Powers with Gadget Limitations - is it the thing?

[AlexanderHowl]

Where is the Unbreakable modifier located? And does it apply specifically to gadgets?

[awesomenessofme1]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

Where is the Unbreakable modifier located? And does it apply specifically to gadgets?

Unbreakable is not a modifier. It's automatic if you apply gadget limitations and don't include Breakable.

[AlexanderHowl]

That is what I had thought. The default gadget cannot be damage, destroyed, or is not normally targeted for theft (it is neither obviously powerful or important/valuable enough to be stolen). For example, an indestructible penny would qualify (a $10 million gem should probably have Can Be Stolen though, as it is obviously valuable enough to be stolen).

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

That is what I had thought. The default gadget cannot be damage, destroyed, or is not normally targeted for theft (it is neither obviously powerful or important/valuable enough to be stolen). For example, an indestructible penny would qualify (a $10 million gem should probably have Can Be Stolen though, as it is obviously valuable enough to be stolen).

I'd still want to give an indestructible penny some price cut, just because it could be lost, or stolen by someone who knows it's significance (or is just taking everything).

Maybe halve the limitation value of Can Be Stolen if the object isn't clearly valuable. Quarter it if the only practical way of knowing it is important is to be told (not even reading it's aura or scanning it with a superscience detector reveals it's a gadget).

Edit for clarity: At that point "Can be stolen" essentially becomes something like "Can be in glove box when car is stolen."

[Plane]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

That is what I had thought. The default gadget cannot be damage, destroyed, or is not normally targeted for theft (it is neither obviously powerful or important/valuable enough to be stolen). For example, an indestructible penny would qualify (a $10 million gem should probably have Can Be Stolen though, as it is obviously valuable enough to be stolen).

I'm not sure you can even do a default gadget, don't you need to take at least one (steal or break) for it to be a gadget? Something which can't be broke or stole is basically just part of you.

[AlexanderHowl]

No, I believe that you can define any ability as a separable object rather than an innate part of you. The fact that you can lend your powers is balanced by the fact that it counts as weight and can be disarmed (as opposed to damaged or stolen).

[Donny Brook]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

No, I believe that you can define any ability as a separable object rather than an innate part of you. The fact that you can lend your powers is balanced by the fact that it counts as weight and can be disarmed (as opposed to damaged or stolen).

I don't think any weight is assigned automatically to powers built as gadgets, but I have seen it as an additional limitation (Nuisance) . I don't think you can be disarmed of an intact gadget except by the Can Be Stolen rules.

[AlexanderHowl]

You may be correct. Perhaps Can Be Stolen (-30%) would be appropriate for objects that can be disarmed?

[Donny Brook]

I'd think so. An artful fencing disarm would be subsumed under contests of DX and a forceful bashing disarm would be under contests of ST.

[Plane]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

No, I believe that you can define any ability as a separable object rather than an innate part of you. The fact that you can lend your powers is balanced by the fact that it counts as weight and can be disarmed (as opposed to damaged or stolen).

I'm figuring that voluntary lending of your gadget is like "consenting to steal", they probably should call it "can be transferred" though