Weapon Bond & Signature Gear

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by whswhs

I stipulate that Signature Gear makes it unlikely that you'll lose the item, just as it's unlikely that you'll be blinded or crippled. But you're going to try to protect yourself against attacks that could permanently disable you, and you should try to protect yourself against losing your Signature Gear, too. And I prefer a rules interpretation that provides incentive to do that.

It's not necessary to have a rules interpretation of Weapon Bond to create that incentive, though, it's just a question of what "no fault of your own" actually means. Does being willfully careless qualify?

[adm]

Originally Posted by whswhs

...It isn't as if you could just pick up any sword you came across and have it be exactly the sword you needed for that special relationship.

Unless you have Serendipity.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by adm

Unless you have Serendipity.

Well, yes, that's a plausible application of Serendipity. But then you would have paid quite a few points for the privilege of finding just the right sword. You could get a sword for 1 point of Signature Gear, and that seems way too cheap for subverting the basic design of the perk.

[adm]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Well, yes, that's a plausible application of Serendipity. But then you would have paid quite a few points for the privilege of finding just the right sword. You could get a sword for 1 point of Signature Gear, and that seems way too cheap for subverting the basic design of the perk.

In fairness, I was being a bit of a smart Alec, but if you do happen to have Serendipity, this would be a good application of it for a session.

On the original idea of getting it back as part of Signature Gear, I would only give you the point back if I as the GM made a screw up of some sort. Odds are very high that you lost the Weapon Bond.

Now for DF, if you want a weapon with it after start, I would allow you to spend one of your weeks in town with a Master Armorer to modify a weapon to be a perfect fit for you, spend a point, now you have a Weapon Bond. i.e. any weapon that meets your general requirements can be made to work. Although note that modifying an enchanted weapon is generally a BAD idea.

If I was doing a more traditional GURPS game I would add a week or two to the required time to build a new piece of equipment, then spend the point, and now you have a Weapon Bond. i.e It would have to be built for you specifically.

Of course in both of the above cases Serendipity could short cut the time factor by having you find the perfect weapon "off the rack". Using time, money, and some skills, like the above mentioned Weapon Connoisseur could also allow you to find the right weapon as well.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by adm

Using time, money, and some skills, like the above mentioned Weapon Connoisseur could also allow you to find the right weapon as well.

Time, money, and some skills is what I think should be required. Just like needing plastic surgery to raise your appearance in a 21st century campaign. You can spend the point, no problem, but you have to pay for the right to spend it by providing some narrative support.

[evileeyore]

Kromm, all of the above 'nonsense' is why as a Player I would never bother with Weapon Bond.

Waste of a point, and then all the bloody hassles some GMs want to tack on top in order just to be able to spend that one point? Not worth it.

Just spend 3 more along with it and be as good with all the weapons of that type...

[martinl]

I think it is also important to allow the PC to adjust to the weapon. A PC should be able to make weapon bond with Axecalibur, if Axecalibur is part of that PC's legend, even if they didn't do a thing to modify it.

In DF I'm focused on cool PCs doing cool things. Weapon bonds are cool. If I make them too much trouble the players will all justifiably take on evileeyore's attitude and I won't see PCs with weapon bonds.

Maybe when I do that I'm technically using GURPS wrong, but I think using GURPS to have the most fun possible is using it right.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by martinl

Maybe when I do that I'm technically using GURPS wrong, but I think using GURPS to have the most fun possible is using it right.

I think for DF, that's doing it right. DF afterall isn't about fiddly little details like that.


In my DF game I didn't care that the Scout kept 'trading' up his bow and applying Weapon Bond to the next bow (and reapplying Sig Gear to the next bow as well). I looked at it (those two perks) as "With one of his weapons, he's really good and he'll 'always' have a Bow" and just didn't care about the fiddly parts of those perks.

So yeah, in that game every PC had 2 points in Weapon Bond and Sig Gear on a 'primary' weapon, even the Pixie Wizard who never wanted to get into a stick fight if she could avoid it.

[Dalin]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

Kromm, all of the above 'nonsense' is why as a Player I would never bother with Weapon Bond.

Waste of a point, and then all the bloody hassles some GMs want to tack on top in order just to be able to spend that one point? Not worth it.

Interesting. For me, as a player, I love it when the GM piles on "bloody hassles" like this. The more the better! It's all about building a cool character story, for me, so I like the points to feel like they mean something real in the narrative. The actual dice math is irrelevant if the story leading up to the bonuses is fun. (Note that I'm definitely not saying that my way is the One True Way... never. I enjoy the diversity of perspectives and play-styles.)

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by martinl

I think it is also important to allow the PC to adjust to the weapon. A PC should be able to make weapon bond with Axecalibur, if Axecalibur is part of that PC's legend, even if they didn't do a thing to modify it.

That's not something you do with Weapon Bond. It's something you do with Signature Gear. In fact it's exactly what Signature Gear was designed to do in the first place.