Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-05-2022, 11:00 AM   #41
David Johnston2
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Default Re: should there actually be "indestructible" weapons?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred Brackin View Post
In 4e you make this Signature Gear.
Only applies to things that have a cash value.
David Johnston2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2022, 11:29 AM   #42
Fred Brackin
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Default Re: should there actually be "indestructible" weapons?

Quote:
Originally Posted by naloth View Post
... and how are you pricing a sword that gives you super powers with Signature Gear?
If he has super powers with some sort of Limitation of "Only while holding sword" then the sword doesn't have to be anything special. If it's that sword that rematerilizes in his hand after 1 second when stolen or destroyed then that's not even a Nusissance Effect on his Powers and his character sheet is where this "sword" shows up.
__________________
Fred Brackin
Fred Brackin is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2022, 02:10 PM   #43
naloth
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Default Re: should there actually be "indestructible" weapons?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred Brackin View Post
If he has super powers with some sort of Limitation of "Only while holding sword" then the sword doesn't have to be anything special.
While you could build a character that empowers swords, that's clearly neither the desire nor the case here. Suggesting to build it like that would be like building ron Man's armor to be bought off the rack at walmart or that so that any handbag can sprout goblin bombs for the Green Goblin.

Quote:
If it's that sword that rematerilizes in his hand after 1 second when stolen or destroyed then that's not even a Nusissance Effect on his Powers and his character sheet is where this "sword" shows up.
Actually the "one second" was to draw a spare which would in fact take up weight based on how may he carried and each of those would be subject to potential loss either through destruction or detention. If you don't think that's worth anything, that's ok. I see it as a serious drawback compared to someone with inborn powers that can't be taken away.
naloth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2022, 03:02 PM   #44
David Johnston2
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Default Re: should there actually be "indestructible" weapons?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred Brackin View Post
If he has super powers with some sort of Limitation of "Only while holding sword" then the sword doesn't have to be anything special. If it's that sword that rematerilizes in his hand after 1 second when stolen or destroyed then that's not even a Nusissance Effect on his Powers and his character sheet is where this "sword" shows up.
Neither of those things apply. He just has an unlimited number of blaster swords and always has a spare nearby. (Mind you if he was built using modern rules his blast would have something like a -15% power source modifier.)
David Johnston2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2022, 06:19 AM   #45
whswhs
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Default Re: should there actually be "indestructible" weapons?

Quote:
Originally Posted by naloth View Post
Actually the "one second" was to draw a spare which would in fact take up weight based on how may he carried and each of those would be subject to potential loss either through destruction or detention. If you don't think that's worth anything, that's ok. I see it as a serious drawback compared to someone with inborn powers that can't be taken away.
That seems akin to Limited Use with Fast Reload. But since the weapon clearly has more than 10 uses a day, it's worth -0% as a limitation, divided by two for FR—which of course comes to -0%. That is, it's not a significant limitation.

At most, you might call it a Nuisance Effect for -5%.
__________________
Bill Stoddard

I don't think we're in Oz any more.
whswhs is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2022, 09:17 AM   #46
naloth
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Default Re: should there actually be "indestructible" weapons?

Quote:
Originally Posted by whswhs View Post
That seems akin to Limited Use with Fast Reload. But since the weapon clearly has more than 10 uses a day, it's worth -0% as a limitation, divided by two for FR—which of course comes to -0%. That is, it's not a significant limitation.

At most, you might call it a Nuisance Effect for -5%.
You're implying that any limitation that doesn't come up at least 10 times a day should be worth 0%, which isn't how limitations are priced.

Limited Use only restricts uses per duration. If you also have limitations that you have to carry a fair amount of weight as ammo (nuisance), that must be replenished from specific stashes (nuisance), and can either be taken away or otherwise kept from you (stolen), then your ability is considerably more limited than just waiting until the duration refreshes.

Consider the situations:
1) Cleric gets to use healing 1/day. His power refreshes each morning. Limited Use 1/day

2) Cleric gets to use healing, but then must pray (reload) his charge. Limited Use 1/slow reload.

3) Cleric gets to use healing, but must have water to wash the wounds with. Acc - Requires 1 pint water / HP.

4) Cleric has the ability to make rods that can cast healing. They tend to get damaged or taken so he makes a few at a time when doing the necessary rituals so he can have a spare handy. Gadget with limitations.


#1 and #2 can use the ability even if taken captive and deprived of all equipment. There are no external dependencies. Nothing extra needs be carried. No places needed to be visited to regain the ability, since it can't be taken away by any means.

#3 and #4 both need something, but water is fairly easy to come by. It's more serious to rely on a super powered item that can be taken or destroyed, even if you have access to a replacement.

#4 qualifies as a gadget in any world where you can't buy or normally make healing rods. It's equipment that can be taken from the character and needs to be replaced. The rules on spares are somewhat lacking, but otherwise it's just normal gadget rules.
naloth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2022, 10:14 AM   #47
Varyon
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Default Re: should there actually be "indestructible" weapons?

Quote:
Originally Posted by naloth View Post
You're implying that any limitation that doesn't come up at least 10 times a day should be worth 0%, which isn't how limitations are priced.
It is, however, exactly how Limited Use is priced. Honestly, Limited Use, 10/day, Fast Reload would probably be more restrictive than how Corsair's power has been described in this thread... but the Limited Use/Takes Recharge/Costs FP/Maximum Duration family of Limitations have some weird prices between them (IIRC, being able to use something for up to a minute, then having to wait 5 minutes before it can be used again, is more of a Limitation than only being able to use it for 2 minutes in an entire day - that is, Maximum Duration, 1 minutes, is worth more than Limited Use, 2/day).

Quote:
Originally Posted by naloth View Post
1) Cleric gets to use healing 1/day. His power refreshes each morning. Limited Use 1/day
Sounds about right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by naloth View Post
2) Cleric gets to use healing, but then must pray (reload) his charge. Limited Use 1/slow reload.
Preparation Required is probably more appropriate here. Slow Reload requires that the character purchase and carry ammunition (the cost and weight of which is set by the GM). If the Cleric has to consume a holy wafer, burn a special (short) candle, or similar during his prayer, Slow Reload should work fine. Note that with Slow Reload the character may not be able to be deprived of the power's current charge (but may well be able to be - the above examples for the Cleric can't be deprived, but if you're talking about putting bullets in an integral weapon or similar, the bullets can probably be removed without damaging the character), while with Preparation Required he/she certainly cannot be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by naloth View Post
#4 qualifies as a gadget in any world where you can't buy or normally make healing rods. It's equipment that can be taken from the character and needs to be replaced. The rules on spares are somewhat lacking, but otherwise it's just normal gadget rules.
Now that I think further on it, having a full spare gadget may require you to buy the ability again, at 1/5th cost. I believe Chinese Elemental Powers introduced the idea of having a "backup" of your ability at 1/5th cost, and that's exactly what this is. So, if you have an ability with Gadget, you need to buy it again at 1/5th cost for each spare you can carry at a time. If you don't, you're required to only have one on you at a time, although you could certainly carry around spare parts in case you need to do repairs in the field. If you do, you can have up to that many. This seems the most fair way to handle things - and if you reach the point where you've paid enough for the extra gadgets to negate the Limitations, the GM should change things to something like a -5% Nuisance Effect and allow you to carry as many of the things as you want at a time.

Under the above proposition, backups that you keep at your base may be available at a further reduced cost - perhaps half, so those are at net 1/10th price. I'd let you mix and match freely - a character could pay 2/5ths again the price of the Gadget, and then can carry two backups with him, keep four backups back at base, or carry one backup with him and keep two more back at base... and can switch freely when at base (if this requires you to lose a backup, you can have it suffer an unfortunate accident, have the character discover it's actually faulty and won't work, or whatever).
__________________
GURPS Overhaul
Varyon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2022, 10:40 AM   #48
naloth
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Default Re: should there actually be "indestructible" weapons?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Varyon View Post
It is, however, exactly how Limited Use is priced. Honestly, Limited Use, 10/day, Fast Reload would probably be more restrictive than how Corsair's power has been described in this thread... but the Limited Use/Takes Recharge/Costs FP/Maximum Duration family of Limitations have some weird prices between them (IIRC, being able to use something for up to a minute, then having to wait 5 minutes before it can be used again, is more of a Limitation than only being able to use it for 2 minutes in an entire day - that is, Maximum Duration, 1 minutes, is worth more than Limited Use, 2/day).
Weirdness aside (of which, yes I agree there are values I consider more appropriate than others), the point was that Limited Use comes up a lot more often than Cannot Be Stolen, but Cannot Be Stolen tends to be much more severe as it can deny you the use of your power for an indefinite period of time. Suggesting Cannot be Stolen is worthless or at most only a -5% nuisance because it doesn't come up daily severely misrepresents how much of a limitation it can be.


Quote:
Preparation Required is probably more appropriate here.
If you only get to use an ability once per use, sure. If you can use it multiple times, Limited Use tends to fit better. The "GM determines weight can cost" is deliberately vague. It could be assigned as nothing or it could be grounds for additional limitations if the ammo it heavy, hard to come by, or expensive.

Quote:
Under the above proposition, backups that you keep at your base may be available at a further reduced cost - perhaps half, so those are at net 1/10th price. I'd let you mix and match freely - a character could pay 2/5ths again the price of the Gadget, and then can carry two backups with him, keep four backups back at base, or carry one backup with him and keep two more back at base... and can switch freely when at base (if this requires you to lose a backup, you can have it suffer an unfortunate accident, have the character discover it's actually faulty and won't work, or whatever).
That sounds reasonable. Besides, I ran a few quick numbers and that's very similar to the cost I ran into just decreasing the value of Breakable and Cannot be Stolen.
naloth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2022, 10:55 AM   #49
Varyon
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Default Re: should there actually be "indestructible" weapons?

Quote:
Originally Posted by naloth View Post
Suggesting Cannot be Stolen is worthless or at most only a -5% nuisance because it doesn't come up daily severely misrepresents how much of a limitation it can be.
Can be Stolen isn't much of a Limitation if the item being stolen means "I pull out one of the dozen spares I have on hand," which was essentially the situation being discussed here. Only having one spare on hand, of course, would change things markedly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by naloth View Post
If you only get to use an ability once per use, sure. If you can use it multiple times, Limited Use tends to fit better. The "GM determines weight can cost" is deliberately vague. It could be assigned as nothing or it could be grounds for additional limitations if the ammo it heavy, hard to come by, or expensive.
Yeah, it would be nice to have the various "I can only use this so often" Limitations as a coherent system, where you could get multiple uses out of each FP spent, long ritual conducted (Preparation Required), etc.
__________________
GURPS Overhaul
Varyon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2022, 11:14 AM   #50
naloth
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Default Re: should there actually be "indestructible" weapons?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Varyon View Post
Can be Stolen isn't much of a Limitation if the item being stolen means "I pull out one of the dozen spares I have on hand," which was essentially the situation being discussed here. Only having one spare on hand, of course, would change things markedly.
I agree it's worth less since you can mitigate a combat loss if necessary. In my experience, though, being unable to take gear places or having it removed outside of combat (detention) occurs far, far more often than having it stolen during combat.

Quote:
Yeah, it would be nice to have the various "I can only use this so often" Limitations as a coherent system, where you could get multiple uses out of each FP spent, long ritual conducted (Preparation Required), etc.
Agreed. I wouldn't mind seeing a more generic, unified approach to how those values were assigned.
naloth is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
cannot be broken, cannot break, force sword, rapid fire, ultra-tech

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:48 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.