01-04-2022, 11:39 AM | #31 | |
Join Date: Aug 2018
|
Re: should there actually be "indestructible" weapons?
Quote:
I just forget where I saw the staff thing mentioned, maybe the forum? On same page "requires (item)" is subset w/ same value and has "requires bow" in example. Staves are probably a bit easier to find/buy (and maintain) than bows though, so I could see making it slightly rarer, like "requires an oak staff" so staves made of other types of wood wouldn't work. Last edited by Plane; 01-04-2022 at 11:42 AM. |
|
01-04-2022, 02:33 PM | #32 | |
Join Date: Sep 2004
|
Re: should there actually be "indestructible" weapons?
Quote:
This is more like "willing" your gadget back into existence with a Ready action if you somehow lose it (fumble, stolen, destroyed). |
|
01-04-2022, 08:19 PM | #33 |
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Re: should there actually be "indestructible" weapons?
Then your "gadget" isn't a gadget. It's just a Power that happens to look like a gadget (which is valid but gives you no cp discount).
__________________
Fred Brackin |
01-04-2022, 08:35 PM | #34 |
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lawrence, KS
|
Re: should there actually be "indestructible" weapons?
Yes. That's exactly right.
__________________
Bill Stoddard I don't think we're in Oz any more. |
01-04-2022, 09:06 PM | #35 | |
Join Date: Sep 2004
|
Re: should there actually be "indestructible" weapons?
Quote:
In this case, we were discussing other hypothetical gadget limitations. Specifically, this was to cover the situation where you have a supply of identical gadgets. If they are small you can carry multiples (hence just needing to ready a new one if it's lost) or easily replace them with access to one of your stashes. You don't need to worry about repair time, recovery, or about them being used by others. You can run out of what you're carrying and be prevented from replenishing your stash of super equipment. The canonical example of such as character was the Super Scum character Corsair, who in fact has gadgets without limitations that are work a point break. |
|
01-04-2022, 09:17 PM | #36 |
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Re: should there actually be "indestructible" weapons?
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 It may even have been superseded in 3e by a later edition of Supers.
__________________
Fred Brackin |
01-05-2022, 12:09 AM | #37 | |
Join Date: Dec 2007
|
Re: should there actually be "indestructible" weapons?
Quote:
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. |
|
01-05-2022, 07:09 AM | #38 | |
Join Date: Sep 2004
|
Re: should there actually be "indestructible" weapons?
Quote:
Breakable implies that it takes time and materials to replace. Corsair always has a few spares stashed away, so he can just grab another. Cannot Be Stolen could be used, but typically it requires a significant effort or recover or replace. Corsair usually carries one spare, and can grab another from one of his stash locations. You could arguably say the Green Goblin's cache of weaponry is like this as well. Goblin gliders tend to get trashed and replaced, and if you steal his bag 'o bombs he can't throw pumpkin bombs. Regardless, the Green Goblin (and later Hobgobin) can replenish at home without repair downtime. *I'd prefer to go 1/4 the usual value rather so the difficulty of breaking or stealing the items is taken into account. Assigning a flat -10% makes it worth potentially more than either of those limitations might normally be worth, say for an example like Iron Man's armors. At the very least the power modifier would need to incorporate more drawbacks to make it sensible. |
|
01-05-2022, 07:48 AM | #39 |
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Re: should there actually be "indestructible" weapons?
In 4e you make this Signature Gear.
__________________
Fred Brackin |
01-05-2022, 08:02 AM | #40 |
Join Date: Sep 2004
|
Re: should there actually be "indestructible" weapons?
|
Tags |
cannot be broken, cannot break, force sword, rapid fire, ultra-tech |
|
|