Sandman XI Posted October 27, 2009 Posted October 27, 2009 I was thinking about a hard to lose device. It would be an implant on top of the skin, that if removed would be incredibly painful (like damage or maybe even Con drain ). How would I model this?
quotemyname Posted October 27, 2009 Posted October 27, 2009 Just a few ideas: Innate? Feedback? Disarmable? Side Effect? Actually, I just thought of something even better. Maybe the device is a Hard to lose device that actually has Enhanced Con in it. That way when you lose it, it automatically lowers your Con?
Dr Archeville Posted October 27, 2009 Posted October 27, 2009 I was thinking about a hard to lose device. It would be an implant on top of the skin, that if removed would be incredibly painful (like damage or maybe even Con drain ). How would I model this? Implants are Powers, not Devices.
angrydurf Posted October 27, 2009 Posted October 27, 2009 Sounds to me like thats outside the scope of hard to lose. hard to lose is a device that is worn and you need to be incapacitated to remove. This is more like an integrated power that someone will have to do signifigant damage to you to remove, more akin to removing fingers than gloves. Just buy it as a power with the cybernetics descriptor and take hte HP if someone is sick enough to rip it off of you when you are disabled in some fashion.
Sandman XI Posted October 27, 2009 Author Posted October 27, 2009 What I was trying for is something that you can put on and take off with a failsafe, but without the failsafe it's gonna hurt. Noting permanent like real implants. Implants is too harsh of a word. Is there a term for something that latches on to your skin?
angrydurf Posted October 27, 2009 Posted October 27, 2009 Sounds like a descriptor on a hard to lose device more than anything then. Maybe a complication.
Dr Archeville Posted October 27, 2009 Posted October 27, 2009 If it's doing damage to him when it's removed, it's more than just a descriptor of a Hard to Lose Device's ability to be removed when incapacitated.
Sandman XI Posted October 27, 2009 Author Posted October 27, 2009 If it's doing damage to him when it's removed, it's more than just a descriptor of a Hard to Lose Device's ability to be removed when incapacitated.I see. Powers removed that cause damage are real powers. Powers removed that cause no damage are devices?
angrydurf Posted October 27, 2009 Posted October 27, 2009 Well I'm thinking that since it can be removed with a "failsafe" that would be the normal means. Its stillnot clear what kind of damage effect he's talking about. On the one hand its easily removeable with a "failsafe" (and I would assume a disable device check could cover that) as its just "attatched" to the skin doesn't sound like real damage or con drain. If its just causeing pain and no mechanical penalties than a descriptor or complication. Basically this seems like its shoudl require a disable device check to remove if you don't want to do that you have to do major damage ala limb removal? I guess I'm just not getting the point. I don't see even villians ripping hunks of flesh off an incapacitated foe so if anything it would be to his benefit to have a device that most people won't be able/willing to remove without an aditional check.
Sandman XI Posted October 27, 2009 Author Posted October 27, 2009 I was thinking more of something that sticks pins into you, not intergrates with your body. Taking it off without the fail safe would cause bleeding. Taking it off with the fail safe would not. It's not "in his skin" as much as it's "on his skin"
angrydurf Posted October 27, 2009 Posted October 27, 2009 Well the real question is if removing it hurts or causes damage and if it causes damage how much? If it just hurts than a descriptor/complication covers it I would say. If it causes real damage then it might be some kind of homebrew drawback but I woudl say of exceedingly low frequency. Another thought though. Make it a normal power with a power loss drawback (when not equiped) that simulates that you can't use it if you don't have it on. And basically the removal aspect comes down to being arbitrated as needed in a given thread. An HP for them knowing the failsafe for instance. Basically it doesn't sound like incapacitating him is enough to remove it it sounds like whoever incapacitates him has to go through signifigantly more to take it away and at that point deffiantely couldn't use it.
Dr Archeville Posted October 27, 2009 Posted October 27, 2009 Sand, can you tell us what the device/implant/whatever actually is? That would be helpful. Ah-HA! One possible fix: Weakness (when [thing] is violently removed, lose 1 point of Con per [time interval] due to blood loss until receives surgery/healing). Though this isn't without problems: too short a time interval, you could die very soon; to long (or if you're always around healers), it's not much of a drawback.
quotemyname Posted October 27, 2009 Posted October 27, 2009 Not many PC's have healing powers. Only DS comes to mind.
Dr Archeville Posted October 27, 2009 Posted October 27, 2009 And Doc, and Psyche (well, she will). And Quark himself, potentially, with his Inventor.
angrydurf Posted October 27, 2009 Posted October 27, 2009 And a few folks have it on their HQs. Anything beyond the order of minutes is pretty much a non issue as a drawback. every minute or less is pretty debilitating.
Sandman XI Posted October 27, 2009 Author Posted October 27, 2009 You forgot Wesley The device would be a small machine with pins that attaches to the back of his neck. Seeing as he would have to apply it directly to where the spine and some nerves are, I'd say it'd be a great deal of pain if he didn't pull it out right.
Dr Archeville Posted October 27, 2009 Posted October 27, 2009 ... that sounds more like "could risk permanently paralyzing him if torn out improperly." And you've still not told us what it is. What are you trying to make? Doc Ock's not-permanently-fused-to-spine tentacle harness?
angrydurf Posted October 27, 2009 Posted October 27, 2009 I still don't see it as worth the full device flaw personally. Hard to lose means that if you are incapacitated they can easily remove it. This sounds like they need to have the failsafe or to do gross damage to you. Given that in general we kinda frown of that kind of overkill stuff it seems that in the majority of cases this is better than a standard hard to lose device. If you really are atatched to it being removeable I suggest a power loss drawback for when its not attached and the weakness like Doc suggested for if its forcibly removed.
Sandman XI Posted October 27, 2009 Author Posted October 27, 2009 And you've still not told us what it is. What are you trying to make? Doc Ock's not-permanently-fused-to-spine tentacle harness?Nothing in particular. Was looking for a motif for subtle hard to lose devices. That was the first idea i came up with.
quotemyname Posted October 27, 2009 Posted October 27, 2009 Windows Alert: This device was not removed properly. Please eject external devices before removal to ensure they do not damage your system. [OK]
Recommended Posts