01-28-2022, 01:14 AM | #91 |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: should there actually be "indestructible" weapons?
A force blade doesn't have infinite DR or infinite HP (in fact, it has 0 hp). It's just not actually an object and doesn't get damaged by its DR being exceeded.
|
01-28-2022, 02:32 PM | #92 |
Custom User Title
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Indianapolis, IN
|
Re: should there actually be "indestructible" weapons?
Just what DR does the blade have?
__________________
Joseph Paul |
01-28-2022, 03:06 PM | #93 |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: should there actually be "indestructible" weapons?
Like most weapons, unspecified. Unbreakable for weapons really just means it doesn't use the rules for weapon breakage, which are based on weight.
|
01-28-2022, 04:25 PM | #94 |
Custom User Title
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Indianapolis, IN
|
Re: should there actually be "indestructible" weapons?
Is there any reason to believe that this behaviour is what the authors meant when they wrote the description of the Force Sword?
__________________
Joseph Paul |
01-28-2022, 06:57 PM | #95 |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: should there actually be "indestructible" weapons?
There's no reason to think the authors were thinking about much more than "adequate to parry personal other personal scale weapons". GURPS has never actually thought about weapons in terms of HP and DR.
|
01-29-2022, 05:15 AM | #96 | |
Custom User Title
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Indianapolis, IN
|
Re: should there actually be "indestructible" weapons?
Quote:
And what is wrong with being 'unbreakable'?
__________________
Joseph Paul |
|
01-29-2022, 05:48 AM | #97 |
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Re: should there actually be "indestructible" weapons?
Just for the record, the weapon breakage rules are far older than 4e HP formulas. I think they might go back before 3e.
__________________
Fred Brackin |
01-29-2022, 11:51 AM | #98 | |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: should there actually be "indestructible" weapons?
Quote:
The weapon breakage rules are legacy rules that I suspect date back to Man to Man, though I don't have the references to check, and they don't actually make any sense with the rest of the game system. Incidentally, prior to 4th edition all very fine weapons were 'unbreakable', and force blades are something that pretty much just got carried forward from prior editions. |
|
01-29-2022, 03:05 PM | #99 | |
Custom User Title
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Indianapolis, IN
|
Re: should there actually be "indestructible" weapons?
Quote:
So, not so much on the GURPS never used DR and HP for weapons. It has been there in 4E all along. Most people don't want to track it I suspect. Breaking a parrying weapon rules come into play when one weapon is significantly heavier than the other. Weapons that are within three times the weight of each other don't suffer any deleterious effects when used to parry an attack. The Force Sword is what is completely different here as it always inflicts damage on another weapon for which we would need DR and HP....
__________________
Joseph Paul |
|
01-30-2022, 12:47 PM | #100 | |||
Join Date: Aug 2018
|
Re: should there actually be "indestructible" weapons?
Quote:
I could see assigning fractional HP for low-mass objects like house flies and mosquitos but not 0. Quote:
I have no problem with this long as we don't confuse it w/ undestroyable. B376's "break" when compared to B401's "Breaking a Weapon" which cites B483's "Damage to Objects" which mentions "Homogenous objects, such as swords, bend or break, but might remain partially usable" on the same tier as merely a "severe malfunction" on the level of falling unconscious for living beings. B484's roll at -1xHP on the other hand is more like destruction: "a sword might shatter instead of merely bending or snapping" which is the "destroy" equivalent to 'death' for the living. I'm thinking B376 is more like B483's result than B484's result. Quote:
Does this mean batteries get slightly lighter when you use up their stored energy, I wonder? I figure on some low-perception per https://physics.stackexchange.com/qu...ged-discharged So the amount of mass the force sword's battery loses when drained divided by the time that mass keeps the sword up could probably give you some sort of "mass existing in the sword in a given second" maybe? This doesn't work well w/ continuous math but more in a discrete kind, like "mass expected which creates a sword for a 1-second period, then requires more mass from battery to create another 1-second period". |
|||
Tags |
cannot be broken, cannot break, force sword, rapid fire, ultra-tech |
|
|