01-06-2022, 12:14 PM | #51 | |
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Re: should there actually be "indestructible" weapons?
Quote:
I think how often PCs are likely to be subject to being coerced into surrendering their equipment is probably even more campaign-dependent than how often they're likely to have enemies try to disarm, pickpocket, or snatch-and-run their equipment.
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident. |
|
01-06-2022, 01:29 PM | #52 | |||
Join Date: Aug 2018
|
Re: should there actually be "indestructible" weapons?
Quote:
Quote:
I can't remember any book examples in either direction though. Quote:
But I realized that creates a problem w/ how Can Be Stolen works. No matter which form of CBS the issue here is it is meant to be able to let others use your advantage. Even if you take a half-discount "gadget will not immediately work for the thief" version, that still implies that EVENTUALLY (non-immediately) the thief will be able to use that gadget. Full-value CBS means they can use it right away. Since "Normally, you can replace a broken or stolen gadget" this basically means (if you keep handing them off to passing thieves as fast as you can replace them) you're creating a situation where you can arm the world w/ the advantage linked to your gadget. This makes gadget-Advantages somewhat similar to Infectious Attack: it's an advantage by which you are able to recreate your advantage in a theoretically unlimited number of people, though not necessarily to your benefit since it gives you no control over them (like w/ Dominance) so they might use the advantage against you. Since this is possibly something that could break a game world (then again, so is Infectious Attack) the GM might want some controls over it, maybe create some kind of "diminishing returns" effect so it eventually cancels out. Maybe something along the lines of forcing anyone who gets your advantage to pay the character point cost of the advantage (whether it be a vampire racial template, or your Staff of Healing) like by taking CP debt, certain disadvantages, etc. |
|||
01-06-2022, 01:53 PM | #53 | ||
Join Date: Sep 2004
|
Re: should there actually be "indestructible" weapons?
Quote:
Quote:
Besides, I wouldn't call it coercion. The king's guards may ask you to check your obviously powerful items. At that point you can turn them over, turn around, or try to be clever and shame them into allowing an old man a walking stick. In other circumstances, it's often the PCs not taking a risk. Don't take your obviously powerful item to a seedy bar. |
||
01-06-2022, 02:20 PM | #54 | |||
Join Date: Sep 2004
|
Re: should there actually be "indestructible" weapons?
Quote:
Ghostly Shooter (IA: Fatigue; Cosmic: No DR; RoF 3; Limit 5/day) Now let's say that he can reload instead of waiting until rising again. The limitation value drops to -5%, but it now takes 2-3 seconds to reload per shot. - Is much better than Costs Fatigue? Using fatigue would likely give you more shots but a longer recovery time. Either way you still let lots of shots for a -5% limitation. - Is it better than Takes Extra Time? You'd have to dedicate 2 seconds per use, effectively aiming then firing, but you could do it an unlimited number of times. - Is better than Takes Recharge? Again, you can shoot all day just waiting 5 seconds between? - Is it better than unreliable? That sort of simulates running out and needing to reload. - Is it better than fickle? See unreliable. Not that all of these are worth around the same value without the nuisance of having to actually have ammunition that can be taken away from you on your person. Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
01-06-2022, 03:02 PM | #55 | |
Join Date: Aug 2018
|
Re: should there actually be "indestructible" weapons?
Quote:
Fickle/Unreliable/requires (attribute) roll all sort of have a "Costs Fatigue" element whenever they do fail (just less frequently, in exchange for occasional malfunctions) A major diff of course w/ Requires Reload is you know when your shots will work in key situations, whereas you don't know when you'll fail those activation rolls. So you can be tactical about your ammo usage and when you reload your gun, in ways you can't w/ those limitations. Would be interesting if we had some kind of sliding scale between the half-discount (long-time difficulty use of your gadget) vs full-value discount (short-type easy use of your gadget) and examples of those concepts being applied. |
|
01-06-2022, 10:21 PM | #56 |
On Notice
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Sumter, SC
|
Re: should there actually be "indestructible" weapons?
For an item that provides powers this is the wrong tactic. Use Gadget rules instead. as it is far easier.
__________________
Help make a digital reference for GURPS by coming to the GURPS wiki and provide some information and links (such as to various Fanmade 4e Bestiaries) . Please, provide more then just a title and a page number. |
01-07-2022, 05:43 AM | #57 |
Join Date: May 2021
Location: Eastern Kentucky
|
Re: should there actually be "indestructible" weapons?
NOTE: This post is a response to the original post. I have not read every response.
Several things here. 1. It is a powered entity that even if something could pass through it would reappear afterwards. 2. Anything strong enough to break through a powered blade would be far past the power needed to just pull the person arms out of their sockets or push the blade back upon the person. So I imagine they don't imagine a need to deal with a situation where the arms are strong enough to hold a blade steady to the point the blade "breaks". Breaking of course would be just allowing the attack through. The blade would immediately reform if an energy blade. Even imagining strong enough arms how does the person stay on their feet? What stops them and their blade from being thrown across the room? The sort of power necessary to break such a blade might send a car or more flying through the air. |
01-07-2022, 09:40 AM | #58 | ||
Join Date: Jun 2013
|
Re: should there actually be "indestructible" weapons?
Quote:
Note in some cases, particularly if the GM is being realistic about society, Can Be Policed has advantageous aspects to it. The wizard who can turn you to goo with a thought, and who cannot be disarmed of this, doesn't get to meet the king, while his compatriot who can have his powers disabled by wearing leaden shackles or having his staff taken from him, does. Places that require you to check your weapons at the door may not allow an android with a built-in arm cannon to enter at all, but an android carrying a comparable rifle can simply drop it off and enter. And so forth. In a setting where this is the case, arguably a character who has a problematic power that lacks some form of Can Be Policed should have a Social Stigma of some flavor (or a Secret that will become said Social Stigma if revealed), to represent that the character is always considered to be armed (or otherwise dangerous, such as a person with mind reading powers). Quote:
In other words:Except more "they have the option of spending points" than "they are forced to." Not spending the points can mean they end up losing the relevant trait(s), as above. Forcing them to spend the points for Infectious Attack may arguably be an Enhancement for that trait, but it depends on the particulars.
__________________
GURPS Overhaul |
||
01-07-2022, 10:20 AM | #59 | |
Join Date: Aug 2018
|
Re: should there actually be "indestructible" weapons?
Quote:
I'd say something like "Enemy: inventor of the gadget who didn't give permission for thief to take it" but I don't know if we're supposed to give NPCs social traits like ally/enemy |
|
01-07-2022, 10:52 AM | #60 | |
Join Date: Jun 2013
|
Re: should there actually be "indestructible" weapons?
Quote:
As for NPC's, if you're building them with points (as some GM's do), then in general you should build them just like PC's, with Enemy/Ally/etc (although letting them take a few characters they're almost always around as Allies for free, just as PC's don't have to take each other as Allies, may be appropriate). An exception would be for NPC's who are themselves Allies or Enemies of the PC's. For an Ally, either their Allies and Enemies matter when the character is available, in which case the PC should just take them as Allies and Enemies as well, or they don't, in which case it's not right for their value to influence how much the Ally is worth to the PC. For an Enemy, either their Allies matter when the character shows up to make problems, in which case the PC should just take them as an Enemy as well (or take the whole group as an Enemy Group), or they don't, in which case it's not right for their value to influence how much the Enemy is worth to the PC. The Enemy of an Enemy is more complicated. If this character is on good terms with the PC ("The enemy of my enemy is my friend"), they should be taken as an Ally (but with lower Frequency than the Enemy, if they don't always show up when the Enemy does). If they are also hostile to the PC (Maxim 29: "The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy. No more. No less."), I'd be inclined to make them an Enemy to both the PC and the NPC Enemy. If they don't matter when the Enemy shows up, of course, no adjustment is appropriate.
__________________
GURPS Overhaul |
|
Tags |
cannot be broken, cannot break, force sword, rapid fire, ultra-tech |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|