The Weapon Bond+Signature Gear Problem

[ericbsmith]

Originally Posted by SuedodeuS

No. First off, weapon-with-a-name and Named Weapon are two completely different things.

Agreed. Named Weapon is a magical/mystical/supernatural trait of equipment and not only is it not necessary for WB and/or SG, it is completely inappropriate for many such items.

Originally Posted by SuedodeuS

Note also that your concept of the weapon leeching CP is inaccurate - Named Objects gain CP at the same rate as the wielder.

I think he was referring to the fact that as a Named Weapon gets more powerful it becomes more valuable which, at the GMs option, can increase it's point cost as Signature Gear. This would leech earned character points away as you had to pay the SG cost of your ever more valuable Named Weapon.

[martinl]

Originally Posted by Kromm

And either we said that in Gun Fu or Hans plans to say it in Tactical Shooting. I didn't include all the frou-frou in my example for no reason at all. The objective was specifically to show a Weapon Bond-esque firearm with all kinds of tacticool crud hanging off it.

My instinct would be to let the PC with a SG weapon and a WB to that weapon benefit from the WB as long as the weapon was there. (This is still my grandpa's rife, even with this scope on it, and I still shoot great with it.) If attachments or changes to the weapon's accessories can break the WB, this is a significant change to how I'd view WB.

Where's the line? Does replacing the carrying sling break a WB with your gun? Using UnSGed ammo? What about adding a drilled secret compartment under the stock plate? Replacing a broken spring in the mechanism? What if the barrel is bent and re-straightened? All of these sorts of the sort of things might plausibly happen with SG.

Note that any weapon that requires maintenance will change accessories or parts eventually, and most weapons require maintenance. Again my instinct would be to allow a WB with "My grandfather's axe, where we've replaced the handle six times and the head three times" even as handles and heads were replaced, but if this breaks the rules, well, I might become an outlaw in the service of RPG coolness.

[ericbsmith]

Originally Posted by martinl

Where's the line?

I would treat it similar to familiarity penalties. If you're used to using your rifle with it's scope and you change the scope it's going to take you some time to get used to the new scope, during which time you don't get the Weapon Bond bonus. This means that if you break your scope you're going to be without the WB bonus until you've replaced it and had some time familiarizing yourself with the new configuration.

[martinl]

Originally Posted by ericbsmith

I would treat it similar to familiarity penalties. If you're used to using your rifle with it's scope and you change the scope it's going to take you some time to get used to the new scope, during which time you don't get the Weapon Bond bonus. This means that if you break your scope you're going to be without the WB bonus until you've replaced it and had some time familiarizing yourself with the new configuration.

That seems fair. Losing time is not as harsh as losing points, but is a significant issue in many cases.

[HANS]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

There maybe should be, since WB with a firearm probably represents customizing it with the sights, grips, stocks, and slings that you like best. Changing the optics would logically wreck the feng shui.

Nah. The point of Weapon Bond for firearms is that not two guns shoot the same. Even modern high-end guns have little intrinsic quirks that differentiate each weapon, even if they look exactly the same to the naked eye. Weapon Bond simply means you have found that one gun that fits your individual style of shooting perfectly, hence the bonus (which by the way is probably vastly overselling the differences -- +1 is a lot, in GURPS, but hey, we all want to have fun, and +1 is also the smallest bonus available).

Weapon Bond specifically has absolutely nothing to do with accessories -- that's clear from all the writeups in High-Tech, Gun Fu, and Tactical Shooting. Throwing money at it doesn't (necessarily) help. So adding a scope or other gimmick won't destroy your Weapon Bond. A much better case could be made for removing stuff, like the original scope or stock, but that's up to the GM. I would probably remove the Bond, in such an instance.

However, there is also a different approach, which is especially important in realistic campaigns. Many shooters like to fiddle with their guns, adding vertical foregrips, polishing the feed ramp, changing the stock, etc. They do this to customise the guns to their individual needs. A similar thing happens when you get a gun made to your specifications (such as a bespoke shotgun or sporting rifle, where the stock, weight, etc is actually fitted to your height, length of arms, etc). These customisations make it more comfortable for the owner to shoot the weapon. This should give a bonus -- et voilà, that's a Weapon Bond. This is a case where money does, in effect, give you a Weapon Bond. This is less than perfect, I know, but all these things really require GM oversight anyway.

I allow Weapon Bonds both for PCs that have found that one Glock that shoots best for them and for PCs that make the effort to describe to me how they customise their M4A1 with expensive aftermarket gadgets. In truth, the former class gets the Bond for free (other than 1 CP) while the other has to pay for it with both money and CP, but you know what? Life isn't fair either. I shoot crap with Glock 17s and many of my pals don't. That's why I bought an H&K P7M8 and got expensive Nill grips for it . . .

Cheers

HANS

[Victor Maxus]

Eli Wallach in The Good the Bad and the Ugly. Don't know if that would qualify for weapon bond perk, but the general idea is there. Taking parts of a variety of other guns and making one that suits himself. Just a thought on these topic lines, only pointing it out for an example for those who would want to use something like that.

[Corlock Striker]

Originally Posted by SuedodeuS

No. First off, weapon-with-a-name and Named Weapon are two completely different things. More importantly, however, having a weapon that is both your signature piece and is designed perfectly for you does not mean that the weapon would have a name. I can see no reason why it would need to. Hercules' bow didn't have a name. In fact, none of the equipment (that I can think of, with the possible exception of Zeus and Athena's Aegis) of the mythical Greeks tended to have individual names, except maybe to note who the original owner (or who the first owner to make it famous) was, despite mythic Greece being pretty much the best example of Signature Gear I can think of (as one's equipment was always closely associated with one's identity). If some sword smith made a good weapon specifically for you, I see no reason why it would suddenly have to have a name. Additionally, it seems far more likely that such a weapon would gain a name through use, rather than get one upon forging (Named Objects have the name engraved on them upon creation). Hell, I'll bet Orcrist and Glamdring weren't named until they were shown to be particularly, and Sting certainly was nameless until the spider incident. Note also that your concept of the weapon leeching CP is inaccurate - Named Objects gain CP at the same rate as the wielder. As for getting people to actually care about the weapons... It's Signature Gear and Weapon Bonded stuff. Do you really need to give it a name for the player to care about it? Note also that SG and WB arguably come packaged with something like a Sense of Duty toward the weapon - it's quite frankly out of character for someone to just leave behind their ancestral weapon because they found something shinier!

Lastly, of course, is the fact that Named Weapon isn't a Perk at all in many low-tech settings, particularly historical ones. After all, not every world has magic.

The original poster seems to have an issue with the SG+WB combo, all I'm doing is offering alternatives to that. The idea of the Named Weapon is to get the PC to invest more of his own time in creating a history for his weapon, and if he's fighting with his granpa's axe, it's likely that the weapon has been around for a while and has gotten some sort of name. In addition, him creating this sort of history for his weapon can often give the GM seeds for adventures or things like that. People wanting that weapon for themselves and the like. It's a good way of going to my mind.

As to named weapons, Excalibur was given with it's name, as was Mjolnir, and I believe Gung'nir as well. Those being Thor's hammer and Odin's spear respectively, I don't think I need to explain who Excalibur belonged to. The naming of a weapon isn't all that uncommon, and sometimes a smith might give a name to a weapon that he is particularly proud of his work on. And I'm sorry but I am thinking in terms of a magical fantasy setting when I mention this idea. Sorry, I guess I should have made that more clear. My apologies.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Corlock Striker

As to named weapons, Excalibur was given with it's name, as was Mjolnir, and I believe Gung'nir as well. Those being Thor's hammer and Odin's spear respectively, I don't think I need to explain who Excalibur belonged to. The naming of a weapon isn't all that uncommon, and sometimes a smith might give a name to a weapon that he is particularly proud of his work on. And I'm sorry but I am thinking in terms of a magical fantasy setting when I mention this idea. Sorry, I guess I should have made that more clear. My apologies.

It's important to distinguish between named weapons and Named Weapons. The second is a specific GURPS technical term that comes with specific world assumptions and game mechanics, the same way as Blessed. The first is just a descriptive phrase. Not every weapon that has been given a name is a Named Weapon.

Bill Stoddard