Wise Turtle Publishing

Well, taking someone’s gear is easier said than done. People don’t just run up to you and take your rocket-powered backpack off your person. Losing it has to be the result of bad rolls in combat or some actual key point of the story. In other words, it doesn’t happen often enough to be worth double points.

But if you disagree, I don’t think it’s that out of line to allow purchase of Focus with Gear, if you absolutely want some point kickback.

You can argue that losing a vehicle or mecha doesn't happen enough to be worth double points either though. Some damage, yes, but complete removal? No. In fact, it works even better than armour, because the character can't get harmed until the Vehicle is brought to 0 Health.

Gear is my big bug bear in this game. I love it, but I cannot reconcile how it's useful in anyway.

Chris Brady wrote:You can argue that losing a vehicle or mecha doesn't happen enough to be worth double points either though. Some damage, yes, but complete removal? No. In fact, it works even better than armour, because the character can't get harmed until the Vehicle is brought to 0 Health.

Gear is my big bug bear in this game. I love it, but I cannot reconcile how it's useful in anyway.

In all fairness, a Vehicle/Mecha can be destroyed. That's why they have Health. Depending on how powerful the attacker is, they can even be destroyed in just a single turn. Gear however doesn't have Health. It generally won't be destroyed unless the GM thinks it would be appropriate to the narrative. So whereas a character's Vehicle might be blown away to smithereens in a single massive explosion, their powered armor suit (Gear) would probably still be fine and intact.

I understand your frustration, but I'm actually the opposite. I prefer Gear as the default way to represent weapons and items of equipment. It seems counter-intuitive to me to think of having weapons or equipment represented as a Weakness (Focus) or a Flaw (Weapon or Requirement) since having such things is usually advantageous to the character compared to someone who doesn't have any equipment. I mean, I see the idea behind it: Batman or Iron Man are at a disadvantage compared to superheroes that have innate powers. However, compared to ordinary people, they are at a great advantage for having access to technology that most normal people do not.

Also, I think another way to think of Gear is not in terms of traditional roleplaying games, but in terms of anime, manga, and video games, and even Western cartoons and comics as well. Getting disarmed usually doesn't happen that often, unless it is a particularly dramatic scene. Take any anime where most of the characters fight with swords (such as Rurouni Kenshin). You don't see every fight as being repeated attempts to disarm each other. Because that would be lame and boring. How about Sailor Moon? Did the Villain-of-the-Week ever try to yank that tiara off of her head before she could chuck it at them back in the early seasons when she still used that weapon? Nope. Or how about in Power Rangers, when the Power Rangers were armed with swords, blasters, bows and arrows, etc. while fighting monsters who were unarmed? Those bad guys never thought to try to take their weapons and use them against them, did they? Heck, even in American cartoons taking a character's signature weapon didn't happen that often. Think of He-Man and Thundercats, in which both shows the main character's primary powers and abilities came from a special sword. Sure, it would have been more practical if in every episode the bad guys attempted to take said sword. But that actually rarely, if ever, happened. For all purposes even though their swords could be lost, dropped, stolen, etc. it almost never happened unless the plot of the episode specifically called for it. Then there are superheroes whose entire schtick is reliance on gadgets, weapons, or suits. And sure, those items might sometimes get taken away, but those heroes would quickly become lame if in every single fight someone took their signature item away.

So, personally, I understand why Gear isn't given any great discount. In most cases, signature weapons and equipment will usually be available to the character, though they have the potential to not be sometimes. Also, one advantage of Gear (or any other way of making equipment) is it can be passed on to another ally character. Even if your character runs out of Health and Endurance and is out of the fight, another ally character might be able to pick up your sword and use it to help them.

If you're completely afraid of your Gear being taken away and used by bad guys, with the GM's permission you might give it a Unique Ability or Unique Perk that the item can only be used by someone who knows the password, by someone of the right bloodline, by someone who is deemed worthy by the item, by someone who has the key, etc. with the level of the Ability representing the penalty that another person who doesn't have the key or know the password etc. to be able to override the security system to use the item anyway.

Also, I've found that OVA is a game that's based on what's most appropriate for the character rather than what's most mechanically beneficial for the character. In another thread, I mentioned that mechanically speaking Agile and Quick are more useful than Combat Expert and Evasive. But even so, a character concept might be more appropriate for Combat Expert and Evasive. Similarly with equipment, it would be more mechanically advantageous to just have all of your Abilities be innate rather than having them as some kind of external equipment that can be removed, dropped, left behind, taken, etc. But if using equipment rather than having special powers or abilities is what suits the character, then that's what suits them.

Also, to add to the above, of course it will vary on the opinion of each GM. But my personal stance on Gear as it is is that since it costs the same as taking an Ability innately, the fact that it is a separate item is more flavor than a weakness to me. That is to say, if one player chooses to take the the Attack Ability to represent laser vision, while another takes the Gear Ability with the Attack Ability to represent a laser gun, both players are spending the same amount of points and thus the I wouldn't go out of my way to make the player who has the Attack Ability as Gear be at a huge disadvantage. Sure, sometimes they might drop the laser gun if they fail a roll badly, or might have to leave it behind when getting on an airplane, but otherwise I'd just assume in most cases they have access to it unless said otherwise.

However, if a player gets twice as many points for Gear as the person who takes the same Ability innately, then in my eyes those bonus points need to be balanced by having some setbacks compared to someone who took the Ability innately. So for example, if one player with laser vision spends two Ability points to have Attack +2, and another spends two Ability points for Gear +2 which gives them Attack +4 for their laser gun, I'd feel more obligated to make sure that to balance off the Gear-user getting extra points they actually lose use of that gun on a regular basis. Which is annoying both for me as a GM to have to remember to try to have the player drop the gun or have NPCs attempt to disarm them of it. And it's annoying for the player because I find people who put a lot of their concept into having weapons and/or equipment tend to hate when they find themselves without said weapons and/or equipment on a regular basis.

But as Clay mentioned already however, Gear isn't always going to necessarily be something that's easily dropped or taken away such as a handheld weapon, or a worn accessory like a necklace. If the Gear represents a powered armor suit, rocket boots, laser vision contact lenses, or something else like that it's not really going to be something that the character is going to just drop or would be easy for someone else to "yoink" in the midst of combat as a single roll.

The Reddest Mage wrote:In all fairness, a Vehicle/Mecha can be destroyed.

So can gear, and unlike Vehicles, there's a better chance it'll get murdered in one attack. And worse, vehicles are harder to take away from the character than a sword, or even a suit of armour. Most vehicles have security features, like door locks.

And gear that cannot be taken away is just an Attack.

Chris Brady wrote:

The Reddest Mage wrote:In all fairness, a Vehicle/Mecha can be destroyed.

So can gear, and unlike Vehicles, there's a better chance it'll get murdered in one attack. And worse, vehicles are harder to take away from the character than a sword, or even a suit of armour. Most vehicles have security features, like door locks.

And gear that cannot be taken away is just an Attack.

Like I mentioned above, Vehicles have Health and Endurance, so they can be objectively destroyed simply by running out of Health, effectively putting them out of commission until the owner can get get a chance to repair it. Gear does not have Health and Endurance. Destroying it is not a matter of just hitting it enough times until it breaks. It's a narrative matter that only happens if and when the GM subjectively thinks it would be appropriate for it to be broken. And most likely, breaking Gear is not something that any old mook extra is going to do. More likely it's something that happens at a climatic moment.

As an example, take Star Wars. Going by OVA mechanics, any Stormtrooper might be able to shoot down the Millennium Falcon (Vehicle/Mecha) if they shoot at it long enough. But a Jedi's Lightsaber (Gear) isn't going to be destroyed by just some random nameless mook extra Stormtrooper. Something like that would only happen while in a climactic battle against a significant opponent like a Sith Lord or a jetpack-wearing bounty hunter, etc.

And I personally don't think that Vehicles are harder to take away than Gear. Gear can literally be carried at all times. A person can even sleep beside their sword if they so choose to, or wear their mystical magical ring in the shower. But a Vehicle will inevitably have to be left alone sometimes to be parked somewhere while the owner goes off to do their thing. You can't bring a vehicle into the shower with you, nor keep it in your bedroom while you sleep (unless your bedroom is the garage, or you choose to always sleep in your vehicle).

Sure, Batman wears his utility belt around his waist at all times. But the Batmobile doesn't follow him everywhere. He has to leave it parked somewhere when he goes into the sewer to fight Killer Croc or into a building to fight some other villain, which leaves the opportunity for someone to steal or destroy it while he's gone. Just as Luke Skywalker can easily be assumed to be carrying a lightsaber at all times. But while on most adventures, Han Solo's Millennium Falcon is going to be parked somewhere. It's use comes from space dogfights. It doesn't help while fighting inside the Cantina.

Finally, I didn't mean that Gear can't be taken away. I said it can be "difficult" to be taken away. Take Shadowman, one of the sample NPCs in the book. That big ol' suit of powered armor he wears can be taken away. It's made with the Focus Weakness actually, but it could have just as easily been made with Gear as well. Anyhow, similar to Darth Vader it is likely he rarely ever takes it off willingly except in the rare moments when he is safely tucked way in his secret base or ship or whatever. I doubt he goes strolling to the local supermarket without his powered armor suit on so that the good guys can catch him unawares haha.

Sure, you can take Shadowman's suit of armor away. You're just likely going to have to kill him or at least beat him into unconsciousness first.

The Reddest Mage wrote:

Chris Brady wrote:

The Reddest Mage wrote:In all fairness, a Vehicle/Mecha can be destroyed.

So can gear, and unlike Vehicles, there's a better chance it'll get murdered in one attack. And worse, vehicles are harder to take away from the character than a sword, or even a suit of armour. Most vehicles have security features, like door locks.

And gear that cannot be taken away is just an Attack.

Like I mentioned above, Vehicles have Health and Endurance, so they can be objectively destroyed simply by running out of Health, effectively putting them out of commission until the owner can get get a chance to repair it. Gear does not have Health and Endurance. Destroying it is not a matter of just hitting it enough times until it breaks. It's a narrative matter that only happens if and when the GM subjectively thinks it would be appropriate for it to be broken. And most likely, breaking Gear is not something that any old mook extra is going to do. More likely it's something that happens at a climatic moment.

As an example, take Star Wars. Going by OVA mechanics, any Stormtrooper might be able to shoot down the Millennium Falcon (Vehicle/Mecha) if they shoot at it long enough. But a Jedi's Lightsaber (Gear) isn't going to be destroyed by just some random nameless mook extra Stormtrooper. Something like that would only happen while in a climactic battle against a significant opponent like a Sith Lord or a jetpack-wearing bounty hunter, etc.

And I personally don't think that Vehicles are harder to take away than Gear. Gear can literally be carried at all times. A person can even sleep beside their sword if they so choose to, or wear their mystical magical ring in the shower. But a Vehicle will inevitably have to be left alone sometimes to be parked somewhere while the owner goes off to do their thing. You can't bring a vehicle into the shower with you, nor keep it in your bedroom while you sleep (unless your bedroom is the garage, or you choose to always sleep in your vehicle).

Sure, Batman wears his utility belt around his waist at all times. But the Batmobile doesn't follow him everywhere. He has to leave it parked somewhere when he goes into the sewer to fight Killer Croc or into a building to fight some other villain, which leaves the opportunity for someone to steal or destroy it while he's gone. Just as Luke Skywalker can easily be assumed to be carrying a lightsaber at all times. But while on most adventures, Han Solo's Millennium Falcon is going to be parked somewhere. It's use comes from space dogfights. It doesn't help while fighting inside the Cantina.

Finally, I didn't mean that Gear can't be taken away. I said it can be "difficult" to be taken away. Take Shadowman, one of the sample NPCs in the book. That big ol' suit of powered armor he wears can be taken away. It's made with the Focus Weakness actually, but it could have just as easily been made with Gear as well. Anyhow, similar to Darth Vader it is likely he rarely ever takes it off willingly except in the rare moments when he is safely tucked way in his secret base or ship or whatever. I doubt he goes strolling to the local supermarket without his powered armor suit on so that the good guys can catch him unawares haha.

Sure, you can take Shadowman's suit of armor away. You're just likely going to have to kill him or at least beat him into unconsciousness first.

Mecha come back next session, or as part of the adventure. After all, Mecha/Vehicles are often the main part of the 'show'/game, aren't they? Gundam wouldn't be all that interesting if most of the episodes had the main robot in the shop being repaired, now would it? Speed Racer, or Rising Bean wouldn't be half as interesting if the cars weren't up front and center, now would it?

Meanwhile, a special item's removal is much more common and creates more problems for the character, making for great stories and adventures.

The main reason Vehicle doubles points is because, by and large, it’s a completely separate part of the adventure. If a vehicle is the focus, odds are either A) everyone has their own vehicle or B) everyone is in the same vehicle. In either case, the double points are not unbalancing because because everyone will have roughly the same benefit.

If it is not the focus, the vehicle is awkward or impossible to use in many situations. You can’t take vehicles into buildings (usually), or hop onto that escaping airship, or delve down into the dungeon, or join your time-traveling cave woman companion on her pterodactyl. Vehicle can only be used in specific situations, and as such should shine when they do.

...of course, if you disagree you can just reskin Gear as Vehicle (or vise versa) and call it a day.

But the bottom line is that Gear isn't useful pe se. It’s just there to help you group up a bunch of Abilities and Weaknesses for neatness’s sake.

Clay wrote:The main reason Vehicle doubles points is because, by and large, it’s a completely separate part of the adventure. If a vehicle is the focus, odds are either A) everyone has their own vehicle or B) everyone is in the same vehicle. In either case, the double points are not unbalancing because because everyone will have roughly the same benefit.

If it is not the focus, the vehicle is awkward or impossible to use in many situations. You can’t take vehicles into buildings (usually), or hop onto that escaping airship, or delve down into the dungeon, or join your time-traveling cave woman companion on her pterodactyl. Vehicle can only be used in specific situations, and as such should shine when they do.

...of course, if you disagree you can just reskin Gear as Vehicle (or vise versa) and call it a day.

The Cave-Woman's Pterodactyl is actually either a Vehicle itself, or a plot point, as it was in Chrono Trigger.

Clay wrote:But the bottom line is that Gear isn't useful pe se. It’s just there to help you group up a bunch of Abilities and Weaknesses for neatness’s sake.

Which makes Focus (Which does the exact same thing, but is actually much better because you get points back, as it's a Flaw) redundant. Take away the Gear item, and whatever abilities tied to it are no longer useful.

Chris Brady wrote:[The Cave-Woman's Pterodactyl is actually either a Vehicle itself, or a plot point, as it was in Chrono Trigger.

Personally, I think a pterodactyl or any other loyal pet dinosaur mount that could be ridden - such as Yoshi of the Super Mario Bros. franchise - would be better represented by the Companion or Minions Abilities rather than Vehicle.

I just noticed something. None of the characters in the entire book has the Gear Ability, including the NPC Fragments. Even the characters that should have something: Raine, Auren, Natsuki, Ancel, Karis, Saspar...

So it brings up my question of: Why is it even there?

Because they are using the Weapon Flaw for their Attacks.

So what's the point of gear?

Again, I think that if there's ever a third edition, Gear gets removed from the list of attributes. If none of the NPCs use it, what does it tell the average player?

That they can have another option for their characters. Almost all my characters, even NPCs, have a Gear because that's what my setting needs.

Atmo wrote:That they can have another option for their characters. Almost all my characters, even NPCs, have a Gear because that's what my setting needs.

You're not following what I'm trying to say. I may not be clear, I admit I can be very confusing at times. I have a tendency to think I've already typed/said what I really meant, but haven't. Doesn't help that I sometimes 'see' whole words already on a page and work on the next.

What I'm trying to say is that Gear is superfluous, it's unneeded, because you can replace whatever it is you're building with either Focus, the Weapon Flaw for an Attack or Vehicle as the case may be.

Things like Braun's Computer (which should be gear) isn't, because it's part of the attribute needed to use it. His Knowledge: Computers covers it.

I'm trying to do two things here, and both are admittedly contradictory. First, I want to know what the point of the Attribute is, if it can be covered by other things. Or Second, point out why it's actually useless, as I've pointed out, it does literally nothing that other Attributes can already do, and better for cheaper. From what I can tell, it's a trap, there's no benefit other than looking like it's useful, when it's not.