|
12-27-2021, 06:38 PM | #1 | |
Join Date: Aug 2018
|
should there actually be "indestructible" weapons?
In terms of characters there's no 3e immunity anymore so you can't be indestructible in 4e, just have loads of DR or injury divisors.
It seems however there are certain Ultratech objects which enjoy this property. UT164 Stasis Switchblade Due to the stasis web,UT166 a blade of annihilating energy extends from the hilt and is held in shape by a force field.You simply could not make a "weapon as a character" this durable AFAIK. It's possible to stat "creature made out of energy" and assign it stuff reflecting that like Diffuse or Insubstantial to supplement 'Injury Divisor' or Damage Resistance. That stuff still needs to have HP though, so shouldn't the "force field" and "annihilating energy" within it actually have HP so they can be destroyed? If you use Precognitive Parry to block lasers w/ any kind of material object there's always some kind of limit to what it can stop, so giving unlimited capacity seems strange. - - - If we were to stat this in some way (ie there's a hypothetical laser strong enough to breach the forcefield and AE within it) can anyone think of guidelines on how we might stat it? I was thinking there might be some means of backwards-engineering and estimate by the power demands the weapons have (like a power Cell per 300 seconds) if we subtract out the ongoing damage. Like presumably since the damage can't break free, it has some kind of Force Field DR which protects against it's own burning damage, yet which does not provide Cover DR against that damage when striking others with it. - - - How this "force field works" (it allows the energy to burn things outside of the force field yet inhibits the energy from spreading?) is pretty confusing. Ultratech seems to have tweaked it too: critically successful parries (even unarmed ones?) no longer suffer from automatic Burning Damage anymore... This in theory means "I can bare-hand touch the tip of your 7-yard Force Whip and I'm just fine". This might be explained by somehow contacting the Force Field around the Annihilating Energy lightly enough to redirect it without actually touching it directly enough to move through it and make contact with that energy. This of course further complicates "designing the force sword via advantages" since while Powers did introduce "Destructive Parry" to emulate Force Swords, it doesn't have that "except on critical successes" drawback. Would that be like a -1% nuisance effect? Doesn't seem worth a full -5% since crit success defences are so rare. - - - Assuming a "weapon as character" reflecting a Force Sword has something like Burning Attack (Aura) to explain it's contact energy, with subsequent rulings of "once per second" should a Force Sword be limited in 'damage per second' that way as well? Quote:
I guess (to allow light-speed jedis) you could say it's ROF 300 (highest possible) so that it only ever comes up for people who can attack 301 times per second, but that seems a bit extreme, which is why I'm wondering if we could somehow estimate it to lower levels of the enhancement based on the weapon's power supply, cost and TL. - - - UT96 also has sort of an "absolute" outcome of death if you're 'inside a solid object' when the exophase field generator is used. Is that also what happens if someone uses Negate Advantage on Insubstantiality while someone's in the middle of a wall? It seems like maybe one could come up with some kind of intense damage number alternative to represent stuff like creatures who are Diffuse and might be prone to surviving that type of thing if re-materialized. Especially since you could have partial outcomes like "my torso is through the wall but my head isn't" where it might be analagous to having a giant lance driven through the torso to the vitals (which some Unkillable things might survive) |
|
12-27-2021, 09:15 PM | #2 |
Join Date: Dec 2007
|
Re: should there actually be "indestructible" weapons?
I would interpret that as "can not be broken by any reasonable source of damage applicable to such a small target". The hilts aren't unbreakable and if you break them the energy fields shut down.
|
12-27-2021, 09:40 PM | #3 |
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Snoopy's basement
|
Re: should there actually be "indestructible" weapons?
Power gadgets are unbreakable if you don't take Breakable.
|
12-28-2021, 02:50 PM | #4 |
Join Date: Sep 2004
|
Re: should there actually be "indestructible" weapons?
Nah, it means DR 26+ (GM assigned) or an explanation like "lots of spares" such as Corsair in Super Scum. Such devices should also have an assigned weight and HP.
Innate Attacks are basically indestructible without gadget limitations, though arguably a Power Parry overcomes the intensity. |
12-28-2021, 03:43 PM | #5 | |
Join Date: Jun 2013
|
Re: should there actually be "indestructible" weapons?
Quote:
I'd say without the Breakable Limitation, this means either a) the gadget somehow still functions even if destroyed, and probably repairs itself or b) there's an informal contract with the GM that the item won't be damaged, but the PC won't take advantage of this "indestructible" nature (say, by throwing it into a jet engine or wherever else a truly-indestructible item would wreck havoc).
__________________
GURPS Overhaul |
|
12-29-2021, 03:26 PM | #6 |
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Snoopy's basement
|
Re: should there actually be "indestructible" weapons?
|
12-30-2021, 07:07 AM | #7 | |||
Join Date: Sep 2004
|
Re: should there actually be "indestructible" weapons?
Quote:
Conversely, there's nothing supporting indestructible gadgets (though supers introduced full DB to allow a shield that you can't really use as cover). Furthermore, suggesting players can fiat they have indestructible accessories, especially for free (0 points), directly contradicts the rules in several places. Quote:
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. Quote:
|
|||
12-27-2021, 10:08 PM | #8 | |
Join Date: Aug 2018
|
Re: should there actually be "indestructible" weapons?
Quote:
That does seem strange, yeah. I always figure if you had 0% that the GM could opt to assign HP so long as he gave it at least DR 26. Taking 25 DR (breakable) has incentive of -5% discount but there doesn't seem to be incentive to take DR26+ if you could take indestructible. Especially if it's SM 0+ and could be used like indestructible cover. You should probably have to pay for something like "I own a SM+4 wall with 5000 DR" (as an Ally maybe?) separately from "and I get powers when I touch it". Or maybe something along the lines of "unless you assign HP and DR it lacks cover DR" so it's some kind of ethereal "magic helmet I wear which others can steal and wear themselves but which doesn't actually provide cover, it's indestructible because it's non-interactive aside from visuals" ? |
|
12-27-2021, 11:24 PM | #9 | ||
Join Date: Dec 2007
|
Re: should there actually be "indestructible" weapons?
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
12-28-2021, 12:16 PM | #10 | ||||||||||
Join Date: Aug 2018
|
Re: should there actually be "indestructible" weapons?
Quote:
Quote:
Also it seems strange to say "this has DR and HP to be destroyed but that DR and HP doesn't function as cover" which is why I figure you could buy the object as an ally, and the DR-based 'can be destroyed' limitation linked to it is a factor of "how hard it is to deprive me of my advantage" Quote:
"I have an SM 0 gadget the size of me, attacks can hit it, but it can't provide cover". How's that even work, treat attacks as having "ignores DR but only for purpose of cover DR to things behind it" ? Quote:
Anyway DR itself isn't necessarily a structure but it's applied to a structure w/ HP to make that HP harder to lessen. The most straightforward way to make DR immune to corrosive attack seems like "Bane: Corrosion" in which case it doesn't stop the damage so the damage can't reduce the DR because they don't interact. Sort of like if you have DR (crushing only, ablative) it doesn't subtract from burning damage, but burning doesn't ablate it. Unless I'm understanding wrong and ablative DR does get reduced by damage it doesn't lessen. We ever get any calls on that? Quote:
It could just as easily be "I collapse into just a mask" like that boss from Double Dragon 2. Quote:
The problem with IA (melee) is it could jsut as easily be "I carry a flaming sword" or "a flaming sword briefly appears whenever I do a swinging motion with my hand". There's no mechanical distinction for "i need to summon it first" AFAIK. I remember in some past threads I was trying to figure ideas on how to distinguish them, like if you don't have the sword out and need to parry in an emergency you would have to "power dodge" to get it up in time (via all-out defense: double) but if it was already up then you could jsut do a standard parry? Quote:
There should probably be some kind of rule like "if I have a 100d tight-beam burning laser it inevitably creates heat in a couple surrounding hexes of whatever it hits" thogh. Realistic attacks of high dice should probably have some kind of mandatory AE bought on 1% of it's damage or something like that. Not quite a full AE or even explosion/dissipating but something even lesser? Quote:
At some point though, you have to wonder when kinetic force transfer goes from the force-field around the energy blade into the actual handle. You do after all use kinetic force to guide the handle itself through the air, and if something stops your sword from moving around you might put more force on that handle to try and keep it moving. Quote:
I was sort of thinking the "fp equivalent to joules" that I think was in GURPS Magic under the tech/energy spells. Quote:
As Varyon mentioned the field is likely ablative DR w/ regeneration so it would only be a temporarily disruption. It does beg the quesiton of what happens to that energy inside during that moment the field is down though. That would also be a consideration for someone who selectively sabotaged a Force Sword to malfunction. |
||||||||||
Tags |
cannot be broken, cannot break, force sword, rapid fire, ultra-tech |
|
|