View Single Post
Old 01-03-2022, 10:10 AM   #24
Varyon
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Default Re: should there actually be "indestructible" weapons?

Quote:
Originally Posted by naloth View Post
If it can be taken away depriving you of use for a bit <or> allowing it to be used against you, I'd allow "can be stolen." Breakable usually requires skill, inconvenient amount of time, and the right parts before you can use it again.

Stolen tends to kick in when you can't take it some place, get captured, or run against someone that can pry it out of your possession. You bypass it by recovering your gear or going off to get a new one. Often you can bypass this limitation in short order by smuggling your gear in or swiping it back.

Breakable typically happens through accumulated damage requiring you to come up with the time and/or money to fix it. It's usually not quick to resolve, but conversely this limitation doesn't require you to surrender it when entering custody nor does it allow your opponents to take and use it against you.
So, what exactly did you mean by "lots of spares" for a character with a Gadget that lacks Breakable? I thought you meant the character had a lot of spare devices, so if one is broken he just pulls out another one and keeps going. If you instead meant it as lots of spare parts, such that the character can readily repair it (but can't just cobble another one together), that seems like it should still have Breakable, but at a lower discount for only disabling the Gadget essentially for the rest of the scene (it's certainly a Limitation compared to a wild Advantage)
__________________
GURPS Overhaul
Varyon is online now   Reply With Quote