Why do Modern WPs not use PP bonuses but Ancient WP do?

[livewire]

that is training not natural aptitude, if wp's and occ's were aptitude that would mean i have the wp with out training? so now wp's are inherent?

[Natasha]

that is training not natural aptitude, if wp's and occ's were aptitude that would mean i have the wp with out training? so now wp's are inherent?

I missed the word "if". I didn't miss it previously when I said if natural aptitude is in Palladium, it's covered in the Weapon Proficiency.

[Natasha]

I missed the word "if". I didn't miss it previously when I said if natural aptitude is in Palladium, it's covered in the Weapon Proficiency.

That still doesn't make sense. It's not in weapon proficiencies, because weapon proficiencies offer precisely the same bonuses to everybody. I still say you either need to rephrase this or I feel you're making fun.

Hm.

I'll try last time to explain my stance. If it does not make sense to you, then let's call it an impasse or you can try more in private messages if it's bothering you so much.

Palladium's rules do not have rules for aptitude. If you want to put aptitude somewhere, then you are left with choosing either or both Weapon Proficiencies and O.C.C. abilities and bonuses because I don't think it's at all in Physical Prowess.

[Natasha]

That is to say, then, that you feel if a GM wants to say some folks are just better than others at using a class of firearms, changing the WP to reflect individual prowess (that is to say, no longer being +3 aimed/+1 burst and +1 per three levels but now varying by who is using it) is a more viable option in your opinion than attaching the bonus to a stat?
And that OCCs might be another option along those lines, mind you.

Not really. I'm really sorry I'm failing to express this clearly in English.

If you want to speak about aptitude in terms of the game rules, then here's how I would do it, since the game rules do not include rules for individual aptitude.

I think that the degree of aptitude in the characters is not enough to provide any extra bonuses than what is already available to them. I think that training enables one's aptitude, that's why I say weapon proficiencies encompass aptitude. But still this aptitude just isn't enough to prompt a bonus beyond what is already available.

Where aptitude is big enough to prompt a bonus, then it's generally an O.C.C. bonus or ability.


Otherwise you need to better define the attributes or create one or create some other mechanism to handle aptitude.

[Natasha]

I think that the degree of aptitude in the characters is not enough to provide any extra bonuses than what is already available to them. I think that training enables one's aptitude, that's why I say weapon proficiencies encompass aptitude. But still this aptitude just isn't enough to prompt a bonus beyond what is already available.

So if natural aptitude = 0 whether it's in the equation or not, it's arguably not represented.
I take it you also haven't found people to have, shall we say, a negative natural aptitude value? That is to say, you've never found anybody to just be very difficult to get up to par when it comes to aiming?

I have found people of all types of aptitude.
I think translating that into game rules is difficult to do concisely and runs the risk of requiring too much micromanaging a character.

Where aptitude is big enough to prompt a bonus, then it's generally an O.C.C. bonus or ability.

A reasonable approach, although it seems a touch narrow considering who therefore can't get natural skill bonuses. That is, most everybody can't. Certainly, though, an OOC can be a reasonable way to get it. And if the GM isn't inclined to believe anybody's really noticably better in real life except by devoting a class to it, that might be the only way.

Sure it's narrow, but there's not much else in Palladium's rules to work with regarding aptitude.

[livewire]

That is to say, then, that you feel if a GM wants to say some folks are just better than others at using a class of firearms, changing the WP to reflect individual prowess (that is to say, no longer being +3 aimed/+1 burst and +1 per three levels but now varying by who is using it) is a more viable option in your opinion than attaching the bonus to a stat?
And that OCCs might be another option along those lines, mind you.

Not really. I'm really sorry I'm failing to express this clearly in English.

If you want to speak about aptitude in terms of the game rules, then here's how I would do it, since the game rules do not include rules for individual aptitude.

I think that the degree of aptitude in the characters is not enough to provide any extra bonuses than what is already available to them. I think that training enables one's aptitude, that's why I say weapon proficiencies encompass aptitude. But still this aptitude just isn't enough to prompt a bonus beyond what is already available.

Where aptitude is big enough to prompt a bonus, then it's generally an O.C.C. bonus or ability.


Otherwise you need to better define the attributes or create one or create some other mechanism to handle aptitude.

ok since when does palladium not have rules for aptitude? that is exactly what the bonuses from your attributes is, an aptitude. the IQ bonus is an aptitude for learning and understanding information and skills. the ME bonus is an aptitude for resisting psionic attacks and mental insanity etc. all an aptitude is, is a natural ability to due something well palladium is full of aptitudes they are inherent to the system

[Natasha]

That is to say, then, that you feel if a GM wants to say some folks are just better than others at using a class of firearms, changing the WP to reflect individual prowess (that is to say, no longer being +3 aimed/+1 burst and +1 per three levels but now varying by who is using it) is a more viable option in your opinion than attaching the bonus to a stat?
And that OCCs might be another option along those lines, mind you.

Not really. I'm really sorry I'm failing to express this clearly in English.

If you want to speak about aptitude in terms of the game rules, then here's how I would do it, since the game rules do not include rules for individual aptitude.

I think that the degree of aptitude in the characters is not enough to provide any extra bonuses than what is already available to them. I think that training enables one's aptitude, that's why I say weapon proficiencies encompass aptitude. But still this aptitude just isn't enough to prompt a bonus beyond what is already available.

Where aptitude is big enough to prompt a bonus, then it's generally an O.C.C. bonus or ability.


Otherwise you need to better define the attributes or create one or create some other mechanism to handle aptitude.

ok since when does palladium not have rules for aptitude? that is exactly what the bonuses from your attributes is, an aptitude. the IQ bonus is an aptitude for learning and understanding information and skills. the ME bonus is an aptitude for resisting psionic attacks and mental insanity etc. all an aptitude is, is a natural ability to due something well palladium is full of aptitudes they are inherent to the system

It's ability.

[livewire]

In this case, though, it's a question of aptitude with the aim of firearms. To my knowledge, Palladium has no means of or interest in determining the role of natural ability in any type of firearm.

very true but it seems to me that what she said is that there are no rules at all for aptitude which there are they just don't apply to modern weapons currently and i don't see that it would be a far stretch to apply them. now maybe my half pp bonus works or maybe it doesn't i don't pretend perfect which is why i am play testing it with my group now and if it works it may see itself added to our permanent house rules set, it may not. i may decide on some other way to represent this aptitude such as using the me bonus or maybe something i have not even thought of yet.

[livewire]

That is to say, then, that you feel if a GM wants to say some folks are just better than others at using a class of firearms, changing the WP to reflect individual prowess (that is to say, no longer being +3 aimed/+1 burst and +1 per three levels but now varying by who is using it) is a more viable option in your opinion than attaching the bonus to a stat?
And that OCCs might be another option along those lines, mind you.

Not really. I'm really sorry I'm failing to express this clearly in English.

If you want to speak about aptitude in terms of the game rules, then here's how I would do it, since the game rules do not include rules for individual aptitude.

I think that the degree of aptitude in the characters is not enough to provide any extra bonuses than what is already available to them. I think that training enables one's aptitude, that's why I say weapon proficiencies encompass aptitude. But still this aptitude just isn't enough to prompt a bonus beyond what is already available.

Where aptitude is big enough to prompt a bonus, then it's generally an O.C.C. bonus or ability.


Otherwise you need to better define the attributes or create one or create some other mechanism to handle aptitude.

ok since when does palladium not have rules for aptitude? that is exactly what the bonuses from your attributes is, an aptitude. the IQ bonus is an aptitude for learning and understanding information and skills. the ME bonus is an aptitude for resisting psionic attacks and mental insanity etc. all an aptitude is, is a natural ability to due something well palladium is full of aptitudes they are inherent to the system

It's ability.

you say tomoto i say tomato it basically the same thing you are getting a bonus because your attributes say your better at something because of your high attribute. you can call it natural ability or natural aptitude its pretty much the same thing.

[Natasha]

you say tomoto i say tomato it basically the same thing you are getting a bonus because your attributes say your better at something because of your high attribute. you can call it natural ability or natural aptitude its pretty much the same thing.

Ok. It's a different discussion entirely.

[Natasha]

How so?

Because aptitude and ability aren't the same thing.

[Natasha]

My husband house-ruled it so the PP does work.
Having been shooting, and having seen him and others shoot, I can understand why.

Where they doing flips and rolls?

[livewire]

How so?

Because aptitude and ability aren't the same thing.

a·bil·i·ty (-bl-t)
n. pl. a·bil·i·ties
1. The quality of being able to do something, especially the physical, mental, financial, or legal power to accomplish something.
2. A natural or acquired skill or talent.
3. The quality of being suitable for or receptive to a specified treatment; capacity: the ability of a computer to be configured for use as a file server
Synonyms: ability, capacity, faculty, talent, skill, competence, aptitude

ap·ti·tude (pt-td, -tyd)
n.
1. An inherent ability, as for learning; a talent. See Synonyms at ability.
2. Quickness in learning and understanding; intelligence.
3. The condition or quality of being suitable; appropriateness.

well considering aptitude is a synonym of ability i would say that my comment of "you say tomoto and i say tomato" would seem rather fitting.

[Natasha]

Flips and rolls... does this mean you've changed your mind about the definition of PP? (At least for some Palladium games?)

No, I was trying to be funny

[Natasha]

How so?

Because aptitude and ability aren't the same thing.

a·bil·i·ty (-bl-t)
n. pl. a·bil·i·ties
1. The quality of being able to do something, especially the physical, mental, financial, or legal power to accomplish something.
2. A natural or acquired skill or talent.
3. The quality of being suitable for or receptive to a specified treatment; capacity: the ability of a computer to be configured for use as a file server
Synonyms: ability, capacity, faculty, talent, skill, competence, aptitude

ap·ti·tude (pt-td, -tyd)
n.
1. An inherent ability, as for learning; a talent. See Synonyms at ability.
2. Quickness in learning and understanding; intelligence.
3. The condition or quality of being suitable; appropriateness.

well considering aptitude is a synonym of ability i would say that my comment of "you say tomoto and i say tomato" would seem rather fitting.

I hate it when the dictionary comes out.
People choose the definition which suits them best and then start banging heads against each other as if those are the only definitions.

[Vrykolas2k]

What exactly is the point in all the going back and forth about how much of firing a gun is natural skill and how much is training?

My point is that firing a gun is 99% training, maybe more. Furthermore, that natural skill in firing guns is enabled by training reflected in the bonuses to strike provided by training. Training is the Weapon Proficiency.

99%? You really can't put a percentage on a "skill" in real life.

However, you can put a percentage on a skill in this game - which stands at 100% training.

Are bows somehow supposed to require less training than guns?
Or to rely more on natural skill?

Yes. give a caveman a bow and arrow and he'll atleast attempt to stab his prey with the pointy arrow. Yet you give him a loaded gun (with the safety on) and all's he's got is a club. The basics of learning the bow are far easier than that of the gun - but once you know the technology behind the gun you'll find it is the easier weapon.

But that's the difference; learning both the technology and the proficiency of the gun versus simply the proficiency of the bow.

Yes, as I both know how to use a bow very well and I know how to shoot very well, I'd say a bow is harder to learn than is a fire-arm.
In point of fact, that's part of the design of fire-arms... to be simple.
So you can field armies of peasants with no real training for combat but will still win a battle.
There's a reason why archer were traditionally trained from child-hood, whilst snipers go through a school for a few weeks, all told and that's after if I remember right the two weeks they spend in basic.

[Dog_O_War]

My husband house-ruled it so the PP does work.
Having been shooting, and having seen him and others shoot, I can understand why.

Really? I'll pit my vice-mounted rifle against your husband's unrested aim any day of the week.

What exactly is the point in all the going back and forth about how much of firing a gun is natural skill and how much is training?

My point is that firing a gun is 99% training, maybe more. Furthermore, that natural skill in firing guns is enabled by training reflected in the bonuses to strike provided by training. Training is the Weapon Proficiency.

99%? You really can't put a percentage on a "skill" in real life.

However, you can put a percentage on a skill in this game - which stands at 100% training.

Are bows somehow supposed to require less training than guns?
Or to rely more on natural skill?

Yes. give a caveman a bow and arrow and he'll atleast attempt to stab his prey with the pointy arrow. Yet you give him a loaded gun (with the safety on) and all's he's got is a club. The basics of learning the bow are far easier than that of the gun - but once you know the technology behind the gun you'll find it is the easier weapon.

But that's the difference; learning both the technology and the proficiency of the gun versus simply the proficiency of the bow.

Yes, as I both know how to use a bow very well and I know how to shoot very well, I'd say a bow is harder to learn than is a fire-arm.
In point of fact, that's part of the design of fire-arms... to be simple.
So you can field armies of peasants with no real training for combat but will still win a battle.
There's a reason why archer were traditionally trained from child-hood, whilst snipers go through a school for a few weeks, all told and that's after if I remember right the two weeks they spend in basic.

Really? I hear-tell the Euros back in the day did the same thing with peasants and arrow-volley fire. I also heard that only the primitive cultures bothered to train with the bow from child-hood as a way of survival and didn't really participate in those full-scale battles you were talking about. Funny that...
...Oh yeah, I also remembered that the gun was the inferior weapon by a great degree for more than 100 years until it began recieving a technology upgrade; that before then a good strong english longbow would out range, out aim, and out RoF a gun every day of the week...

But I suppose all that "history" means nothing seeing as how guns today are better than the bow, which hasn't had a major tech. upgrade in nearly 1000 years.

But you are still right; firearms were meant to be 'simple'. Too bad they had to become severely complicated to accomplish that.

Basically I'm saying that you're comparing fire to the microwave oven. The microwave is easier, faster, and by all accounts more efficient, but in no way, shape or form is it the 'simpler' of the two. A child can use it, because it was designed to be that way. I believe this is where the miscommunication between myself and you others are coming to.


Finally, guns already recieve a bonus to strike from PP, but you need a special skill to recieve that bonus as I stated earlier.

[Dog_O_War]

Forum God says play nice. You know you're coming across as hostile at this point, and there's really no reason to do so. It's an obstacle to conversation.

I have been, haven't I? Sorry. No excuses, just sorry.

For purposes of this conversation, in what ways are guns more complicated to use than bows? They're certainly a complex mechanism, but I'm in no way certain they're complicated to use. I haven't seen you demonstrate that argument in this thread.

They are more complicated in design. For instance the safety on many guns is something regular folk aren't aware of, let alone some of the other features they may have such as a half-cock and a shotgun's choke. Some people aren't aware of the "10 in the slide, one in the pipe" term (using 10 as a medium for "full clip"). Or the capability of a single-action revolver (re: fanning). Then there is how the gas-operated system works for automatics (even I think that it's which-craft). Only through constant exposure would a person actually know what to do if they found a rifle (safety on), 10 rounds, and a clip lying on the ground. Take a bow and an arrow and you will figure it out in a fraction of the time. Looking back to the earliest models, they didn't even have triggers and were muzzel-loaded. Infact the bow remains a fairly accurate weapon if you're trained properly, thanks to a much more forgiving trial and error line of firing.

Only through modern advances has the gun become 'easy to use'. We have movies and stuff that shows us the inner workings on how to operate these tools. It only seems easier due to an abnormally abundant amount of exposure. Take a poor kid off of the street and he can probably show you how to operate a gun - despite the fact that he has had no formal training. Yet take a tribal from the congo and he can do the same thing with a bow. It is exposure that makes the gun seem less complicated when infact it is quite the opposite.

On the topic of "which is easier to become skilled with"; for this I side with the modern gun. It has the fore-front of technological advance behind it - I sure as hell hope it is the easier of the two to learn on. But there is no way you will ever convince me that a skilled bowman in the 16th century was less accurate and less capable than a skilled musketeer.

Which, to be fair, may mean I'm being dense. I can't seem to find any skill or class feature which allows PP to be added to strike rolls, only Initiative. You said you mentioned the skill earlier, and I'm afraid I can't find the mention, so I hope you'll forgive and indulge.

Sharp-shooting, HtH:assassin (well, this doesn't give you bonuses thanks to PP, but it does give ranged bonuses to strike).


**EDIT** I didn't say "half-rooster" BTW, I used the correct term, but the language filter doesn't differentiate between proper use and vulgarity.

[Vrykolas2k]

My husband house-ruled it so the PP does work.
Having been shooting, and having seen him and others shoot, I can understand why.

Really? I'll pit my vice-mounted rifle against your husband's unrested aim any day of the week.

What exactly is the point in all the going back and forth about how much of firing a gun is natural skill and how much is training?

My point is that firing a gun is 99% training, maybe more. Furthermore, that natural skill in firing guns is enabled by training reflected in the bonuses to strike provided by training. Training is the Weapon Proficiency.

99%? You really can't put a percentage on a "skill" in real life.

However, you can put a percentage on a skill in this game - which stands at 100% training.

Are bows somehow supposed to require less training than guns?
Or to rely more on natural skill?

Yes. give a caveman a bow and arrow and he'll atleast attempt to stab his prey with the pointy arrow. Yet you give him a loaded gun (with the safety on) and all's he's got is a club. The basics of learning the bow are far easier than that of the gun - but once you know the technology behind the gun you'll find it is the easier weapon.

But that's the difference; learning both the technology and the proficiency of the gun versus simply the proficiency of the bow.

Yes, as I both know how to use a bow very well and I know how to shoot very well, I'd say a bow is harder to learn than is a fire-arm.
In point of fact, that's part of the design of fire-arms... to be simple.
So you can field armies of peasants with no real training for combat but will still win a battle.
There's a reason why archer were traditionally trained from child-hood, whilst snipers go through a school for a few weeks, all told and that's after if I remember right the two weeks they spend in basic.

Really? I hear-tell the Euros back in the day did the same thing with peasants and arrow-volley fire. I also heard that only the primitive cultures bothered to train with the bow from child-hood as a way of survival and didn't really participate in those full-scale battles you were talking about. Funny that...
...Oh yeah, I also remembered that the gun was the inferior weapon by a great degree for more than 100 years until it began recieving a technology upgrade; that before then a good strong english longbow would out range, out aim, and out RoF a gun every day of the week...

But I suppose all that "history" means nothing seeing as how guns today are better than the bow, which hasn't had a major tech. upgrade in nearly 1000 years.

But you are still right; firearms were meant to be 'simple'. Too bad they had to become severely complicated to accomplish that.

Basically I'm saying that you're comparing fire to the microwave oven. The microwave is easier, faster, and by all accounts more efficient, but in no way, shape or form is it the 'simpler' of the two. A child can use it, because it was designed to be that way. I believe this is where the miscommunication between myself and you others are coming to.


Finally, guns already recieve a bonus to strike from PP, but you need a special skill to recieve that bonus as I stated earlier.

As for the shooting challenge, you're on. Whittington Center, you can name the date.
As for the archers training from child-hood and not taking part in large battles, you must not have heard of the Welsh or the Japanese.
The english didn't use a longbow until fairly late in their history, and they were never as good with it as a Welsh archer; in fact, english archers weren't well paid and had a constant morale problem. English bows were about half as long as the Welsh long-bow. You can see examples of them in the Bayeax Tapestry.
Your hostility is noted, and I doubt needed.
I am done with this thread.

[livewire]

How so?

Because aptitude and ability aren't the same thing.

a·bil·i·ty (-bl-t)
n. pl. a·bil·i·ties
1. The quality of being able to do something, especially the physical, mental, financial, or legal power to accomplish something.
2. A natural or acquired skill or talent.
3. The quality of being suitable for or receptive to a specified treatment; capacity: the ability of a computer to be configured for use as a file server
Synonyms: ability, capacity, faculty, talent, skill, competence, aptitude

ap·ti·tude (pt-td, -tyd)
n.
1. An inherent ability, as for learning; a talent. See Synonyms at ability.
2. Quickness in learning and understanding; intelligence.
3. The condition or quality of being suitable; appropriateness.

well considering aptitude is a synonym of ability i would say that my comment of "you say tomoto and i say tomato" would seem rather fitting.

I hate it when the dictionary comes out.
People choose the definition which suits them best and then start banging heads against each other as if those are the only definitions.

well as i just cut and pasted the entire definition i don't think you can say i am choosing a definition that suits me. and i did not post these primarily for the definitions that was only supportive information the primary reason i posted these was for the colored highlighted stuff hence the color highlighting. so the real reason was to show that the words are synonyms. which explains the tomoto/tomato comment. which was meant to show you were arguing about words that can be used equally well to describe the same thing

[livewire]

If there are semantic arguments in this thread, it's partially my fault, because I'm the one who used the term aptitude, had it be questioned, then lazily said "screw this, I'm using the term natural aptitude to mean X. What applies to X?"
So y'all can cool it, 'cause you know what each of you means and there's no reason to be obtuse. You're having one conversation, and only one, and nobody's changing the damn subject.

true except we are having language arguments rather then semantic ones lol either way its done cause its giving me a headache

[Natasha]

How so?

Because aptitude and ability aren't the same thing.

a·bil·i·ty (-bl-t)
n. pl. a·bil·i·ties
1. The quality of being able to do something, especially the physical, mental, financial, or legal power to accomplish something.
2. A natural or acquired skill or talent.
3. The quality of being suitable for or receptive to a specified treatment; capacity: the ability of a computer to be configured for use as a file server
Synonyms: ability, capacity, faculty, talent, skill, competence, aptitude

ap·ti·tude (pt-td, -tyd)
n.
1. An inherent ability, as for learning; a talent. See Synonyms at ability.
2. Quickness in learning and understanding; intelligence.
3. The condition or quality of being suitable; appropriateness.

well considering aptitude is a synonym of ability i would say that my comment of "you say tomoto and i say tomato" would seem rather fitting.

I hate it when the dictionary comes out.
People choose the definition which suits them best and then start banging heads against each other as if those are the only definitions.

well as i just cut and pasted the entire definition i don't think you can say i am choosing a definition that suits me. and i did not post these primarily for the definitions that was only supportive information the primary reason i posted these was for the colored highlighted stuff hence the color highlighting. so the real reason was to show that the words are synonyms. which explains the tomoto/tomato comment. which was meant to show you were arguing about words that can be used equally well to describe the same thing

Even so, it's still another conversation.

And I'm aware they can describe the same thing; I'm also aware they don't always.

[Dog_O_War]

As for the shooting challenge, you're on. Whittington Center, you can name the date.

I prefer not to get tied up in customs for months with unlicenced firearms - I'm not American so it makes that a little difficult.

As for the archers training from child-hood and not taking part in large battles, you must not have heard of the Welsh or the Japanese.

I've heard of both, but have you heard that Japanese archers didn't aim? They used a bow called a "diaku" (or something to that effect) where they would point it in a direction and hope it would hit. So I would kinda expect they would require training from birth for this weapon.
I didn't know that about the Welsh though, not that it did them any good what with England invading them on several occations and all.

The english didn't use a longbow until fairly late in their history, and they were never as good with it as a Welsh archer; in fact, english archers weren't well paid and had a constant morale problem. English bows were about half as long as the Welsh long-bow. You can see examples of them in the Bayeax Tapestry.

As noted above, and by macksting, nobody remembers the Welsh for their devistating volley-fire with the bow. Now castles on the other hand...

Your hostility is noted, and I doubt needed.
I am done with this thread.

I appologized, but not to you directly. I am sorry if you felt hostility - I was attempting sarcastic humor to better debunk a claim I knew wasn't true. Clearly I should stick to my day-job.

[Nemo235]

Sheesh, this is a pretty hot topic. Right up there with "Why use alignments?" and "Does Supernatural Strength damage add to melee weapon damage?".

Altough we have varied opinions, we know the official rule. But it wasn't always that way.
My questions are, when did it first appear and why?
As far as I can tell it was either Splicers or After the Bomb.

As for why...

[Natasha]

I don't know the official rule.

And until the game I am playing says it's applied to ranged combat, I'm not going to apply it to ranged combat.

[livewire]

I don't know the official rule.

And until the game I am playing says it's applied to ranged combat, I'm not going to apply it to ranged combat.

so you don't use house rules at all?

[Natasha]

And I'm aware they can describe the same thing; I'm also aware they don't always.

If I may, why did you feel that poster wasn't referring to the same thing in this context?

I don't understand the question, sorry.

[Natasha]

I don't know the official rule.

And until the game I am playing says it's applied to ranged combat, I'm not going to apply it to ranged combat.

so you don't use house rules at all?

I don't see the need for one here.

[GreenGhost]

i can answer this has a former marine. in boot camp i got marksman on the rifle range with my m-16. thats really good, but when it comes to actual balance i am somewhat less than normal. rifles and handguns in general require more of a hand and eye coordination then speed and agility.

I know exactly what you mean. Shooting a firearm has little if anything to do with "dexterity or balance." It's hand-eye coordination and breathing. If breathing required dexterity I know a lot of people who would be dead by now

I qualified expert in the Marine Corps (both rifle and pistol) and have applied what I've learned in recreational shooting as well as in hostile situations. I'm not clumsy, but I'm also not the most graceful. How many Marine Corps Heavy Gunner Ballerinas have you heard of?

I apply personal experience and reality when it comes to ruling, in the games that I GM, that PP bonuses are not applicable. It's just not realistic.

[Dog_O_War]

i can answer this has a former marine. in boot camp i got marksman on the rifle range with my m-16. thats really good, but when it comes to actual balance i am somewhat less than normal. rifles and handguns in general require more of a hand and eye coordination then speed and agility.

I know exactly what you mean. Shooting a firearm has little if anything to do with "dexterity or balance." It's hand-eye coordination and breathing. If breathing required dexterity I know a lot of people who would be dead by now

I qualified expert in the Marine Corps (both rifle and pistol) and have applied what I've learned in recreational shooting as well as in hostile situations. I'm not clumsy, but I'm also not the most graceful. How many Marine Corps Heavy Gunner Ballerinas have you heard of?

I apply personal experience and reality when it comes to ruling, in the games that I GM, that PP bonuses are not applicable. It's just not realistic.

Powered armour, vampires, and fireballs are? I hate to see that particular justification anywhere. I don't mind seeing "doesn't make sense" because that implies that the world it pertains to has justifications on why the other things I listed would. But 'not realistic' as a reason is... well... not realistic.
I mean we're already accepting that being smart makes you a better acrobat, that pulsing laser weapons cut your bonuses to strike in half *because* they fire multiple lasers micro-seconds apart (which does not cause any kick-back and still takes less time for all three lasers to leave the barrel than it does for even a single railgun round), and that AoE attacks seemingly only damage the most robust part of your armour - leaving the extremities intact (despite there being MDC amounts listed for them).

Just throwing that out there.

[Natasha]

And I'm aware they can describe the same thing; I'm also aware they don't always.

If I may, why did you feel that poster wasn't referring to the same thing in this context?

I don't understand the question, sorry.

You just seem very insistent that the poster you were responding to was changing the subject, when I'm pretty certain in that context that the term ability was being used as a synonym. Enlighten me.

I'm willing to accept that I completely misunderstood.

The only thing I'm interested on insisting here is that P.P. does not measure aptitude, in the definition that not matches ability's definition, in striking with ranging weapons.

Sharpshooting doesn't give strike bonuses in HU2, don't think. Just makes shots less wild. Is this a Rifts thing?

I have no idea. I don't read Rifts very often.

Now Duck-Foot and GreenGhost said they were aware of a certain amount of natural ability having an influence on their performance with firearms, and that hand-eye coordination was the big one for them. How much influence do you feel it had? Just estimating.

Not enough to provide bonus to strike.

[GreenGhost]

i can answer this has a former marine. in boot camp i got marksman on the rifle range with my m-16. thats really good, but when it comes to actual balance i am somewhat less than normal. rifles and handguns in general require more of a hand and eye coordination then speed and agility.

I know exactly what you mean. Shooting a firearm has little if anything to do with "dexterity or balance." It's hand-eye coordination and breathing. If breathing required dexterity I know a lot of people who would be dead by now

I qualified expert in the Marine Corps (both rifle and pistol) and have applied what I've learned in recreational shooting as well as in hostile situations. I'm not clumsy, but I'm also not the most graceful. How many Marine Corps Heavy Gunner Ballerinas have you heard of?

I apply personal experience and reality when it comes to ruling, in the games that I GM, that PP bonuses are not applicable. It's just not realistic.

Powered armour, vampires, and fireballs are? I hate to see that particular justification anywhere. I don't mind seeing "doesn't make sense" because that implies that the world it pertains to has justifications on why the other things I listed would. But 'not realistic' as a reason is... well... not realistic.
I mean we're already accepting that being smart makes you a better acrobat, that pulsing laser weapons cut your bonuses to strike in half *because* they fire multiple lasers micro-seconds apart (which does not cause any kick-back and still takes less time for all three lasers to leave the barrel than it does for even a single railgun round), and that AoE attacks seemingly only damage the most robust part of your armour - leaving the extremities intact (despite there being MDC amounts listed for them).

Just throwing that out there.

I'm not saying that the "game itself" is realistic. There has got to be some sort of realism base or there'd be not foundation in the game. If people want to take the PP bonuses and apply them to their character's WPs in their game then that's their call. I was just stating that I don't allow it in my games and why. There are a lot of people that game (no offense meant to anyone) that have no experience with firearms and that may be why some think thatthe PP bonuses should be applied to their character's WP. The same goes for some many who think they're proficient with a firearm since they rank well on HALO or some other video game. Unless you've hand firearm training I can see why people would believe that.

Again- I'm just stating that I don't allow the PP bonuses to be applied in the games I GM and why. I have nothing against those who do apply it at all.

[Natasha]

I'm aware of your opinion on aptitude bonuses for firearms, and I was going to take your opinion into account, but I was asking Duck-Foot and GreenGhost.

So to clarify, did you ever feel that "ability" was being used as something other than a synonym for my half-assed use of the term "aptitude?"

Whoopsy
I didn't realise it was question to them.

I believed that ability was used as something other than a synonym for aptitude.

[livewire]

i can answer this has a former marine. in boot camp i got marksman on the rifle range with my m-16. thats really good, but when it comes to actual balance i am somewhat less than normal. rifles and handguns in general require more of a hand and eye coordination then speed and agility.

I know exactly what you mean. Shooting a firearm has little if anything to do with "dexterity or balance." It's hand-eye coordination and breathing. If breathing required dexterity I know a lot of people who would be dead by now

I qualified expert in the Marine Corps (both rifle and pistol) and have applied what I've learned in recreational shooting as well as in hostile situations. I'm not clumsy, but I'm also not the most graceful. How many Marine Corps Heavy Gunner Ballerinas have you heard of?

I apply personal experience and reality when it comes to ruling, in the games that I GM, that PP bonuses are not applicable. It's just not realistic.

Powered armour, vampires, and fireballs are? I hate to see that particular justification anywhere. I don't mind seeing "doesn't make sense" because that implies that the world it pertains to has justifications on why the other things I listed would. But 'not realistic' as a reason is... well... not realistic.
I mean we're already accepting that being smart makes you a better acrobat, that pulsing laser weapons cut your bonuses to strike in half *because* they fire multiple lasers micro-seconds apart (which does not cause any kick-back and still takes less time for all three lasers to leave the barrel than it does for even a single railgun round), and that AoE attacks seemingly only damage the most robust part of your armour - leaving the extremities intact (despite there being MDC amounts listed for them).

Just throwing that out there.

I'm not saying that the "game itself" is realistic. There has got to be some sort of realism base or there'd be not foundation in the game. If people want to take the PP bonuses and apply them to their character's WPs in their game then that's their call. I was just stating that I don't allow it in my games and why. There are a lot of people that game (no offense meant to anyone) that have no experience with firearms and that may be why some think thatthe PP bonuses should be applied to their character's WP. The same goes for some many who think they're proficient with a firearm since they rank well on HALO or some other video game. Unless you've hand firearm training I can see why people would believe that.

Again- I'm just stating that I don't allow the PP bonuses to be applied in the games I GM and why. I have nothing against those who do apply it at all.

and there are some of use who do have firearm experience and do think it should apply somewhat for a couple reasons

1) i believe hand eye coordination applies to shooting a gun and even though it is not stated in the books outright i believe PP is the attribute to refer to for it as this is implied by some of the bonuses given by PP
2) PP would work as a default as there is not really another one that works as easily to represent natural aptitude/ability (pick one lol) with a firearm
3) i do have experience with firearms and also have personal experience with having a natural ability/aptitude(see above) which i believe i talked about in some of my previous posts on this thread

[livewire]

...because modern weapons have a penalty to dodge/parry, while ancient attacks do not?

~RS

you know as far as in the game rules this is the best argument i have heard lol

[livewire]

is applying a 1/2 bonus from PP to firearms the perfect fix? no, while i do think in this games terms it is the easiest fix available. the other options are to create another stat which would be a task i would not want to undertake as the game system is not designed to accept it and many things would be changed in the process. the other is to come up with a formulaic approach which while possible seems overly complicated and subject to manipulation imo. the 1/2 PP bonus to firearms is quick, dirty, works within the system with out too many other changes being necessary, and allows a realistic natural talent (new word to argue about? just kidding) to be displayed in the game. as i said before is it perfect? heck no. does it work? so far in play testing, yes it does. does everyone have to use it? nope its just my house rule and i am suggesting it as a possible fix for those who are interested thats all. it is obvious that there are very polarized sides to this debate with very few in the middle. it would seem that some people want a perfect fix or none at all or don't believe that a natural talent with firearms exists to begin with. then their are the few who do believe it exists or know for a fact it exists and think it should be represented in the game, but we seem to be in the minority. now i like a a good discussion as much as the next person but i think i am getting tired of beating my head against the proverbial wall of closed mindedness. i can only assume that people are choosing to ignore my experiences that i have put on this thread or assumed i am lying to support my view. in either case i am not going to argue it anymore. if anybody can explain what i experienced in such away that it does not tell me that natural talent with firearms does exist i will be more than happy to listen and even change my mind if it is appropriate. if you have that explanation please feel free to pm me with it i would love to hear it. otherwise you all have a good day and I'll yak at you on other threads l8r

[GreenGhost]

i can answer this has a former marine. in boot camp i got marksman on the rifle range with my m-16. thats really good, but when it comes to actual balance i am somewhat less than normal. rifles and handguns in general require more of a hand and eye coordination then speed and agility.

I know exactly what you mean. Shooting a firearm has little if anything to do with "dexterity or balance." It's hand-eye coordination and breathing. If breathing required dexterity I know a lot of people who would be dead by now

I qualified expert in the Marine Corps (both rifle and pistol) and have applied what I've learned in recreational shooting as well as in hostile situations. I'm not clumsy, but I'm also not the most graceful. How many Marine Corps Heavy Gunner Ballerinas have you heard of?

I apply personal experience and reality when it comes to ruling, in the games that I GM, that PP bonuses are not applicable. It's just not realistic.

Powered armour, vampires, and fireballs are? I hate to see that particular justification anywhere. I don't mind seeing "doesn't make sense" because that implies that the world it pertains to has justifications on why the other things I listed would. But 'not realistic' as a reason is... well... not realistic.
I mean we're already accepting that being smart makes you a better acrobat, that pulsing laser weapons cut your bonuses to strike in half *because* they fire multiple lasers micro-seconds apart (which does not cause any kick-back and still takes less time for all three lasers to leave the barrel than it does for even a single railgun round), and that AoE attacks seemingly only damage the most robust part of your armour - leaving the extremities intact (despite there being MDC amounts listed for them).

Just throwing that out there.

I'm not saying that the "game itself" is realistic. There has got to be some sort of realism base or there'd be not foundation in the game. If people want to take the PP bonuses and apply them to their character's WPs in their game then that's their call. I was just stating that I don't allow it in my games and why. There are a lot of people that game (no offense meant to anyone) that have no experience with firearms and that may be why some think thatthe PP bonuses should be applied to their character's WP. The same goes for some many who think they're proficient with a firearm since they rank well on HALO or some other video game. Unless you've hand firearm training I can see why people would believe that.

Again- I'm just stating that I don't allow the PP bonuses to be applied in the games I GM and why. I have nothing against those who do apply it at all.

and there are some of use who do have firearm experience and do think it should apply somewhat for a couple reasons

1) i believe hand eye coordination applies to shooting a gun and even though it is not stated in the books outright i believe PP is the attribute to refer to for it as this is implied by some of the bonuses given by PP
2) PP would work as a default as there is not really another one that works as easily to represent natural aptitude/ability (pick one lol) with a firearm
3) i do have experience with firearms and also have personal experience with having a natural ability/aptitude(see above) which i believe i talked about in some of my previous posts on this thread

As for the current Palladium Rules I can see why you'd see the PP bonuses as the closest thing to use for those who're "naturals" when it come to firearm proficiency.

I, personally, think that a "Talents & Faults Chart" (I made one a few years ago) can be used during character creation to determine whether a character is a natural with firearms.

Some OCCs give bonuses to WPs (I think the Paratrooper OCC in Merc Adventures is one of them) and if a character receives bonuses from a WP, the OCC (i.e. Paratrooper) and the PP attribute bonuses an unbalanced gaming situation has been born. I used to include the PP bonuses to the Rifts and N&SS games that I GMed about 15 years ago (or so) by a combination of mistakes and not completely reading the rules, but noticed how unbalanced the game was. I decided to get off my butt and actually read the rules. I haven't applied the PP bonuses to modern WPs since.

[Natasha]

Now, whatever stat covers hand-eye coordination would be irrelevant to Natasha

Did I actually say this?

Would I be correct, then, in saying you support the system's bonus scaling for training with a gun, but not so much its bonuses to swords and piloting? That in fact you feel the system doesn't properly represent natural aptitude at learning skills or using weaponry, and the bonuses to anything should be done away with?

Apparently in favor of more OCCs?

Even I had a hard time understanding this; basically you're saying (whether you meant to or not) do you think the game should go stat-less?

Because without bonuses (from stats!) there is no point to them.

I'm saying the stats should be better defined and that more stats should be added.

So what you're saying is that you see stats as either > 15 or irrelevant?

A stat wouldn't be irrelevant, especially if it were done correctly.
I'm saying the stats should be better defined and that more stats should be added.
If you can come up with a stat that handles shooting aptitude, then great. I think you're going to bump into a wall and have to add a math aptitude, a singing aptitude, a writing aptitude, etc. That's why I said I feared bothering with it would lead to too much micro-management.

* Natasha particularly, but all parties: Addressing natural ability sufficiently advanced or magical enough to make a difference short of an "I can aim a gun good" spell, there are a few mutant abilities which are devoted to delicacy and precision of touch, which would seem to cover aiming handguns well if I've got the right idea. While we're talking houserules, should mutant powers like Heightened Sense of Touch (bonus to pick pockets, locks, or such) or a micro-manipulation hand (yes, bonus to PP when dealing with small objects, but also a +5% or +10% bonus to delicate work and repairs) offer bonuses to strike with a handgun?

I can see precision of touch applying to sniping only since the trigger pull is very important in accurate shooting. But so is careful aim. Aimed shots get a bonus that reflects the aiming and shooting process, which includes trigger control. So that's sufficient for me. I could probably be convinced to add +1 if you have a superability such as Heightened Touch.

[Dog_O_War]

Livewire, I have to disagree with you about PP providing bonuses; at the same time I agree that it should have some type of effect.

Here's why.

You do not need any hand-eye coordination to make a perfect shot; all this can be achieved through math and science. By using mechanical devices to eliminate outside factors you can hit a target dead-on 100% of the time. a good example is by vicing a gun and adjusting the position of the weapon based apon tragectory. This requires zero coordination, only math.

However, this is where I agree with you; having actually fired a weapon, I know that having the ability to touch your nose without poking an eye out (re: hand-eye coordination) does affect your aim, and to a great degree. This is all instinct; the random, minor adjustments we make, pulling the trigger as the sights align from sway to sway of your bodies' natural movement, and even just being able to see clearly at a distance thanks to good eyesight. But for me it comes down to a reverse factor; training in the use of a firearm removes habits and retrains instinct to be rigid, compensate for distance, movement, etc... To the point that there is nothing natural, only that the training itself has now become instinctual.
That said, having poor coordination (re: stat penalty) is where PP still comes into play.

An analogy to this is that make-up helps a girl look pretty, but all the make-up in the world can't help the truely ugly. This means that a person with good coordination will be better than a person with bad coordination always; this shows through even if both are trained. A PP bonus won't apply, but a PP penalty will.
All that said though, PP bonuses do apply - but they require the sharp-shooting skill.

[Natasha]

Now, whatever stat covers hand-eye coordination would be irrelevant to Natasha

Did I actually say this?

I'm afraid so.

What exactly is the point in all the going back and forth about how much of firing a gun is natural skill and how much is training?

My point is that firing a gun is 99% training, maybe more. Furthermore, that natural skill in firing guns is enabled by training reflected in the bonuses to strike provided by training. Training is the Weapon Proficiency.

And the system does not reflect that with the same amount of training, the natural shooter shoots better than the non-natural.

It boils down to what being a natural shooter means.

I don't think it means very much.

I see. We were covering the current rules as I read them. I don't think being a natural shooter means very much since there are no rules covering natural shooters. You can say your character is a natural shooter, but that has very little meaning in regards to the current rules.

If you make a well-designed stat or rule to cover natural shooters, then it has some meaning.

You maintained for quite a while that you don't feel natural ability makes enough difference to grant a +1 on a d20 roll.

Yip. Again, operating under the current rules and how I read them, natural ability makes no difference.

If you can come up with a stat that handles shooting aptitude, then great. I think you're going to bump into a wall and have to add a math aptitude, a singing aptitude, a writing aptitude, etc. That's why I said I feared bothering with it would lead to too much micro-management.

I believe Rifts: Ultimate Edition has a table in character creation where a human or such can roll percentile and pick up an aptitude, a talent if you will, a knack developed somehow. If a table any human could roll on covered in separate percentiles singing, math, writing, handguns, rifles, bazooka, and mecha piloting, would that be a good balance of micromanagement and simplicity for you?

Sounds fine to me.

Although I think that I would still rather see handled in the O.C.C.; this sounds like a potential minmax exploit.

I can see precision of touch applying to sniping only since the trigger pull is very important in accurate shooting. But so is careful aim. Aimed shots get a bonus that reflects the aiming and shooting process, which includes trigger control. So that's sufficient for me. I could probably be convinced to add +1 if you have a superability such as Heightened Touch.

So you don't feel that a precise, unwavering hand and arm have much to do with aim except in sniping?
If any currently existing super powers applying to a specific kind of physical action apply, which might it be?
Another challenge, again something less specific than "I am Gun Guy," what would you require of a NEW super power to grant such a bonus to handguns?

- I don't feel that it has much do with short range engagements. The longer the range to target, the more important shooting fundaments become. At the shorter ranges, I don't think it's worth bothering with. You could say that after 100m you're applying P.P. bonuses to Strike on aimed shots. I see it covered already by the Weapon Proficiency and training instead.
- I don't understand the question.
- An explicit description which says this power applies the bonus to aimed shots using a handgun.

[Natasha]

I'd rather start from scratch with you. That would cut out all the digging and allow us to define up front the god damn words and rules we're using. PM me if you're interested.

Or if you're in agreement we just don't know how to communicate with each other, that's fine, too. Especially since you're still considering I'm purposely obtuse even after apologising and stating I'm not.

[Natasha]

As long as we start from scratch and ensure we both are using the same definitions we can use carrier pigeons if you want.

[livewire]

As for the current Palladium Rules I can see why you'd see the PP bonuses as the closest thing to use for those who're "naturals" when it come to firearm proficiency.

I, personally, think that a "Talents & Faults Chart" (I made one a few years ago) can be used during character creation to determine whether a character is a natural with firearms.

Some OCCs give bonuses to WPs (I think the Paratrooper OCC in Merc Adventures is one of them) and if a character receives bonuses from a WP, the OCC (i.e. Paratrooper) and the PP attribute bonuses an unbalanced gaming situation has been born. I used to include the PP bonuses to the Rifts and N&SS games that I GMed about 15 years ago (or so) by a combination of mistakes and not completely reading the rules, but noticed how unbalanced the game was. I decided to get off my **** and actually read the rules. I haven't applied the PP bonuses to modern WPs since.

well as far as balance thats why i cut the pp bonus to firearms in half it seems to take care of the balance issue.
i would love a talents and faults setup shadowrun has something like it and it works quite well and i think it fleshes the characters out quite well

[Natasha]

So, first question. Does Stat X = Stat Y?

No.

[Prysus]

*Somebody keeps citing Sharpshooter, and I just haven't found a version of that OCC feature which offers strike bonuses. I really would like a page number, as it's possible I'm being dense.

Greetings and Salutations. Bonuses to strike from a high PP (18 or higher and at a slower rate than the normal strike/parry/dodge bonuses) comes from Rifts New West page 80-81 (technically starts the first sentence on page 79). It is reprinted again in Rifts GM Guide page 81-82 as well as Rifts Conversion Book One (original, not revised) on page 15-16. It may very well be in even more locations than that, but I'm too lazy to continue looking.

And, I could be wrong, but I'll try to help clarify the Natasha/macksting confusion. I believe the reason (forgive me if I'm wrong, I'm not trying to put words into anyone's mouth, but from the impression of what I've read in this thread so far) it seems contradicting is because the topic has changed a few times (different people talking about different things). I believe this sums up more of her view (broken down) ...

1) Does aptitude provide an advantage in real life? Yes, so does an aptitude in math, science, singing, etc. However, these are not represented as much in the current system (yes, you get an I.Q. bonus to ALL skills, but that doesn't really show a guy who is good at math but not as impressive in reading/interpretation, and can do both, just for note).

2) Should aptitude be represented by using the P.P. attribute? No, it should not. P.P. is not hand-eye coordination.

3) Is she opposed to a new game mechanic/rule that does provide a bonus? No, she's not opposed, but it is not currently represented in the system and is not P.P. More than saying it should not have a bonus, she is saying it should not be P.P.

I could be wrong about all of this, but that's what I'm taking it as. However, each person knows what they mean, and the flow of the conversation seems to shift causing it to seem her answer shifting (different answers to different topics compounded by possibly misunderstanding which topic is in question). Hopefully I did understand and that does help. All in all though I posted to give the Sharpshooter reference (and since I did that tried to take a stab at helping). Thank you for your time and patience, please have a nice day. Farewell and safe journeys.



P.S. Oh! The reason I figure Palladium rules P.P. applies to Archery and not Firearms is because Palladium separated their two categories into Ancient and Modern, not Ranged and Melee. Bows and arrows are clearly ancient and they just didn't make a special ruling for it (in my opinion).

[GreenGhost]

As for the current Palladium Rules I can see why you'd see the PP bonuses as the closest thing to use for those who're "naturals" when it come to firearm proficiency.

I, personally, think that a "Talents & Faults Chart" (I made one a few years ago) can be used during character creation to determine whether a character is a natural with firearms.

Some OCCs give bonuses to WPs (I think the Paratrooper OCC in Merc Adventures is one of them) and if a character receives bonuses from a WP, the OCC (i.e. Paratrooper) and the PP attribute bonuses an unbalanced gaming situation has been born. I used to include the PP bonuses to the Rifts and N&SS games that I GMed about 15 years ago (or so) by a combination of mistakes and not completely reading the rules, but noticed how unbalanced the game was. I decided to get off my **** and actually read the rules. I haven't applied the PP bonuses to modern WPs since.

well as far as balance thats why i cut the pp bonus to firearms in half it seems to take care of the balance issue.
i would love a talents and faults setup shadowrun has something like it and it works quite well and i think it fleshes the characters out quite well

If the PP bonuses (halved) works for you in your games then that's cool.

I've got to redue my Talents and Fault chart. It's been years since I've used it and can't remember where it's at.

[livewire]

i think i am going to make one up using the shadowrun one as a base and go from there even if it does work better with a point system i think i work something out

[GreenGhost]

i think i am going to make one up using the shadowrun one as a base and go from there even if it does work better with a point system i think i work something out

Cool!

[sasha]

Can someone please rationalize to me why Ancient WP (bows, crossbows) allow a character to use their PP bonuses to strike but someone firing a handgun benefits from no PP bonus? It makes no sense to me since one would think that someone with high PP would be able to control the recoil/aim steadier and so on then someone who has a low PP.

I know that I'm coming in late here. But I'll give you what I think.

I've played in many games where P.P. bonuses to strike and parry apply to punches, kicks, bites, and shields only. All other bonuses come from W.P. It reduces the power level somewhat, but I don't recall having complaints about it.

What I would do, however, is have P.P. bonuses apply strictly to hand to hand fighting, whether a punch or a sword, and lump bows and crossbows outside "ancient" weapon proficiencies.

[elecgraystone]

PP covers eye-hand coordination. Look at RUE page 283. A LOW PP means that the character has "poor hand-eye coordination, is graceless, tends to handle things roughly is a clumsy klutz and walks like an elephant." So is a low PP means your eye-hand coordination sucks, the reverse should be true that a HIGH PP means that your eye-hand coordination is good.

Add to this the sharpshooting skill (GMG pg# 81), where the bonus to strike depends on your PP, and it's pretty clear the stat for shooting is PP.