I see what you mean. What are the problems with your rewrite? I'm looking at it now and while it seems complex it doesn't seem to have any of the issues of the RAW power. Do you think compels on the related aspect would be a simpler solution for 'running out'?

I'm sorry guys, I know you're trying to be helpful but could I have fewer replies suggesting magic? If people don't think Incite Effect would work, could they explain why?

Thanks.

I'm actually giving him a gadget based aspect to supplement those gadgets that aren't manoeuvres or attacks, but as I said I'd rather avoid magic.

I was looking at the highly versatile custom power Incite Effect for a mildly superhuman character in a Superheroes game I'm in and he's been using his nano-technological skills to fill a batman style utility belt with various grenades and gizmos. After a couple of sessions though, I came up with the idea of using Incite Effect rather than dozens of craftsmanship and resources declarations.

Basically it would be
Item of Power: Utility Belt [+2]
-Feeding Dependency: Refills [+1]
--Incite Effect [-?]

The feeding dependency seems like a surprisingly elegant way to run out of grenades and such, or have devices run out of juice - though a stunt to move the hunger track to Resources might be in order. I'd use the optional rule to scale down powers with stress, so I could lose 'Incite Mass Effect' when I gain hunger stress from using area attacks.  The main worry I have is the last optional power: Incite Additional Effect. What exactly counts as an additional effect and is 'gadgets' much too broad?

Effects I had in mind: Flash-bang style zone manoeuvres, smoke bombs, electrical stun darts, mini high-explosive grenades. Other possibilities are things like miniature: cutting torches, grapnel hooks or gas masks.

Thanks in advance.

Would a stunt that used Craftsmanship rather than Scholarship for science be too powerful? I'm not sure how narrow it is. It leaves out languages, medicine and computers which are all useful, but I wanted to run it by you guys. (Would call it 'Practical Science'.)

So far, the only house-rule our group has made is the 'templates are guidelines' thing that everyone takes, apparently.

I see both sides of the disagreement about Sponsored Resources.

I propose a compromise solution: mention that, per YS 179, people attached to a Sponsor can already get this benefit, but that using the Stunt makes it a reliable proposition. Maybe recast it as something like "as an employee of an organization, you already have access to their Resources (YS 179), but with this stunt, their faith in you is such that you have a lot more latitude with your requests...[insert rest of text]"

That actually looks like a great solution, I second this.

I'd rate it the same damage as either a club or a staff, and if you wanted to do non-standard things with them, I'd make them Stunts. What do you perceive to be the advantages of a three-section staff?

You may also be looking for a lot more rules crunch than DFRPG is intended to provide. Optimizing weapon choice is for systems like D&D: DFRPG is primarily about narrative flavor. There is still some number crunching to do, of course.

I wasn't looking for crunch so much, as suggestions for stunts that would let me take advantage of a versatile weapon. I've thought of things like using declarations to pass certain kinds of defenses when used as a flail, and using it to justify disarming manoeuvres with Redirected Force but that's all I have.

Weapon 2, with an aspect of THREE-SECTION STAFF. Styles and grips fuel Declarations with the Martial Artist stunt.

If a player asked to have a specially-well-made staff that was weapon 3, I'd say yes.

So a weapon can have an aspect? I assume it would just work like one of my ordinary aspects, with the same rules for invocation and compels?