." This description in no way mates with "using audio cues", or "changes in smell or air pressure", or "to see where shadows are shifting in the light". Can you at least give that the person who created that description did not intend the talent to include noticing changes in air pressure, smells, or sounds to remove setback to Perception actions? Since none of that is in the description? Of course, at your table, you may do what you wish. But, can you at least give that it is going beyond the rules as written? And perhaps there is a reason it wasn't intended to be such an all-encompassing setback-removal talent?

Long ago there was an argument that Brace should remove setback provided from Cover since a large rock or some such is a physical obstacle (yes I know no one is arguing that in this thread). There were two sides to that argument with no one wishing to concede much even while noting the description didn't mention anything about attacks versus cover. Finally a game designer was asked (Sam) and his answer was, unequivocally, no. For me, the idea of Brace removing Perception setbacks caused by visual obstructions (only) is equal to the attacks vs. Cover arguments. There's as much in the description for Brace to remove Cover penalties as visual penalties. Which is little if any.

Yes, yes I know this won't convince anyone. I also house rule things to my liking so I would be an **** to say others shouldn't change Brace to their own liking. But, you must admit it's a huge stretch to argue the talent, as written, was intended to do things such as remove penalties from visual obstructions or covered targets. I think it's pretty plain that it was intended for physical disruptions involving movement such as gravity changes, being jostled about in a storm, thrown about in a tumbling spaceship, on a catwalk during an explosive battle, etc.

As a rule, it's very imprecise. And imprecision leads to GM fiat. And as I see it, you'll generally have GMs that fall on one of two sides: those who look for ways to allow the rule to work in the player's favor, and those look for reasons why the rule shouldn't work in the player's favor. IOW, you'll have the GMs whose knee-jerk reaction is to be "permissive" and lean towards yes, and you'll have the GMs whose knee-jerk reaction is to be "discerning" and lean towards no.* Somewhere in the middle of these GM types is the Chosen One, who always rules completely fairly, and is somehow loved by his players at all times, and at the same time is always 100% correct as to how the Rules As Written function.

And then you'll have people like you and me who probably get things wrong, but don't care, and run our games how we see fit.

I happen to read the rule differently than you, and that's kinda all there is to it. You see something one way, I see it another way. I prefer my interpretation. And there are probably a lot of instances where I would allow Brace to apply, where you might rule differently. And I bet the actual gameplay instances of me saying yes vs. you saying no would amount to about a handful. So...in the grand scheme of things, it's a *meh* from me. I support your ability to make your games fun in your own way

*I do not stand by this evaluation, and am already regretting lumping anyone into any sort of category. I apologize profusely and will commence the self-flagellation momentarily.

8 hours ago, Stan Fresh said:

All of which make it harder to make out something, if only because you're being thrown around and can't focus on what you're trying to see.

According to you, the talent would remove the setback for being thrown around (the physical disruption), but you'd still suffer the effect being thrown around has on you (being unable to properly focus on what you're trying to see). That's not consistent.

A Setback to Perception from being on an unsteady surface, yes I would allow Brace to apply. I certainly wasn't arguing, and I don't think @Sturn was arguing that it would never apply to Perception, just that it wouldn't with Setback from rain, fog, etc. He may have made a blanket statement about Perception, but I'm sure he'd make an exception here.

8 hours ago, Stan Fresh said:

And nobody has tried addressing what the scholar is supposed to be doing with Brace. The only skill from Colonist: Scholar that might fall under the restrictive reading of Brace is Perception, everything else is people and knowledge skills.

Well it wasn't brought up before.

When you look at the part of the tree that contains Brace, it is accompanied by Grit, Resolve, Well Rounded, Confidence, and Toughened. I would call this the "adventuring" side of the tree. Physical training to make the Scholar more capable and more likely to survive in the field. I would say Brace does exactly what Brace does for this tree. Just because the Scholar isn't primarily a physical character doesn't mean they shouldn't have any physical talents at all. Who wants to have to be babysat 24/7? Scholar looks to me like a proto-Archaeologist tree so people could play an Indiana Jones, and the description of the Scholar tree lends further credence to this idea.

1 hour ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Well it wasn't brought up before.

No, I'd asked that a while ago.

1 minute ago, Stan Fresh said:

No, I'd asked that a while ago.

Ah, I missed the edit.

Scholar doesn't seem Indy to me at all, it's far too cerebral for that in skill and talent, never mind we have an actual Indy spec in the archaeologist that comes with some melee and action abilities.

15 minutes ago, Stan Fresh said:

Scholar doesn't seem Indy to me at all, it's far too cerebral for that in skill and talent, never mind we have an actual Indy spec in the archaeologist that comes with some melee and action abilities.

Hence proto -Archaeologist. More cerebral, but is capable of acting in the field, whereas Archaeologist tree is more "capable of acting in the field, but also smart." If you read the description in the CRB, I think it backs up this interpretation.

3 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Hence proto -Archaeologist. More cerebral, but is capable of acting in the field, whereas Archaeologist tree is more "capable of acting in the field, but also smart." If you read the description in the CRB, I think it backs up this interpretation.

Maybe, but a talent that the Scholar can use almost exclusively with skills they don't have? Ehhhh.

3 minutes ago, Stan Fresh said:

Maybe, but a talent that the Scholar can use almost exclusively with skills they don't have? Ehhhh.

It helps them be a bit better with those skills, and Well Rounded can be applied to make the Scholar more physical (Athletics and Coordination or something). Plus, Brace doesn't gate anything so if you don't intend to go a physical route you can just ignore it.

54 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

It helps them be a bit better with those skills, and Well Rounded can be applied to make the Scholar more physical (Athletics and Coordination or something). Plus, Brace doesn't gate anything so if you don't intend to go a physical route you can just ignore it.

All true, but saying it (effectively) ONLY applies to those non-default skills is reaching.

27 minutes ago, Stan Fresh said:

All true, but saying it (effectively) ONLY applies to those non-default skills is reaching.

I don't think so, especially as it is easily avoidable. It is part of an optional way to play the character, fitting a more physical theme.

And "effectively" is a key caveat. I would change "only" to "generally" as it removes Setback to any check caused by certain factors. Those factors most often effect certain skills, but they can affect other skills in other ways (including Knowledge checks. Getting violently jarred around while riding a galloping space-camel might throw off your Knowledge checks).

By the way, Perception isn't a career skill for Scholars, nor is Vigilance, so saying that it's there because it applies to other non-default skills is stretching even farther by your standards. I don't think it's much of a stretch, I just think there is more evidence in the tree to support a physical application.

11 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

By the way, Perception isn't a career skill for Scholars

You should Second Chances your Perception check there.

1 minute ago, Stan Fresh said:

You should Second Chances your Perception check there.

Ah. Because of how I write my statblocks I'm used to seeing Knowledge skills listed after everything else.

6 hours ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

A Setback to Perception from being on an unsteady surface, yes I would allow Brace to apply. I certainly wasn't arguing, and I don't think @Sturn was arguing that it would never apply to Perception, just that it wouldn't with Setback from rain, fog, etc.

Yep. You just disintegrated most of the utini-swearing bastards that stole your ship and dismantled it. You find yourself atop the sandcrawler as it continues to rumble across the broken terrain, pilotless, because you off'd the driver. While being shook about violently trying to stand up, you quickly grab your macrobinos and scan to see if any of the dirty jawas made it out alive to flee the sandcrawler into the desert. Referee calls for a Perception check and adds Setback. You use a Maneuver to grab ahold of a projecting sensor array nearby to brace yourself removing the Setback due to the jostling environment.

4 hours ago, Stan Fresh said:

Maybe, but a talent that the Scholar can use almost exclusively with skills they don't have? Ehhhh.

There isn't a requirement to have a talent apply to one of your career skills within the career it was granted. Most characters will pick up other careers or directly purchase career skills. Plus, that's without forgetting that you can attempt actions without having any skill in the action whatsoever by using the related characteristic only. Obviously a Scholar is still going to be frequently required to attempt physical actions even though he/she doesn't have physical career skills. The talent will still help them.

I quickly flipped through the EotE careers. Ignoring Scholar since it's what we are debating, 4 of the other 14 careers also have talents that don't have the career skills the talent applies to:

• Pressure Point under Doctor. Doctor does not have Brawl.
• Stalker under Scout. Scout does not have Stealth or Coordination.
• Knockdown under Fringer. Fringer does not have a melee skill.
• Stalker under Survivalist. Survivalist does not have Stealth or Coordination.

A requirement isn't what's under discussion. No one said or suggested there is one.

It's about the context a spec creates for a talent.

1 hour ago, Stan Fresh said:

A requirement isn't what's under discussion. No one said or suggested there is one.

It's about the context a spec creates for a talent.

6 hours ago, Stan Fresh said:

Maybe, but a talent that the Scholar can use almost exclusively with skills they don't have? Ehhhh.

You brought up the point that Brace was a talent for Scholar that can only be used with skills they probably don't have. Your suggestion seemed to be that Scholar wouldn't have the Brace talent without it being broadly used (as opposed to only physically disruptive skills) due to the career skills available to Scholar. I brought up counters. An example where Perception (a scholar skill) can be used with Brace as written (in my opinion) and examples of other careers that have talents requiring skills they may not have. The game creators didn't seem to care if the career provided skills applicable to the talent.

@Sturn your examples are of narrowly applicable talents; these call out specifically what skills the talents use. The Brace talent, OTOH, doesn't limit itself to any skills. So the comparison of talent trees doesn't really work.

However, the talent comparison does seem more like a point in favor of a more permissive ruling on Brace—if it was only intended to be used on Athletics and Coordination checks, for example, wouldn't the talent say so?

7 minutes ago, awayputurwpn said:

However, the talent comparison does seem more like a point in favor of a more permissive ruling on Brace—if it was only intended to be used on Athletics and Coordination checks, for example, wouldn't the talent say so?

No one is saying it was only intended for use on those checks.

23 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

No one is saying it was only intended for use on those checks.

Then we're back at an impasse; we all fall at various places on a spectrum of "what is reasonable."