Quote:
Originally Posted by Plane
If they can afford it with starting wealth or later gained wealth, charging for signature gear is never necessary, but if they don't take SG then they don't get the perk of the GM being obligated to return the gear to them if it's ever lost/stolen/destroyed with the exception of giving it away. That alone makes SG worth it for anything your Gadget-limited abilities rely on.
|
Gadgets already have "Can Be Stolen", thus I don't allow Signature Gear unless the Gadget isn't "Stealable", but could (due to description) be lost, stolen, lent out, or destroyed. If they take the discount for Can Be Stolen there is no way I'll let a 1 point Perk toss most of that Limitation out the window.
Note: I use AtE's Sig Gear, so it's 1 point for "Can't be stolen, lost, etc, unless the PC is careless or gives it away." In fact I go one step further, if I let a Player slap Sig Gear on their sheet, it's because I don't intend to ever take that gear away (so in most campaigns I simply don't allow it).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Celjabba
Unless you pay for it somehow, Your gadget-sword perform at best as a cheap...
|
Well... it won't be 'Cheap' because it can't be broken. ;)
But otherwise I agree with in general.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Say, it isn't that bad!
If your character is so dead-set against wearing armour that no situation whatsoever could get them to wear armour, then rename "Cannot Wear Armour" to "Will Not Wear Armour" and add [5] for the fact that someone could knock you unconscious, put armour on you, and probably force a Fright Check.
|
"No Armor" is not a flat rate Disad, it's a Limitation on the DR Advantage. Canonically there are two versions: Can’t Wear Armor, -40% and Doesn't Stack With Armor, -20%.
I wouldn't allow, DR (Cannot Wear Armor) and something like Vow (Won't Wear Armor), as they are redundant. I have allowed DR (Doesn't Stack With Armor) and Vow (Won't Wear Armor), but only the average campaign armor so outclassed the PCs DR level it wasn't even a competition.