I know this may be fruitless but..

[silva]

Did you actually read what I wrote above? The central move of the class (Scavenger) was actually weaker in the original form, and I improved on it.

[Orion]

Scavenger:
If you look at the original Runner above, you will see the move is too weak and harsh (only rewarding 1-barter, +1 to next visits, and being quick).

I'm sorry; I just got confused about which version was which, and thought you wrote the super-weak version. The new one is a lot more worthwhile, so good job there. Actually, with the climbing rope gear, I think it might be too strong. Roll 7 to get exactly what you went for, quickly, with no serious trouble is really quite a big deal. Then again, I wanted Ruin Runner to start with 3 moves. If you're keeping them with just 2, your version of scavenge is probably okay.

Jerry-rigged / Good enough!: This one I was disatisfied on both the original Runner and Scrapper - in the former it was too strong (due to the Multitool gear, which gives it an extra option turning it into a mobile Savvyhead workshop from the start), and the latter (from the Scrapper) Ive found ambiguous and badly worded.

I just don't think "choose 1" is an acceptable result. In most cases you'll choose not to take -1 forward, which means that you have to strip another item to temporarily fix something while also damaging that thing. I would probably allow a generic character to get those kinds of results just from Act Under Fire.

Pack-rat is practically identical across all versions.

It's not identical. You made 2 changes. Tell me why you changed the fail result and why you restricted hi-tech.

They would be crazy to follow me/us here. again, practically identical across all versions. In mine I inserted a little clause where the player must have some sort of contact (vocal, visual, radio, whatever) with the target, as otherwise the condition for triggering the effect could be too loose in-fiction (I like to have very clear trigger conditions to go with the "if you do it, do it" concept and, without my clause, the player didnt have anything to "do").

That's reasonable, actually. My beef was that it's unclear what "must have some kind of contact" would mean and that many MCs would think it meant physical contact. Now that I know how you intended this to work, I can get on board with that intention.

In the Zone:Its not the most beautiful of the moves conceptually, but functionally its certainly good.

Agreed. I have no real beef with this move.

after a bit more talk with other pals, they convinced me that it could have some crazy wild uses and I ended up inserting it back.

Your friends are bad at design and you should stop listening to them.

Canny: It never made any sense in my mind that a supposed wasteland lone wolf be good at manipulating people, so this was the first thing I cutted out.

I don't mind that it's gone; it's no more interesting than In the Zone, which is fine. I do think that you seem to have misjudged the flavor the original class aimed for.

An Eye for Detail: the +1sharp this move gives ... have no paralel on any official or Limited Edition playbook.

There a move that gives +1 Hard and 3 moves that give +1 Weird. That leaves Sharp and Cool.

EDIT: (and Hot, of course, but there's a +1 Hot move)

Vincent explicitly omitted the +1 Cool move because he thought it was to centralizing, but I really think +1 Sharp is okay. When you level up in AW, you choose between getting +1 to a stat or getting a new move, so in most cases a move that gives +1 to a stat is not going to be overpowered. Furthermore, there are move that allow other stats to full replace Weird, Hot, or Cool. Those tend to increase your effective stats by far more than +1. Adding moves that increase stats allows other classes to advance those stats more than normal, but only if they're willing to burn one of the 2 cross-class move slots which they could use to get actual abilities. It's hard for me to believe that would ever be worth it. Did anyone whining about this move name a class or an example build that would use this?

more when I have more energy

[silva]

Thanks for the input. Got no time to read it calmly now so Ill do it later. Just a quick note: Don't knwo if you notice but the detailed maps gear option synergize with Pathfinder, turning it from a admittedly weak move into a fairly good one.

[silva]

Question: I think "tricked out sniper rifle" sounds too hi-techy/savvyheadiy for a scrappy scavenger. What should I call a worn sniper rifle customized out of scrap parts by a scavenger/survivor who lives deep in the wastelands ? "Scrap sniper rifle" ? "Scrap customized rifle" ? "Worn sniper rifle" ?. What do you think ?

I just don't think "choose 1" is an acceptable result. In most cases you'll choose not to take -1 forward, which means that you have to strip another item to temporarily fix something while also damaging that thing. I would probably allow a generic character to get those kinds of results just from Act Under Fire.

I agree with you on this. The only viable way for taking this move at start is picking the Multitool gear with it. This way, it elevates the 7-9 result to "pick 2" optoins, and the 10+ result to "pick 3". The alternative is discarding the Multitool altogether and letting the move default be pick 2 on 7-9, and pick 3 on 10+.

Frankly, I like the existence of the Multitool, even if for thematic/color reasons. On the other hand, having a mandatory option is not an option at all.

[pack-rat] is not identical. You made 2 changes. Tell me why you changed the fail result and why you restricted hi-tech.

I didnt. I simply brought back the original Scrapper move "I think I saw that somewhere" but kept the name "Pack rat". About the "no hi-tech" limitation, it makes more sense for the character concept, I think. He is a kind of scrapper after all. Producing useful trash from his rucksack feels better than producing hi-tech gear, if you got what I mean.

[Pathfinder]Your friends are bad at design and you should stop listening to them.

What would you suggest for a Pathfinder-thematic move ? I thought about making the Detailed Maps gear a explicit bonus to it (like, say, take +2 forward when acting on the MC answers with Pathfinder). But then we go back to the Jerry-rigged situation and the false option. Letting Detailed maps open/not tied to Pathfinder feels better to me.

There a move that gives +1 Hard and 3 moves that give +1 Weird. That leaves Sharp and Cool.

EDIT: (and Hot, of course, but there's a +1 Hot move)

Vincent explicitly omitted the +1 Cool move because he thought it was to centralizing, but I really think +1 Sharp is okay. When you level up in AW, you choose between getting +1 to a stat or getting a new move, so in most cases a move that gives +1 to a stat is not going to be overpowered. Furthermore, there are move that allow other stats to full replace Weird, Hot, or Cool. Those tend to increase your effective stats by far more than +1. Adding moves that increase stats allows other classes to advance those stats more than normal, but only if they're willing to burn one of the 2 cross-class move slots which they could use to get actual abilities. It's hard for me to believe that would ever be worth it. Did anyone whining about this move name a class or an example build that would use this?

Without checking all the playbooks, I suspect the +1 sharp could be useful for other sharp-based classes that do not get options to improve sharp past +2. If there is no such case, though, I agree with you.

But even then, I ended up liking my option more (act under fire with +sharp) than this, again, for thematic reasons: getting +1 sharp would infer a more cerebral individual, when mine infers a survivor.