What's the point?

[dragonfett]

Do simultaneous attacks use up one of the characters normal attacks? The rules seem to indicate that they don't, but I have heard many GM's who say they do. If so, then that fight with the level 15 Grunt and 2 level 1 Grunts would have turned out very differently.

[SkyeFyre]

Do simultaneous attacks use up one of the characters normal attacks? The rules seem to indicate that they don't, but I have heard many GM's who say they do. If so, then that fight with the level 15 Grunt and 2 level 1 Grunts would have turned out very differently.

1. Unless it specifically states that something is "automatic" in combat it uses up an action.
2. Game Master Guide page 32, right hand side...

<A question about simultaneous attack>
Kev's Answer: "No. Doing a simultaneous attack still counts as one attack..."<rest of answer>

That fight was done correctly.

Ther eis only one problem. It was pointed out that using simultaneous attack woudl negate many of the advantages he could heave since you cannot defende yoursefl form a simultaneous attack the last I checked. I could be wrong though.

In the fight they never even had a chance to use a simultaneous strike as they were out of actions. Even if they could, paired weapons allows you to parry and attack in one action thus negating a simultaneous strike from the counter attacker.

[dragonfett]

What about my earlier question? Supergyro said:

The level 15 guy would win, but if the level 1 guy used simultaneous attacks, I'm not sure the level 15 guy would win by that much. I'd estimate the level 15 guy would win 8 times out of ten (I think lucky dice plus simultaneous attacks could give the level 1 guy a victory every now and again)

Where does it say that you can use simultaneous attacks for ranged attacks.

[SkyeFyre]

What about my earlier question? Supergyro said:

The level 15 guy would win, but if the level 1 guy used simultaneous attacks, I'm not sure the level 15 guy would win by that much. I'd estimate the level 15 guy would win 8 times out of ten (I think lucky dice plus simultaneous attacks could give the level 1 guy a victory every now and again)

Where does it say that you can use simultaneous attacks for ranged attacks.

That statement was obviously ill thought out as people seem to regard simultaneous attacks as some sort of almighty strategy that can take down anything.

You can only do a simultaneous attack if you are being attacked in melee and have actions remaining. Some people argue that you can do it on a ranged attack, this however makes no sense to me because in the description of simultaneous strike it states "Instead of defending with a parry, dodge or entangle...etc". As you can see it includes a parry as the alternative, however if you read the description of parry (RUE 346-347 by the way) it states clearly "Bullets and energy attacks cannot (as a rule) be parried!"

Therefore if you cannot parry ranged attacks (unless a special ability as some classes have), and a simultaneous attack is listed as something you can do in place of a parry, dodge, or entangle (two of which you cannot do at range) it seems obvious to me that the writer intended for simultaneous strikes to be used solely in hand to hand combat. The next thing that gets me is that the simultaneous strike ALWAYS hits, if this was to be true for ranged combat then the system is severely broken.

So to answer your question directly: It does not say anywhere that you can use simultaneous attack in ranged combat.

[dragonfett]

That's what I was thinking, but I have also often been proved wrong by some obscure (or rather, obsureish) rule from one book or another and I wanted to double check.

[Supergyro]

You can only do a simultaneous attack if you are being attacked in melee and have actions remaining.

Incorrect. Take at the rule you're citing, the word 'or' is the most important word.

"Instead of defending with a parry, dodge or entangle...etc".

So a simultaneous attack can be used instead of a parry, dodge, *or* entangle.

Energy beams can be *dodged*... and therefore the simultaneous attack can be used *instead* of the *dodge*. Another way to think about it is "Anyplace where you use the phrase 'Parry', 'Dodge', OR 'entangle', you can use 'simultaneous attack'.

Similarly, if a simultaneous attack could *only* be done in melee, it would say "Instead of defending with a parry or entangle" and would *not* include dodge.

As opposed to, say 'Rolling with punch', which can *not* be replaced with simultaneous attack.

That's how the rule is written.

[dragonfett]

*sighs* Wow, my head hurts now.

[Killer Cyborg]

Do simultaneous attacks use up one of the characters normal attacks? The rules seem to indicate that they don't, but I have heard many GM's who say they do. If so, then that fight with the level 15 Grunt and 2 level 1 Grunts would have turned out very differently.

They do use up one of the character's attacks.

And yes, they can be used in ranged combat.
The rules never indicate otherwise, and I once asked KS himself and he didn't see any reason why not.

[Supergyro]

Secondly, a grunt (or any other class for the most part) is not going to reach level 15 by standing out in the open, blasting away at their target. I think that the first thing he's going to do is use his Vibro-knife to loosen the soil and dig out a quick fox hole to climb in if he's out in the open or take cover behind a boulder or tree. At 1500', it should be very difficult for a level one grunt to hit the level 15 grunt without taking time to take his shot. The level 15 grunt has a +7 to hit with Energy Rifles while the level 1 having no bonus to hit (they get a +1 to hit at level 2). At 1500' with the level 15 taking cover (or at least laying prone), I would have to rule that the level 1 would have to make a called shot or a aimed called shot at a -4 to hit. If the level 1 grunt takes cover as well, the level 15 grunt would have to do the same as well. However the level 1 grunt is only going to get 1 to 2 shots off each round (whether or not he aims or not) while the level 15 will be able to get 2 to 3 (depending on whether or not he decides to aim). If the level one grunt doesn't take cover, the level 15 could get as many as all of his attacks in one melee round.

-This would be a marvelous rationale for why the level 15 guy has a dodge bonus that's higher than the level 1 guys. this dodge bonus would reflect that he knows how use the terrain more effectively than a level 1 guy in order to avoid damage. The level 15 guy has a higher dodge bonus than the level 1 guys, it's +5, it's already factored in.

Ok. For the sake of this test we're going to hand both parties the same load out. Also since all we're looking at are melee bonuses our scenario will say that one level 15 CS grunt gets jumped by 2 level 1 CS grunts just because they don't like him... he stole their cookies or something. Also we're going to assume a stand up fight, forgetting about setting. These guys are just standing out in the open beating on each other with vibro-swords (2D6MD). Armor will be classic CA-2 (50 MDC)

Level 1 grunt with default of HTH:Expert
4 attacks per melee, +2 pull, +2 roll with, +1 strike with his vibro-sword

Level 15 Grunt with default of HTH:Expert
7 attacks per melee, +3 pull, +2 roll with, +5 parry, +5 dodge, +2 strike, +2 disarm, Critical strike on 18-20, Paired Weapons, +3 damage, Knockout/stun on 18-20, Critical strike or knockout from behind (triple damage on critical strike), Death Blow on Natural 20, not including special attacks. +8 to strike with his vibro-sword, +10 to parry with his vibro-sword. Also we're going to assume that the level 1s have no regard for self preservation and will use simultaneous strike at every opportunity. And we'll even ignore that the level 15 gets a critical strike on 18-20.

APMR = Actions per melee remaining

Round 1:
(1)Lv1:50 MDC: 4 APMR: Rolls a 16 for initiative
(2)Lv1:50 MDC: 4 APMR: Rolls a 5 for initiative
(3)Lv15:50 MDC: 7 APMR: Rolls a 12 for initiative

(1) rolls to strike [13+1=14], (3) rolls to parry [9+10=19] PARRIED -- (1) has 3 APMR
(3) waits patiently watching his opponents, he didn't attack, so no simultaneous attack is possible. (3) has 6 APMR
(2) rolls to strike [4+1=5], (3) rolls to parry [4+10=14] PARRIED -- (2) has 3 APMR

1) Were this a fantasy game, the 'go at it with sword and armor' would be valid, but CS soldiers use rifles before they use swords.

2) I'm also trying to figure out why the level 15 guy knows how to delay his action but the level 1 guys do not. Delaying action, waiting for the other guy to attack you, and then responding with a simultaneous attack is something that's in the playbook of a level 1 character (As opposed to the vaunted 'death blow' that is only in the level 15 playbook.... which seems powerful but in a realm of head-to-toe full body MDC armor it, like many of the level 15 guy's abilities, is negated by the simple nature of MDC combat.)

If you're a level 1 guy going toe to toe with a level 15 guy, delaying your action, waiting for him to attack you, responding with a simultaneous attack, and hoping your damage output is greater than his is your single best strategy.

Which is interesting, since it makes 'wait for the other guy to attack first' the best plan for both sides. It creates a deadlock. And not even a level 15 guy is powerful enough to break that deadlock. A level 15 grunt and a level 1 grunt are stalemated, which gives you an idea of how much those bonuses help the level 15 guy out.

[Shark_Force]

no I didnt miss the point...
yes its going to take time and 300+ sessions sounds about right.
I remember it taking about that time for AD&D 1E & 2E
The "need" to level faster has always perplexed me.
I pointed out how the players have a more direct effect on how much exp they earn in Palladium.

well you either keep missing the point or you are deliberately ignoring it.

the point is not the >300 sessions to get to level 15. it's that you get from level 1 to level 2 in a very short time (1-2 sessions), while taking a very long time (>50 sessions) between higher levels. realistic? maybe. perhaps even probably. personally, i'd rather see a bit more of a change than having to wait for 50 sessions and then having everything improve all at once (imo, it would be better if a couple of skills increased by 1-2% a session rather than increasing 30 skills by 3-5% after 50 sessions), and i'm not saying this is necessarily bad (except for that part where i'd like to see smaller skill increases that come faster rather than having to wait for that one session where they all go up), but that's the point that's being raised. it has nothing to do with the total time, and everything to do with the time at each increment.

[dragonfett]

This would be a marvelous rationale for why the level 15 guy has a dodge bonus that's higher than the level 1 guys. this dodge bonus would reflect that he knows how use the terrain more effectively than a level 1 guy in order to avoid damage. The level 15 guy has a higher dodge bonus than the level 1 guys, it's +5, it's already factored in.

But taking cover is not a reactive defensive strategy, which is what dodging is. Taking cover is being proactive so he doesn't have to dodge, wasting attacks avoiding gunfire.

[SkyeFyre]

Similarly, if a simultaneous attack could *only* be done in melee, it would say "Instead of defending with a parry or entangle" and would *not* include dodge.

According to your statement you cannot dodge in melee, which is incorrect.

Incorrect. Take at the rule you're citing, the word 'or' is the most important word.

Right, because the word "and" would not make any sense whatsoever. You don't parry, dodge, and entangle all at the same time in combat. You do one or the other.

The rules never indicate otherwise, and I once asked KS himself and he didn't see any reason why not

Oh, and I do allow it at my table, I just require a strike roll for simultaneous ranged shots and they are wild. However I don't see it in the books so therefore there is technically no concrete rule printed, and the rule as written seems to lean towards it being melee combat only. KS saying he doesn't see why not does not tell us if the shot should be rolled, if there should be penalties...etc. Sure he can see it happening is different than a canon rule. He has said that he could see a lot of things happening when people mention it, but it doesn't mean that he says that it is the cut and dry final ruling. What about those who have the books and don't hang out on the forums or get to meet KS? The rules as written in the books is what should apply. Unless he used a definitive statement and not the vague one he presented all we can do is assume if he meant yes it's official or if he's just taking his stance on "GMs change your game as you see fit" as he usually does.

Regardless... if you'll read the rest of this thread you'll discover that it is centered around HAND TO HAND / CLOSE QUARTERS combat, not ranged. Either way the discussion of simultaneous strikes should be carried over to another thread. In hand to hand combat there is definitely a difference in performance from a level 1 to a level 15 as I've shown.

1) Were this a fantasy game, the 'go at it with sword and armor' would be valid, but CS soldiers use rifles before they use swords.

1. Change the scenario if you want, or heck change the class. It's three merc soldiers who are out of ammo and they just run at each other. The topic is on melee combat, it's a scenario to prove a point... stop trying to make friggin sense of it.

Seriously! You people! Sometimes you just need to make a point, not everything has to be so logical. THIS SCENARIO IS NOT A REAL EVENT! NOT WITH REAL PEOPLE! IT'S AN EXAMPLE TO DEMONSTRATE GAME MECHANICS, GET OVER IT!

2) I'm also trying to figure out why the level 15 guy knows how to delay his action but the level 1 guys do not. Delaying action, waiting for the other guy to attack you, and then responding with a simultaneous attack is something that's in the playbook of a level 1 character

Ok, so lets say he attacks, realizes that his opponents are slower (that they have fewer actions than him) and he then learns... so he'd get hit once... the rest of the outcome would be the same.

Both sides can just keep passing on their actions but as he's got 7 and they've got 4 all that they've accomplished is giving the Level 15, 3 free actions to beat on them.

"BUT THAT'S NOT REALISTIC"

Neither is this game! These are the game mechanics as written and what I've done is perfectly legal within the rules of the game. Unless you can show me some reason within the game mechanics that I cannot do what I did, then I'm right.

Don't hit me with logic. I understand real life, physics, all that wonderful crap. I'm playing a game and these are the rules.

Do you go play Monopoly and whine about how all the properties are grossly under priced?! No, it's a game... just the same as Rifts.

[Killer Cyborg]

The rules never indicate otherwise, and I once asked KS himself and he didn't see any reason why not

Oh, and I do allow it at my table, I just require a strike roll for simultaneous ranged shots and they are wild. However I don't see it in the books so therefore there is technically no concrete rule printed, and the rule as written seems to lean towards it being melee combat only. KS saying he doesn't see why not does not tell us if the shot should be rolled, if there should be penalties...etc. Sure he can see it happening is different than a canon rule. He has said that he could see a lot of things happening when people mention it, but it doesn't mean that he says that it is the cut and dry final ruling. What about those who have the books and don't hang out on the forums or get to meet KS? The rules as written in the books is what should apply. Unless he used a definitive statement and not the vague one he presented all we can do is assume if he meant yes it's official or if he's just taking his stance on "GMs change your game as you see fit" as he usually does.

That's not how it works.
The rules, as written, do not in any way imply or state that simultaneous attack is restricted to melee.
Therefore, it's not.
Since a lot of people seemed to have trouble grokking this, I asked Kev if you could make simultaneous attacks with ranged weapons. His response was "yes" (or, going by memory, it might have been "Yeah... sure, why wouldn't you be able to...??").
This wasn't just him saying that he could see it as a house rule, it was him commenting on the official rules of the game to clarify how they're intended.
You can also look in the FAQ: viewtopic.php?f=37&t=78675

For people who can't get online to come here, and who don't talk to Kev, they're just stuck with the rules as they're written, which means that they have zero reason to rule out simultaneous attacks with ranged weapons (if they're playing by the official rules).

In hand to hand combat there is definitely a difference in performance from a level 1 to a level 15 as I've shown.

Yup. It's not a huge difference, though. It's not Steven Segal against nameless thugs.
And that's what people are complaining about.

Personally, I think that some of the bonuses should be changed (who needs a bonus to Pull Punch?), but overall don't really care about it. Never gotten a character up to that level anyway.

[SkyeFyre]

As far as the ranged simultaneous strike. Cool. I still think it needs some elaboration on the "Yes" but ok.

[Damian Magecraft]

no I didnt miss the point...
yes its going to take time and 300+ sessions sounds about right.
I remember it taking about that time for AD&D 1E & 2E
The "need" to level faster has always perplexed me.
I pointed out how the players have a more direct effect on how much exp they earn in Palladium.

well you either keep missing the point or you are deliberately ignoring it.

the point is not the >300 sessions to get to level 15. it's that you get from level 1 to level 2 in a very short time (1-2 sessions), while taking a very long time (>50 sessions) between higher levels. realistic? maybe. perhaps even probably. personally, i'd rather see a bit more of a change than having to wait for 50 sessions and then having everything improve all at once (imo, it would be better if a couple of skills increased by 1-2% a session rather than increasing 30 skills by 3-5% after 50 sessions), and i'm not saying this is necessarily bad (except for that part where i'd like to see smaller skill increases that come faster rather than having to wait for that one session where they all go up), but that's the point that's being raised. it has nothing to do with the total time, and everything to do with the time at each increment.

ok... I did not miss the point I got it quite well the first time. Just because someone does not agree with your view point does not mean they are obtuse.

the discussion if you take a look at the original post is all about the 300+ sessions. it is also about the "plateau" effect. as well as the "kill factor" mentality of certain games.
fast leveling to kill bigger and badder things is fine if thats your cup of tea. I however prefer character development over stat development. Palladiums system is geared more toward the former than the latter.

Try this experiment sometime. Go to a convention or even the busiest rpg night for your LGS. Ask players and GMs about their most memorable characters. count how many say class "x" @ level "y" and then regale you with a battle tale. count how many are about name "w" the class "x" (no level given) and then regales you with multiple tales that illustrate what made that character memorable. Bet you get more of the latter. rarely does anyone remember Gorg the 20th level barbarian who slew a wyerling singlehanded.
But everyone remembers Halan the thief who reduced the local magistrate to a blubbering idiot through a devious series of practical jokes. (and each joke is a tale unto itself.)

[dragonfett]

If the big man says it's ok, then cool. I won't use it as a PC in a game unless my GM employs the rule that way. Personally, as a GM, I won't allow the rule to be used that way. I personally see it as a serious abuse of an ambiguous rule (whether or not it can be used in ranged combat).

SkyeFyre, why didn't you have the level 15 Body Flip/Throw on the two level 1's. Performing a throw on them causes to lose an action and initiative, plus now they are on the ground and have to use an action to get back up again unless they try to fight from the ground.

Speaking of which, what penalties are there for fighting in melee combat while laying down?

[Supergyro]

Seriously! You people! Sometimes you just need to make a point, not everything has to be so logical.

Logic is useful to find out where gut instincts are leading one to incorrect conclusions. For example, instinctively I used to think 15th level HtH Martial arts was powerful, then I actually did the sorts of drills we've been discussing and I found a 15th level fighter is more powerful than a level 1 fighter, but not by much, and mostly due to that critical strike on 17-20 (A guy with more than five attacks per melee is probably going to see at least one critical strike a round with critical numbers like that).

Where did I get the idea that 15th level was so amazing? From literally every other game I played. Rifts however, was different.

[SkyeFyre]

Seriously! You people! Sometimes you just need to make a point, not everything has to be so logical.

Logic is useful to find out where gut instincts are leading one to incorrect conclusions. For example, instinctively I used to think 15th level HtH Martial arts was powerful, then I actually did the sorts of drills we've been discussing and I found a 15th level fighter is more powerful than a level 1 fighter, but not by much, and mostly due to that critical strike on 17-20 (A guy with more than five attacks per melee is probably going to see at least one critical strike a round with critical numbers like that).

Where did I get the idea that 15th level was so amazing? From literally every other game I played. Rifts however, was different.

I think you missed my point. My point wasn't that logic doesn't have it's uses... my point was that in a situation where I'm merely going over game mechanics we don't need to know exactly why these people are fighting, it's just to prove a point.

[Shorty Lickens]

I think we've LOST the point.

[SkyeFyre]

SkyeFyre, why didn't you have the level 15 Body Flip/Throw on the two level 1's. Performing a throw on them causes to lose an action and initiative, plus now they are on the ground and have to use an action to get back up again unless they try to fight from the ground.

Speaking of which, what penalties are there for fighting in melee combat while laying down?

I was primarily just trying to prove a point that he could win in a stand up fight. I suppose he could use the body flips but then I think he would have got hit by the crazy simultaneous attackers because technically there is no rule against using it against a body flip. Also that would mean that they lose an action, but he essentially used up his to make them lose theirs and no damage would be done because they're all sitting in MDC armor.

No known penalties for fighting while laying down. I might impose a penalty of -2 or something but there is no canon answer.

[Killer Cyborg]

I suppose he could use the body flips but then I think he would have got hit by the crazy simultaneous attackers because technically there is no rule against using it against a body flip. Also that would mean that they lose an action, but he essentially used up his to make them lose theirs and no damage would be done because they're all sitting in MDC armor.

Body Flip/Throw is a defensive maneuver that can be used instead of parry or dodge.
Because it is a defensive maneuver, no simultaneous attacks can be made against it; the attacker is already attacking.
It actually wouldn't be a bad move in the 2-on-1 scenario, because if he's successful the attacker loses the attack they were making AND an additional attack from being thrown. So the defender is losing one attack, but the attacker loses 2.

[Killer Cyborg]

First the different charts that possess little rhyme or reason for the gazillion classes in the game is not only pointless, it's annoying. How about 1 chart... that's it.

The power levels in Rifts are so different that it wouldn't make sense for them to all be the same.
I think that some of the differences between XP charts are unnecessary due to lack of real difference, but I agree with them that it's a good idea for vagabonds to level up faster than a hatchling dragon.

Second, combat EXP. My assassin should not earn more combat ability for sneaking past the 2 guards than he should for killing/disabling them.

That's the nature of XP in most games. The alternative is something like Cyberpunk 2020's system where each skill effectively gets its own xp, but that's a lot of bookkeeping that bogs things down.

Palladium combat EXP stinks. So I will also present my fix for that. You may hate all of this, and that's fine, but I figured I'd share it as I've had similar concerns, and as a GM that has a once a month group I like my players to feel like they're getting somewhere.

From your proposed solution, it seems more that your issue is that sneaking past the guards sometimes gives you more xp than fighting them would.
The reason for that is that Palladium is more about role-playing than about mindless combat. The tables are set up to reward people for thinking and playing in character, not for hacking and slashing.

Combat EXP:

Minor Menace: 2 or more levels below you. 50 EXP Plus the Total MDC of the creature. So A level 1 Grunt in Heavy Deadboy is 100 MD+ 50 if you are level 3 or greater.
Major Menace: Within 1 level of you up or down. 100 EXP plus the Total MDC of the creature. Same Grunt, level 2-4. 100 MD+ 100 if you are level 3
Great Menace: 2 or More levels above you. 300 EXP plus total MDC of the creature. Same Grunt, level 5 and up. 100 MD + 300 if you are level 3.

Considering the overall issue here is a perception that it's too hard to level up characters, why give out xp based on character levels?
Is a level 1 deadboy only going to be a Minor menace to a level 4 vagabond?
Is that vagabond really going to be a Great Menace to the grunt?
Possibly, but the answer is gear-dependent, not level-dependent.

[dragonfett]

I was primarily just trying to prove a point that he could win in a stand up fight. I suppose he could use the body flips but then I think he would have got hit by the crazy simultaneous attackers because technically there is no rule against using it against a body flip. Also that would mean that they lose an action, but he essentially used up his to make them lose theirs and no damage would be done because they're all sitting in MDC armor.

No known penalties for fighting while laying down. I might impose a penalty of -2 or something but there is no canon answer.

Yeah, you could attempt a simultaneous attack against the person trying to throw you, but if they were smart, they would try to parry instead because getting thrown causes the defender to lose two actions automatically, one for getting thrown and one to get back up. If they burn an attack to do a simultaneous attack, the level 1 grunt will either have one attack left (if the level 15 got the drop on him in the initiative order), no attacks left if the he didn't get the drop on the level 1, or he'll start burning up actions for his next melee round! So parrying would be the best bet in the long run. Hell, if you wanted to have the to wait until the level 1 grunts ran out of attacks to perform the throw, you could, because then they couldn't perform a simultaneous attack AND if successful (which the level 15 most likely will be), the level 1 grunts automatically lose 2 attacks for the next combat round.

Body Flip/Throw is a defensive maneuver that can be used instead of parry or dodge.

Where does it say that? I had always imagined it as throwing the character off balance so that they fall like a hip toss in wrestling. If that is the case, could you provide the book and page number so that I can read more up on it. The fight might go more like this:

Level 1 Grunt (A): Init Roll: 1, 4 APM
Level 1 Grunt (B): Init Roll: 2 4 APM
Level 15 Grunt (C): Init Roll: 3 7 APM (no ****, those are the actual initiative rolls I made, despite there is only a 1 in 60 chance of me rolling those numbers in that order)

C: Holds action for defensive action
B: Attacks C 13 Hit 14 MD, C rolls for Body Flip/Throw 17 Hits does 6 SDC damage to B (1d6 + 3) C has 6 APM left, B has 2 APM left
A: Attacks C NAT 20! 36 MD (50 MDC Total). 3 APM

C: Holds action for defensive action
A: Attacks C 14 Hit 14 MD (64 MD Total), C rolls for Body Flip 22 Hits 7 SDC to A. C has 5 APM left, A has 1 APM left
B: Lost initiative, stunned from throw, 2 APM left

C: Attacks A 19 (A parries with a 5, gets hit), 6 MD to A, C has 4 APM left
A: Lost initiative, stunned from throw, 1 APM left
B: Stands Up, 1 APM left

C: Attacks A 23 (A parries with a NAT 20!, parries successful), C has 3 APM left
A: Stands Up, 0 APM left
B: Attacks C 7, the attack would hit, but C parries with a 21.

C: Attacks A 26 (A parries with a Nat 1! EPIC FAIL), 11 MD (17 MDC Total), C has 1 APM left
A: Out of Actions
B: Out of Actions

C: Attacks A Nat 18, 28 total (A parries with a 15, fails) 24 MD (41 MDC Total), C has 0 APM left
A: Out of Actions
B: Out of Actions

So after the first melee round, A has 39 MDC left on his Main Body, B has not sustained any damage to his armor, and C's Main Body has taken heavy damage from a couple of lucky hits. So the Level 15 is having a little bit of trouble, but he is not out of the fight yet.

Minor Menace: 2 or more levels below you. 50 EXP Plus the Total MDC of the creature. So A level 1 Grunt in Heavy Deadboy is 100 MD+ 50 if you are level 3 or greater.
Major Menace: Within 1 level of you up or down. 100 EXP plus the Total MDC of the creature. Same Grunt, level 2-4. 100 MD+ 100 if you are level 3
Great Menace: 2 or More levels above you. 300 EXP plus total MDC of the creature. Same Grunt, level 5 and up. 100 MD + 300 if you are level 3.

The biggest problem with this is the fact that many creatures don't have levels. And the MDC of the creature doesn't always reflect the threat posed by a creature. What would you say to a creature that has magic, psionics, or natural abilities like regeneration, teleportation, etc.? I think the xp reward categories for combat (minor, medium, major menaces, that is) are fine, maybe increase the actual rewards, but that would be it.

[Supergyro]

C: Holds action for defensive action
B: Attacks C 13 Hit 14 MD, C rolls for Body Flip/Throw 17 Hits does 6 SDC damage to B (1d6 + 3) C has 6 APM left, B has 2 APM left
A: Attacks C NAT 20! 36 MD (50 MDC Total). 3 APM

The level 1 guys would hold their actions (at least one of them would), and the level 15 guy would attack, at least assuming both sides are fighting at their maximum efficiency.

The level 15 guy would however attack a level 1 guy since
1) He critical strikes on 17-20, so he has a good chance of scoring more damage than an incoming simultaneous strike
2) he can attack the level 1 guy seven times while the level 1 guy can only simultaneous attack four times

For both sides to be fighting at top form, the following should be done.

1) the level 15 guy attacks one of the level 1 guys exclusively until his target goes down, he then hits the second guy.
2) the attacked level 1 guy responds with simultaneous attacks, but he only can do this four times a round. Once out of attacks, he would then try to defend himself with parries).
3) The other level 1 guy attacks the level 15 guy, but the level 15 guy responds with parries

Of course, that's with swords.

It changes with rifles, a lot, since rifle shots need to be dodged. With swords, the level 15 guy has a chance. With rifles, he doesn't (the need to spend an attack to try to dodge kills his damage output too much).

[Damian Magecraft]

I'm not going to quote the thread, but I do want to quote Tropic Thunder... "What do you mean, "You people"?" OK, seriously... the Palladium EXP is re-donkey-less! First the different charts that possess little rhyme or reason for the gazillion classes in the game is not only pointless, it's annoying. How about 1 chart... that's it. I have such a chart, and I shall share it with you. Second, combat EXP. My assassin should not earn more combat ability for sneaking past the 2 guards than he should for killing/disabling them. Palladium combat EXP stinks. So I will also present my fix for that. You may hate all of this, and that's fine, but I figured I'd share it as I've had similar concerns, and as a GM that has a once a month group I like my players to feel like they're getting somewhere.

Combat EXP:

Minor Menace: 2 or more levels below you. 50 EXP Plus the Total MDC of the creature. So A level 1 Grunt in Heavy Deadboy is 100 MD+ 50 if you are level 3 or greater.
Major Menace: Within 1 level of you up or down. 100 EXP plus the Total MDC of the creature. Same Grunt, level 2-4. 100 MD+ 100 if you are level 3
Great Menace: 2 or More levels above you. 300 EXP plus total MDC of the creature. Same Grunt, level 5 and up. 100 MD + 300 if you are level 3.

Standardized EXP Chart:

1: 0-2,000
2: 2,001-5,000
3: 5,001-9,000
4: 9,001-14,000
5: 14,001-20,000
6: 20,001-27,000
7: 27,001-35,000
8: 35,001-44,000
9: 44,001-54,000
10: 54,001-65,000
11: 65,001-77,000
12: 77,001-90,000
13: 90,001-104,000
14: 104,001-119,000
15: 119,001-125,000

This is what I've done in my game. I find it works out well. Hopefully some of you may find it useful as well. I average about 2400 EXP per session so early levels go rather rapidly but it does slow down, just not as much as standard rules do.

one chart wont work. it fails to take in the disparate power levels of the classes. what happens when the dragon and thief both progress at the same rate? the dragon out strips the thief within 3 levels or so.
there is a pattern to tables its just not easy to spot.
the reason for multiple tables is for the reason that power levels between classes are not and have never been equal. The varying rates that each class has is the "hidden balancer" that way the mage and the grunt dont end up at extreme ends of the scale compared to dragon or the vagabond.

[Killer Cyborg]

Body Flip/Throw is a defensive maneuver that can be used instead of parry or dodge.

Where does it say that? I had always imagined it as throwing the character off balance so that they fall like a hip toss in wrestling. If that is the case, could you provide the book and page number so that I can read more up on it.

It goes back to Ninjas & Superspies, I think. If you don't have that book, I highly recommend picking it up, especially if you're unhappy with the HTH skills in Rifts.

I don't have my books with me, but in RUE, in the description of combat terms, read carefully the description of Body Flip/Throw. IIRC, it mentions flipping the attacker. That might be the only reference to it in RUE; I don't have my books with me, so I can't say for sure right now.

[Kalidor]

The different experience tables are a primitive form of Level Adjustment, so it's needed.

Also, I always took the "loses one attack" part of being flipped as taking into account getting back up. Since there were never any rules for being prone, it always seemed to me that losing the initiative and 1 attack meant by the time it was back to your turn you were ready to fight again, not "Oh, and now I get up"

[dragonfett]

I have always taken it as the act of getting thrown was what caused the character to lose initiative and one attack, and they still have to get up. I would rule that characters with certain skills (such as Gymnastics or Acrobatics) or have Martial Arts at medium level or Expert at high levels can roll a percentile to roll to their feet.

[Killer Cyborg]

So it is harder to be a Glitter Boy pilot than it is to be a Ley Line Walker, and further at 15th level the GB is more powerful that the Line Walker. That's what the EXP table suggests.

Only if you equate XP with power.
Some jobs are just tougher than others, whether or not they make you ultimately powerful in the long run.

Even if that is the argument the Dragon is the only chart that has an extreme leveling difference.

I agree that there should be bigger differences between the charts.

As no one has ever played a dragon in any of my game this was never a concern for me, but I would agree to a different chart for such a creature. Furthermore, Casters are often accused of getting the short end of the stick, shouldn't they make it out of low levels faster to develop the spell power to bring them into power level with early level men of arms?

Casters do not and have not ever gotten the short end of the stick.
They've gotten screwed over a few times (the Two Attacks For Living, the Mage Armor Rule, etc.), but they're still one of the most powerful and versatile classes.
95% of the gripes about mages is due to a misconception about the class.
So, no. They definitely do not need to level up faster earlier.

The Line walker needs more from 1 to 2 but less from 14 to 15 compared to the GB, how does that make sense? Unlocking the most complex incantations of Rifts earth is easier than becoming the very bestest GB pilot ever.

There's a pretty sharp ceiling to physical abilities. After a certain point, it's hard to get any faster or any more accurate than you are.
On the other hand, after 14 levels of working with magic, that last little bit isn't so hard; you've had lots of practice.

I have to disagree, if balance isn't an issue, as has been stated in other books by KS, then the EXP system makes little sense. If it's unbalanced, not supposed to be balanced, and never is balanced then, as the topic of the thread asks, What's the point?

Kev is wrong.
The game is unbalanced of poorly balanced currently, but originally it was balanced very well and that shows in the Rifts book.
Palladium may claim that they don't care about balance, but they clearly impose certain rules specifically as an attempt to make things more balanced.
Things only really got unbalanced as more and more books came out, and power creep started really kicking in.

[dragonfett]

5: I've got nothing there... I agree he is wrong... but I look at a lot of the books and I just don't know where this power creep starts or stops. I mean I see it in the CJ books, but I look at Russia, or the NGR, and I don't really see it. I understand Atlantis is scary, but it's supposed to be. Is the power creep real or do people just get there hands on Swords of Atlantis way to easily? I don't know if it's a problem with the game or the way people run it.

Honestly, the power creep began with Sourcebook 1 with the Wilk's 457 Laser Pulse Rifle. It does the same damage as the NG-202 Super Rail Gun off of the Samson Power Armor. Not even the original SAMAS can match that, I don't have my CWC at hand to check the stats on the others variants. But the CWC is another great example of the power creep. Most of the new personal weapons introduced in that book are pulse capable.

[Kalidor]

Driving a suit of armor probably *isn't* harder than learning magic.

That's why the magic user has the drive and motivation to learn more and do more, while the Glitter Boy gets by on his power and isn't required to put as much effort into it.

The world is on easy mode for a Glitter Boy, so he's not going to see the same challenges in things that the Line Walker will and will not benefit as much from the experience.

That's why it takes him longer to level up. Pretty simple really. And this idea can apply to any extra powerful class or race who just doesn't have to do as much to get by as the little guys who struggle day to day and gain a richer understanding of their achievements.

[Dog_O_War]

Why does the evil KS taunt us with wonderful HTH bonuses stuck up at levels 10+ when the system is designed so that most characters will never even see level 7-8. The highest level character I have ever had in my game was level 13... but that's a rarity... and me being generous.

Does anyone have some sort of reasoning why some of the best bonuses are deliberately placed out of reach? Have you ever had a character hit 15 or even beyond? (I have rules for levels beyond 15, not that I've ever had the chance to use them) Or am I just a whiny forum writer?

I always guessed that it was because they really don't matter in comparison to racial/OCC bonuses. There are exceptions (Commando's auto-dodge for one) that make leveling with a HtH worth the while.

Sometimes.

What I question is the actual validity of the bonuses given, and for what it takes to get them.

For instance, it costs you (typically) an additional "other" skill to go from basic to expert, but the end bonus for 15 levels worth of advancement is 2 points of parry/dodge, -1 pull and -2 roll with impact (yes, your pull punch and roll are lower than they were with basic), critical 5% more, paired weapons, +2 disarm, -1 damage (yes, your damage bonus is better in basic), triple damage from behind, and a death blow at level 20. There are some maneuver differences, but these are of little relevance in an MDC setting (as they do SDC damage).

Basically the game makes certain HtHs appealing for certain characters.

Assassin is appealing because it's basically the only HtH that offers a ranged bonus to strike even though expert is supposedly military, as well as commando (two "hand to hand" skills that have as much if not more of a reason to have a focus on shooting).

Commando is appealing because it gives auto-dodge.

Martial Arts is simply not appealing, as the "bonuses" it gives are poor, the cost to upgrade is expensive, and the actual utility of martial arts maneuvers is vague and limited. It's like having on Batman's utility belt one time out of a dozen times it would matter.

Expert is not worth the "other" skill you sacrifice; best to get an OCC that starts there.

Basic is worth getting if you don't have a HtH, but that's only because something is better than nothing.

As for the "level-up" bonuses, it basically depends on what you're after. There is a point to having a better bonus to shoot/throw/punch, so bonuses to strike are always wanted, making HtH expert plateau at level 3. Yay.
Commando has that auto-dodge, making it become worth your dedication as of level 5, finally peaking at level 12 when you get that final +2 to the skill.
The others are fairly obvious in their utility as you level, etc...

What this means is that if you feel that your characters aren't getting their times' worth out of a hand-to-hand, get one that peaks earlier. Expert does so rather quickly, making future gains after 3rd level trivial and irrelevant (thus unwasted in a game that will only last until 5th), where as Commando really shines in a longer-running game.


This said, you'll find that the bonuses from hand-to-hand skills are rarely worth your effort, or even make a difference in actual combat; typically it's because you're getting +8 to strike from a PP of 30 that makes the difference on whether you cut that grackle-tooth with your vibro sword, not the +2 basic/expert offers at level X





Also, as a side-note to one of the other posts; in the Palladium Universe, "melee combat" extends to and includes ranged combat and ranged attacks, making any use of a "melee" maneuver, such as dodge, auto-dodge, simultaneous attacks, even parry (because you can parry lasers, amoung other things with shields) applicable in both shooting and punching forms of combat.

[Killer Cyborg]

1: So you are then suggesting that being a Glitter Boy Pilot is more difficult than being a Line Walker... (And before we get to far, yes I know I'm only comparing these two but I don't feel like drudging through the umpteen other charts)...

Hm. I don't know that it's a simple yes/no question.
Being a Ley Line Walker requires a specific set of physical, mental, and metaphysical capabilities: not everybody can do it. I mean, in theory they can, but in practice it's a very small percentage that have the right combination of intelligence, belief, and PE/PPE.
Being a Glitter Boy pilot might require military training, but it's also implied that a lot of pilots have gone through mostly on-the-job training in order to get their first-level skills (or been trained by the previous suit owner, etc.)
I'm betting it's not as tough to get to 1st level GB as it is to get to 1st level LLW.
From there, the chart shows the arc, and at the end LLWs have it easier.

2: I agree with your agreement...??? We're on the same page here.
3: Again I agree, I think casters are fine, my statement was simply that the vast majority (in my experience here) feel they get hosed.

The squeaky wheels make the most noise.

4: While that ceiling may exist the GB pilot gets nothing outside of his skills at 15, while the Line Walker gets a 15th level spell, more PPE, and all of his skill increases. I can't imagine that Dimensional Portal is that easy to master with his previous levels of experience that he can increase all of his skills, become a better fighter, gain more PPE, and do it all quicker and easier than the GB could.

Why not?

5: I've got nothing there... I agree he is wrong... but I look at a lot of the books and I just don't know where this power creep starts or stops. I mean I see it in the CJ books, but I look at Russia, or the NGR, and I don't really see it. I understand Atlantis is scary, but it's supposed to be. Is the power creep real or do people just get there hands on Swords of Atlantis way to easily? I don't know if it's a problem with the game or the way people run it.

It started in CB1. That's when SDC was more or less abandoned, and everything and it's dog became MDC creatures capable of inflicting megadamage.
Martial Arts Wrist Strengthening exercises give you 4 MDC, for cryin' out loud.
*Flex*
*Flex*
*Flex*
"Now I'm bulletproof!"


And that's where Palladium decided that Supernatural PS lets you inflict megadamage, which raised the bar for damage significantly and started to move the edge from ranged combat to melee combat.

Regardless, I've found what I offered here as a way to speed up the leveling process for those that feel they want to. It works for my group, I have an Ex- CS Special Forces, a Line Walker, a Juicer, and a Mind Melter as a regular group. They have toys, but nothing ridiculous. They're just about to clear 8 and 9 in level and I've found that the more noticeable EXP award is a nice thing for me and for them and in many ways is better than gaining loot. But to each there own...

Yup.

[dragonfett]

side note, the original Samas is 1d4x10.

I understand what your saying though, but the NGP7 I believe in the RMB was a 1d4x10 man sized weapon.

I don't think that I was clear on what I meant by what the original SAMAS's rail gun could do. The Wilk's 457 does 1d6 x 10 MDC where as the the SAMAS's Rail Gun does the aforementioned 1d4 x 10 MD (I think that is stupid, but that is for another thread). So that's 60 MD possible vs 40 MD possible with the averages being 30 and 20 respectively.

The NGP7 may be a similar size as the Wilk's 457 is, but it has almost half the range and only 4/5 the number of shots. A good weapon in it's own right, but pales in comparison to the Wilk's 457. Now it's better to have the NGP7 if you are fighting a Glitter Boy, but that's a rare instance, you're either getting ambushed by the GB or you're the one ambushing it. And if it is ambushing you, then you'll never get close enough to it to use the NGP7.

[Killer Cyborg]

5: I've got nothing there... I agree he is wrong... but I look at a lot of the books and I just don't know where this power creep starts or stops. I mean I see it in the CJ books, but I look at Russia, or the NGR, and I don't really see it. I understand Atlantis is scary, but it's supposed to be. Is the power creep real or do people just get there hands on Swords of Atlantis way to easily? I don't know if it's a problem with the game or the way people run it.

Honestly, the power creep began with Sourcebook 1 with the Wilk's 457 Laser Pulse Rifle. It does the same damage as the NG-202 Super Rail Gun off of the Samson Power Armor. Not even the original SAMAS can match that, I don't have my CWC at hand to check the stats on the others variants. But the CWC is another great example of the power creep. Most of the new personal weapons introduced in that book are pulse capable.

Energy weapons were always as powerful as rail guns, more or less.
A JA-11 could crank out a full-melee burst for 3d6x10 MDC, and it could do the same thing next round.
A GB is still going to do more damage with his boom gun, simple because he gets so many shots, but at an average of 105, a group of 4-5 people armed with JA-11s had pretty good odds of taking out a Glitterboy in an ambush.
A C-18 laser pistol, standard side-arm of the CS, could do a full melee burst for 2d4x10 MD. Since most people (who weren't piloting power armor, and who weren't juicers) only had 2 attacks per melee, that averages as 1d4x10 per attack: more than most railguns and equal to the CR-40.
The L-20 pulse rifle from the main book STILL has possibly the best combination of ammo capacity and firepower (6d6 MD, same as most rail guns).
And the NG-P7 could crank out 1d4x10 per shot. As the rules were written, it could theoretically even do a full-melee burst for 1d4x100 MD.... but I don't know anybody who actually played that way, and I believe that when I asked Kevin he said that Heavy Energy weapons were supposed to be an exception to the burst/spray rules.

Granted, the Wilks 457 could crank out even more damage in a burst than the NG-P7, but the way that it did it was consistent with the main book. There were laser rifles that inflicted up to 4d6 MD per single shot (JA-11), and there were pulse lasers that added the damage of all three shots in the pulse (L-20), so having a laser that did 3d6+2 MD per shot, with pulse capabilities equal to 3x that (by Palladium damage-dice math) actually fit with the rules.
On the other hand, it was pretty much the best gun in the game by almost every measure, so every player wanted one once they figured this out.
The areas where it fell behind other weapons was:
-It was a laser, so it only did 1/2 damage vs Glitter Boys (and back then, we all assumed that there would be more laser resistant stuff popping up regularly).
-The fact that it was a pulse weapon made it burst/spray incapable. Sometimes people went for lower average damage with the potential to crank out a LOT more by emptying the clip at something.

The Wilk's 457 was and is one of my favorites, but there were a few other standards in the main book that I used about as often:
NG-P7 Particle Beam Rifle ("When you absolutely, positively, have to kill every mother in the room... accept no substitutes!")
NG-Super Laser Pistol, because it had the ability to fire not only lasers, but volleys of grenades that did up to 8d6 MD to everything in the blast radius.
C-14 "Firebreather" for the grenades volleys (as above) and a pretty decent laser (3d6 MD) that was (at the time) burst/spray capable. The Wilk's 457 could inflict 3d6x10 MD in the average low-level melee round (3 attacks), but the Firebreather could dish out the damage damage by emptying the clip at the target (If you're only attacking one), or take out more than one low damage capacity target with a Spray attack (nice for swarms).
JA-11 Juicer Laser Rifle. As mentioned above, it could crank out massive damage from its ion beam (good against laser resistant targets), sturdy damage from its single-shot laser beam, AND it could fire a 7.62mm round as well. Whenever possible, I'd keep a silver bullet in the chamber for demons and monsters that were vulnerable to silver. I value versatility as much as sheer power.

Comparing the Wilk's 457 to rail guns, the Wilk's is often the superior weapon... but not always.
One of the advantages of rail guns is their massive ammo capacity. I don't have the stats here, but I'll bet if you add up the total number of bursts that any of the main book rail guns could fire vs. the total number of bursts that the Wilk's 457 could fire, every single rail gun would come out ahead.
This is important in some forms of combat, like swarm attacks or combat that takes a long time to resolve.

Also, there's something to be said for consistency of damage. A 6d6 railgun is going to be closer to the average roll more often than the Wilks' 1d6x10 MD. 1 out of 6 times the Wilks' is going to do 60 MD... But 1 in 6 times it's going to only do 10 MD. Not so much with the 6d6 railgun, simply because more dice are rolled- it provides more reliable damage on average (though not higher).

And even though lasers have the best range among energy weapons, railguns are the next best thing to missiles when it comes to out-ranging an opponent.

Then, of course, there's Glitterboys. Going up against them, that Wilks is only going to do 5-30 MD vs a railgun's 6-36. The railgun actually has a significant edge there.
But that's not even the real problem. The real problem is when you go up against a monster or mage that is completely impervious to energy attacks. In that case, the rail gun's 6-36 MD range damage is far and away superior to the Wilks' 0-0 damage range.

[dragonfett]

I just honestly think that rail guns should have more going for them than just longer range and larger ammo capacities (so long as the ammo doesn't jam or the links get shot off).

Edit: I just had a thought about how to make rail guns more powerful without having them do more damage. And it has something to do with what you were talking about doing more consistent damage. I am thinking that the only reason the Wilk's 457 does a 1d6 x 10 MD on a 3 shot pulse is because PB didn't want their players to be rolling 10d6's and having to add up the damage for every successful attack.

But I digress. Take the rail guns damage and roll for half of it and then add it to a flat 1/2 of the gun's (previous) max damage. Thus the rail gun that 1d6 x 10 now would do 5d6 + 30 MD. Thoughts?

[jaymz]

I just honestly think that rail guns should have more going for them than just longer range and larger ammo capacities (so long as the ammo doesn't jam or the links get shot off).

Edit: I just had a thought about how to make rail guns more powerful without having them do more damage. And it has something to do with what you were talking about doing more consistent damage. I am thinking that the only reason the Wilk's 457 does a 1d6 x 10 MD on a 3 shot pulse is because PB didn't want their players to be rolling 10d6's and having to add up the damage for every successful attack.

But I digress. Take the rail guns damage and roll for half of it and then add it to a flat 1/2 of the gun's (previous) max damage. Thus the rail gun that 1d6 x 10 now would do 5d6 + 30 MD. Thoughts?

You want a more deadly/effective railgun apply the armour piercing missile rules to them. hit roll of 18+ (including bonuses) does double damage and a natural 20 does triple.

[Killer Cyborg]

I just honestly think that rail guns should have more going for them than just longer range and larger ammo capacities (so long as the ammo doesn't jam or the links get shot off).

Well, there's also the fact that they're an actual physical attack.
There are a lot of things out there that are impervious to energy (or heat/fire, which also covers plasma).
And they can be loaded with silver or wood shot (or, presumably, iron) to exploit various creatures' weaknesses.

My "fix" for railguns was simply that I thought that they should be able to be used as an area weapon, so I ruled that they could use the Spray rules from the main book.

Another thought was that against larger targets and/or at close range, it's kind of silly that only 10 rounds out of a 40-60 round burst hit the target. I buy that at a distance, but if you're shooting at the broad side of a barn (or Death's Head) from close up, all 40-60 of those rounds should hit.
So in certain circumstances, you could roll 1d4x10 (on a 40 round burst) and use the roll to determine how many rounds hit, THEN roll for damage.
So if you roll a 4 with a CR-40, then you've hit with all 40 rounds, and inflict 40d4 damage.

Edit: I just had a thought about how to make rail guns more powerful without having them do more damage. And it has something to do with what you were talking about doing more consistent damage. I am thinking that the only reason the Wilk's 457 does a 1d6 x 10 MD on a 3 shot pulse is because PB didn't want their players to be rolling 10d6's and having to add up the damage for every successful attack.

But I digress. Take the rail guns damage and roll for half of it and then add it to a flat 1/2 of the gun's (previous) max damage. Thus the rail gun that 1d6 x 10 now would do 5d6 + 30 MD. Thoughts?

THAT would make things interesting.
A flat damage modifier is a pretty powerful tool, so that would definitely boost their power, and give them a big edge over the competition.

The only thing that I don't like about it is that the in-game effect would be that rail guns would be uncannily accurate weapons; that's what would be required in order to guarantee that kind of consistent damage on any and every hit.
Normally on a low damage roll, you've only winged or nicked the enemy, but in this case a "nick" or grazing shot would do 35 MD minimum.
On the other hand, you could argue that if the target is grazed by one round, the shot pattern is such that they'd be guaranteed to be hit by x other rounds.
On the other other hand, that would indicate that the target was always somewhere around the center of the area being hosed down, which would get back to great accuracy.

I definitely like that you're trying to increase their power without increasing their maximum damage.


OH! I just remembered another thing that I have advocated for a while, but have never gotten a chance to use!
In RUE, armor piercing missiles are easier to crit with, and (IIRC) crit for x3 damage on a nat 20.
I don't think it would be illogical to either extend this rule to rail gun rounds, or at least to allow for more expensive AP rounds to be used which have that same effect.

Another thought is that, even though I wouldn't do this, since the whole concept that Horror Factors were linked to a kind of supernatural aura, and there are guns out there that (stupidly) have horror factors already, you could give a Horror Factor to weapons that are especially LOUD or otherwise intimidating.
Which would include railguns (and especially the Boom Gun).
This HF could be ignored by beings with cybernetic sound filtration systems (or the equivalent), which would make those things more useful mechanically.

[Killer Cyborg]

You want a more deadly/effective railgun apply the armour piercing missile rules to them. hit roll of 18+ (including bonuses) does double damage and a natural 20 does triple.

Great minds, and all that.

[Killer Cyborg]

Hey, one more thing for now:
A while back, I came up with a specialized railgun for snipers, and it even had special armor piercing rounds that you could buy.
I tried to make this thing blend with the existing mechanics as closely as possible, so if you use any ideas from it you'll probably want to modify them.
Anyway, here's the Link:
viewtopic.php?p=2012366#p2012366

[dragonfett]

The only thing that I don't like about it is that the in-game effect would be that rail guns would be uncannily accurate weapons; that's what would be required in order to guarantee that kind of consistent damage on any and every hit.
Normally on a low damage roll, you've only winged or nicked the enemy, but in this case a "nick" or grazing shot would do 35 MD minimum.
On the other hand, you could argue that if the target is grazed by one round, the shot pattern is such that they'd be guaranteed to be hit by x other rounds.
On the other other hand, that would indicate that the target was always somewhere around the center of the area being hosed down, which would get back to great accuracy.

What are you, a Rahu-Man, or did you get the extra pair of bionic arms?

Another thought is that, even though I wouldn't do this, since the whole concept that Horror Factors were linked to a kind of supernatural aura, and there are guns out there that (stupidly) have horror factors already, you could give a Horror Factor to weapons that are especially LOUD or otherwise intimidating.
Which would include railguns (and especially the Boom Gun).
This HF could be ignored by beings with cybernetic sound filtration systems (or the equivalent), which would make those things more useful mechanically.

I think there already are a couple of guns from the New West Book from Bandito Arms that do this, but your right, there should be more that do this.

[jaymz]

Hey, one more thing for now:
A while back, I came up with a specialized railgun for snipers, and it even had special armor piercing rounds that you could buy.
I tried to make this thing blend with the existing mechanics as closely as possible, so if you use any ideas from it you'll probably want to modify them.
Anyway, here's the Link:
viewtopic.php?p=2012366#p2012366

I also play with the idea that Railguns are NOT Machine guns as portrayed. In fact as I understand it a true railgun can't even fire bursts that way. A coilgun might be able too. I make the burst damage single round damage. But at best you can fire a short semi automatic burst of 3 rounds tops. So example the C-40R does 1d4x10 per shot or 2d4x10 per 3 shot semi-auto burst.

In regards to your sniper gun reference, I also did that using a modifed C-40R as the modern day equivalent of the Barret .50 cal. and since I treated the C-40R as a single shot weapon and not a machinegun like weapon it took little modification for it. Add an E-clip port for power, a short clip for ammo and a scope akin to the C-10 and tada, anti material/armour rifle. Especially if you still apply the armour piercing rules.

[Killer Cyborg]

I honestly believe that rail guns should have some kind of impact rules like missiles. If you get pelted by a dozen slugs moving and sonic speeds that should suck in a lot of ways outside of "My armor is damaged". I want to think there are rules but I can not recall if there are/where they are. Knock down should be an advantage of these weapons versus regular beings in armor (Non supernatural).

There is mention of knockdown rules on at least one of the weapons in New West. However, I don't recall the weapon's name.

Some of the Big Bore weapons had Knockdown as part of the attacks.
Which, considering that the Boom Gun doesn't even have Knockdown as part of its attack, is pretty darned lame.
CB1 and VK give optional knockdown tables based on damage.

[cchopps]

I use the Impact Damage rules (p. 355/356 RUE) for Rail Guns. I do 1d4 SDC to squishies for every 20 MDC taken (though, sometimes every 10 MDC depending on the weapon).

Also note that it specifically lists Rail Guns in the last paragraph as causing knock down when the damage is 50+ in one hit.

C. Chopps

[Bood Samel]

The highest level rifts character I ever had was 7th level, a mystic knight named Kalki. He was a real mystic knight, not a gay white rose one.

[cchopps]

The highest level rifts character I ever had was 7th level, a mystic knight named Kalki. He was a real mystic knight, not a gay white rose one.

I don't remember the white rose being a boys only club, but house rules are house rules. The characters in my original group are around 12th, but we've been playing on and off for 15+ years.

C. Chopps

[Killer Cyborg]

He was a real mystic knight, not a gay white rose one.

I don't remember the white rose being a boys only club, but house rules are house rules.

I don't remember homosexuality being a boys-only club.

[MaxxSterling]

Word SkyFyre, It's a BS system by KS. I've had 1 or 2 character hit above 10th and only one ever get to 15, and then I was like... well now what? There is no 16... So, that blew goats. It took me 5 years of playing 4-5 nights a week, 4-5 hours each time to hit that mark. So, yes compared to other games, even dedicated gamers would find it hard to live that long in and out of game and also to play the same character, some groups of friends don't even last that long. The system should have been easier to achieve and had more levels. I don't mind it taking time to reach high levels, but this game is waaay too slow. So, I agree with you, even if no one else does.

[cchopps]

He was a real mystic knight, not a gay white rose one.

I don't remember the white rose being a boys only club, but house rules are house rules.

I don't remember homosexuality being a boys-only club.

Very good point, KC.

C. Chopps

[Dunia]

Couldn;t agree more on that last section Mack. I never understaood why the vast majority of GMs insist on starting campaigns at 1st level....

I insist that my players start at level 1 when my campaign starts, and if they die during play - maybe i let them start at a few lwvwls below the top leveled character currently alive.

The reason why I do this is because I tend to hate munchkins/kobolds/etc - those who play overly powerful characters and my adventures often require more brain, wits, attentiveness, mysteries than violence. Just as my players want it. people who play Godlings, Cosmic Knights and so and can walk through armies of humans in pA/MDC armorand destroy vast cities by dealing out hundreds of MDC per round do not thrill me and I tend to shy away from such games/players and instead GM people who want to find excitement when they encounter a few CS grunts/ a dogboy pack or are afraid of ´n animal who can do MD/take MD damage