Swordmage build

[ericthered]

Originally Posted by Not another shrubbery

😕 I've always included "gadget" in write-ups before putting any of the special mods on the affected advantage. Maybe I'm the only one?

You and your ilk are quite kind to GM's. Doing so really helps with looking things up.

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by ericthered

I was just going to say this. Also note that if you can't replace a gadget, you get a -25% modifier for unique, which in my opinion is the most dangerous modifier to put on a gadget.

If combined with Can Be Stolen but NOT Breakable, it amounts to "can be compelled to recover gadget without access to powers."

It can get particularly interesting when using the Limitated Enhancements rule.

Burning Attack (Uncontrollable, Not Uncontrollable (Gadget, Can Be Stolen, Unique))

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Not another shrubbery

😕 I've always included "gadget" in write-ups before putting any of the special mods on the affected advantage. Maybe I'm the only one?

That's also my inclination*. I'd need to check my books to see how these things tend to be officially written up, but I do know on the forums some posters will simply mark these as Breakable and Can Be Stolen, with no mention of Gadget to be found.

*Honestly, I'm more inclined to just lump them (and possibly some other Limitations) into a single Limitation that holds the name of the Gadget, then make a note later as to what Limitations are involved in that. This often looks cleaner on the write-up, but is more useful if the Gadget is used for multiple abilities than if it's used for just one (as for a ring that grants you Flight, DR (Force Field), and a burning Innate Attack, but not so much for a ring that provides only one of those).

Originally Posted by RyanW

If combined with Can Be Stolen but NOT Breakable, it amounts to "can be compelled to recover gadget without access to powers."

It can get particularly interesting when using the Limitated Enhancements rule.

Burning Attack (Uncontrollable, Not Uncontrollable (Gadget, Can Be Stolen, Unique))

Yeah, that's just begging to be used as a plot device.

[Emerald Cat]

The Requires(item) limitation from GURPS Power-Ups 8: Limitations would be a good way to represent this.

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by Varyon

Yeah, that's just begging to be used as a plot device.

That's sort of the point. I don't think I would even allow Breakable and Unique on a gadget. It's basically either free points or a forced retirement for the character.

I'd no more allow it than a 500 point super with a single 2500 point ability with Single Use (x1/5).

[dcarson]

I'd allow it for a minor gadget. If the total cost is 10 points if it happens to go away after enough sessions that they've earned 20 points it hurts but doesn't ruin the character. No worse than a character losing a eye or such. If they want to make a new character fine if they want to continue also fine.

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by dcarson

I'd allow it for a minor gadget. If the total cost is 10 points if it happens to go away after enough sessions that they've earned 20 points it hurts but doesn't ruin the character. No worse than a character losing a eye or such. If they want to make a new character fine if they want to continue also fine.

I was think more Green Lantern, where losing the gadget means losing a big chunk of the character's capabilities, but I could agree with what you're saying given that sort of situation. Though we are getting way off the original topic, at this point.

[Joe]

Originally Posted by Emerald Cat

The Requires(item) limitation from GURPS Power-Ups 8: Limitations would be a good way to represent this.

This is a great call!

Just to show what a great call it is, here's the relevant text from Power Ups 8: Limitations (p5):

Requires (item): This variant of “Requires material component”
(above) suits abilities that seem like they should use
gadget limitations (pp. B116-117) but actually work with any
piece of appropriate mundane equipment. For example, a
super-archer with a special, custom bow would buy his Innate
Attack with gadget limitations. However, one who can pick up
any bow and make unrealistic shots would use Accessibility,
Requires bow; if his bow is stolen or damaged, he can just run
into a sporting goods shop and grab another. -10%.

This solution also has the huge benefit of letting Anders get around his discomfort with the Gadget limitation :)

I would give it "Accessibility, Requires Sword" for -10%, and then add "Accessibility, Sword must be dedicated via 8hr ritual" for, say, -5% (Arguably -10% if the GM is really keen to hose you in that 8hr period while you're dedicating a new sword...)

[Joe]

Just to add one more thought:

Another argument for increasing "Accessibility: Sword must be dedicated in 8hr ritual" to -10% might be that the ritual itself requires, not just time and money, but also a modest point investment. I'm not sure if anyone would buy that, but it's a thought.

[Phantasm]

Seems like a good case of Magic-as-Powers with the -20% power modifier (Requires Material Components, -10%; Magical, -10%) suggested earlier, which as indicated makes a lot of the math easy when creating the spells.

Keep It S---ly Simple, the KISS principle. :)


My first impulse was Imbuements, actually, but I'm not sure how Anders would react to that suggestion. Throwing it out there as a possibility, tho.




(I can't think of an adverb that starts with an "s" which isn't insulting, though.)