View Single Post
Old 01-05-2022, 12:09 AM   #37
David Johnston2
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Default Re: should there actually be "indestructible" weapons?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred Brackin View Post
You did say "was" and this is important as Super Scum was a 3e product. It may even have been superseded in 3e by a later edition of Supers.
Not really important since it was the individual design choice of the person making the character. "This character is useless without his sword so attempts to deprive him of his word probably won't work and if they do work, they only work briefly". In his case this is represented by him having a second sword always available in his vehicle and ore at home and the GM being advised to do everything possible to frustrate attempts to steal it.

What that doesn't mean however is that "Can't be broken" always represents that particular special effect. If you are designing Captain America's shield or Halo's orbs, they just can't be broken by any amount of force. My character Lady Nemesis can't have her N-Weapon be broken because it's actually a shapeshifting mass of nanotechnology that will simply liquify and reform if it's current structure is damaged. It could be destroyed, but by means covered by its -10% Nanotechnology power source, not by being a breakable gadget.
David Johnston2 is offline   Reply With Quote