Our Fencing Cyberknight!

[Killer Cyborg]

You're basing your entire argument on the notion that IF the book doesn't specify something, then that something necessarily does not apply... At the same time, you insist on applying rules that are NEVER specified.

[Killer Cyborg]

I'm not ignoring the finger gun. It just doesn't run counter to my argument in any way.

[Tor]

I'm not applying a rule never specified, I'm arguing against applying a rule never specified (damage being MD when used with MD attacks).

Fencing doesn't say to do that in Rifts, so it stays damage, which defaults as SDC damage, has always been used to indicate that, MD always has notes when it's used since it's so epic.

MD can get added to SDC attacks and SDC can get added to MDC attacks, doesn't change the nature of either number being summed. Adding +99dmg to 2MD is usually neglibile (it can destroy 299 SDC anyway) cept when people have cool damage>MD conversion abilities.

KC I think the Apok (WormwoodPg57) has a good example of how Rifts has used the phrases differently. Right column under mask ability 2:
"a dagger that normal inflicts 1d4 damage will inflict 2d4 damage"
"A laser rifle that normally inflicts 4d6 MD will inflict 4d6x2 MD"

This isn't perfect. There are some glaring mistakes (not using "normally", not being consistent about doubling the dice rolled or multiplying the result of the normal die roll) but it seems to clearly use 'damage' to represent non-MD attacks.

It does use "damage" to refer to doubling MD attacks too, sure, and that's the context I figure you're getting at, but when discussing quantity, damage and MD are being used here discretely to represent different things.

In Robotech, a zentradi can have mega damage melee weapons. Swords, clubs, knives. Are you saying the swords wouldn't benefit from mega damage bonuses (+1d6) from fencing? I don't see it if that would be your claim.

That is correct, because the Fencing skill in Robotech only adds damage, it does not add mega-damage.

Much like hand to hand combat skills and the PS attribute.

A note to Giant and Rat, please post more like KC and Alrik. "Simply posting to agree or disagree tends to be a waste." + "If you have something to say, back it up with thoughts and reasons." from SPAM rules, bullet 4

[Killer Cyborg]

I'm not applying a rule never specified,

You are arguing that "damage" means one thing when plus/minus is concerned, but that it means something else where "multiply/divide" is concerned.
That is sure as heck NEVER specified.

[Tor]

I'm not saying damage means different things, I'm saying there is a difference between:
*using 'damage' to make a statement modifying a pre-defined quantity and type (which can be applicable to all forms of damage, to multiply or divide them, without creating issues)
*using 'damage' to make a statement establishing an undefined amount or type (saying what kind of damage it is, it's nature)

With multiply/divide the modifying number has no nature, it's just a number modifying an existing nature. Addition is an entirely separate fixed nature.

How much more 3a is than 2a depends on what variable a is. How much more 2a+1 than 2a will always be 1 more since the amount added is not dependent upon the nature of what it is added to.

[eliakon]

Just because some usages of damage mean SDC does not mean all usages do, unless there is an explicit statement that the word damage, in isolation always means SDC. Is there such a statement. Also a proof of any use of the word damage in the additive sense where the added damage is clearly MD would also prove the theory wrong.
SO....are their either of these?

[Alrik Vas]

In Robotech, a zentradi can have mega damage melee weapons. Swords, clubs, knives. Are you saying the swords wouldn't benefit from mega damage bonuses (+1d6) from fencing? I don't see it if that would be your claim.

That is correct, because the Fencing skill in Robotech only adds damage, it does not add mega-damage.

Much like hand to hand combat skills and the PS attribute.

I don't see how that translates relative to something that size. technically, zentradi do SDC damage (at least in the old edition), but because their PS was so high, they could inflict mega damage. I don't think gaining technique, learning to land blows more accurately and more damaging, would translate into +1d6 SDC for them. I could see 1d6x100 SDC...

Yet, for the purposes of streamlined rules, if a sword does MDC, and you took fencing, it should do +1d6 mega damage. It's a translation of improved technique with the weapon over all. Call it specialization, honestly, just call it WP Specialist and let it apply to any weapon at all. Let it do MD for MD weapons, SDC for SDC weapons. To me it isn't a matter of "rule x says y" it's a matter of "does this make game balance and world sense in the environment i'm playing in?" and it does, lots of sense.

Just thought i'd point out how i saw it, give you some insight into where i'm coming from. Like KC's been saying, there are a lot of instances that translate "damage" to mean "MD for MD and SDC for SDC" and in Rifts, this makes logical sense because of the nature of the game environment. however, like You've been saying, there are some instances where this line of thinking doesn't belong. I think it's really up to common sense and preference, rather than strict rules that can muddle up situations that the various writers didn't anticiplate.

[Killer Cyborg]

I'm not saying damage means different things, I'm saying there is a difference between:
*using 'damage' to make a statement modifying a pre-defined quantity and type (which can be applicable to all forms of damage, to multiply or divide them, without creating issues)
*using 'damage' to make a statement establishing an undefined amount or type (saying what kind of damage it is, it's nature)

Whatever you're saying, you're the only one saying it.
The books NEVER do.

[Giant2005]

In China 2 there is a Chi Gung power called "Chi-Gung Sense" it adds an extra 1D6 damage to your attacks and uses the sole term "damage" many times in the statement. At the end of the power it also includes this line "Damage will be M.D. when used against a Mega-Damage opponent or structure."
Worth noting is that the extra damage is applied for very similar reasons to the damage bonus from Fencing; It applies because the ability helps the Monk find and exploit the weaknesses of the object or opponent.

[Killer Cyborg]

In China 2 there is a Chi Gung power called "Chi-Gung Sense" it adds an extra 1D6 damage to your attacks and uses the sole term "damage" many times in the statement. At the end of the power it also includes this line "Damage will be M.D. when used against a Mega-Damage opponent or structure."
Worth noting is that the extra damage is applied for very similar reasons to the damage bonus from Fencing; It applies because the ability helps the Monk find and exploit the weaknesses of the object or opponent.

Sure, but Tor's response to that will be the same as his previous responses:
"The fact that it's specified shows that it's an exception."
And if it's NOT specified, then he'll claim that shows that it's necessarily not an exception.

It's a nice bit of circular logic.

[Tor]

Just because some usages of damage mean SDC does not mean all usages do

This is not a matter of merely 'some'. The majority of Palladium games are SDC and they use 'damage' reliably to mean just that. MD is introduced as a new concept to set it apart from mere 'damage'. The phrase 'SDC damage' was introduced to provide some additional contrast.

I have shown the numerous examples of hand to hand maneuvers, powers and weapons that all use 'damage' to clearly indicate SDC, it is the default meaning of damage.

There has never been a single context of which I am aware where 'damage' could ever be used to mean MD when defining an amount.

The only context I have seen where it is applicable to amount-defining is when collectively discussing amounts which are variable SDC/MDC-reducing depending on the weapon, which is a unique context, which is why Palladium spells it out and doesn't just say 'damage'.

Palladium repeatedly goes out of its way to define when MD exists, because MD is special. Where has MD ever been a correct-seeming assumption for something called 'damage' lacking a surrounding context implicating it as MD?

Something from Splicers is not a surrounding context, it isn't part of Rifts. Megaversal interchangeability doesn't apply when there's data conflicts.

unless there is an explicit statement that the word damage, in isolation always means SDC. Is there such a statement.

Not every reality of a game requires explicit statements. An understanding of Palladium usage of "(amount x) damage" phrasing imparts this understanding to you.

Also a proof of any use of the word damage in the additive sense where the added damage is clearly MD would also prove the theory wrong. SO....are their either of these?

If such a proof of additive damage we should assume to be MD yet it lacks any refernece of it being MD is found, that would indeed be interesting.

I don't think gaining technique, learning to land blows more accurately and more damaging, would translate into +1d6 SDC for them. I could see 1d6x100 SDC...

Fencing damage unfortunately doesn't scale depending on the size of the user or the size or effectiveness of their weapon.

I agree that it SHOULD. Something like a set % increase, a higher chance of a critical strike, would probably be better, would make a great house rule.

for the purposes of streamlined rules, if a sword does MDC, and you took fencing, it should do +1d6 mega damage.

How does that streamline anything? Wouldn't it be equally stream-lining to apply PS and HtH damage bonuses then?

It's a translation of improved technique with the weapon over all. Call it specialization, honestly, just call it WP Specialist and let it apply to any weapon at all. Let it do MD for MD weapons, SDC for SDC weapons.

Either damage scales or it doesn't scale.

Whether you fence with a blade that does 1d6 damage or a blade that does 1d6x10 damage, the bonus is only 1d6. So why would the bonus suddenly be 1d6x100 when your sword does 1d6x100?

Yet the bonus remains 1d6x100 if the sword does 1d6x1000 or 1d6x10 000?

To me it isn't a matter of "rule x says y" it's a matter of "does this make game balance and world sense in the environment i'm playing in?" and it does, lots of sense.

It also makes sense that stronger people (even those not supernaturally strong) would inflict more damage with MD-inflicting melee weapons too. Stronger people are capable of swinging heavy things faster, making for a higher impact velocity, just like a lance charge or super-speed runners.

Just thought i'd point out how i saw it, give you some insight into where i'm coming from. Like KC's been saying, there are a lot of instances that translate "damage" to mean "MD for MD and SDC for SDC" and in Rifts

Instances that require disclaimers, disclaimers that only apply to those particular skills in those particular settings. Disclaimers about how fencing works in Splicers doesn't define Rifts any more than disclaimers about how Zombies work in Rifts define how Zombies work in Nightbane.

I think it's really up to common sense and preference, rather than strict rules that can muddle up situations that the various writers didn't anticiplate.

Common sense and preference are always options for trumping rules. My preference would be instead of a damage bonus for it to lower the amount needed to hit a critical strike by 1.

Whatever you're saying, you're the only one saying it. The books NEVER do.

RUE also does not say fencing can add MD, what Splicers says doesn't matter.

I've never claimed the books explicitly say something, but presented an argument of the clear meaning of the term based on continuous usage.

Palladium reprints a lot of stuff. Sometimes things get changed in reprints, sometimes not. Sometimes changes are carried over to future reprints, sometimes not.

RUE and Robotech simply did not adopt the change Gleba made to the fencing skill in Splicers, so it doesn't apply elsewhere.

In China 2 there is a Chi Gung power called "Chi-Gung Sense" it adds an extra 1D6 damage to your attacks and uses the sole term "damage" many times in the statement. At the end of the power it also includes this line "Damage will be M.D. when used against a Mega-Damage opponent or structure."

Yes, and a line like that is necessary for damage to be conditionally MD. Fencing only gets that in Splicers.

Tor's response to that will be the same as his previous responses:
"The fact that it's specified shows that it's an exception."

Yup. If it were a standard rule, it would not require such a statement, instead it would be presented under the basic rules once on how to interpret 'damage' and how damage is conditionally variable. Something we're never told, because damage is never variable like that except in special cases.

if it's NOT specified, then he'll claim that shows that it's necessarily not an exception. It's a nice bit of circular logic.

I would not argue this because your straw-man argument here makes no sense to me.

Lack of exception-introducing language does generally imply that something operates normally and not exceptionally, sure.

But why would I bother to state something as obvious as "it's necessarily not an exception" though?

I also don't understand how you're painting circular logic here.

There is no circle. The baseline logic shows damage consistently being used in the text to represent SDC damage. The phrase 'SDC damage' or equivalent was added en-masse to reprinted things and new things, but occasionally didn't make it in, but it was still SDC damage. MD being such a big deal, we can reliably assume authors to be picky about specifying where it got included.

[Killer Cyborg]

Whatever you're saying, you're the only one saying it. The books NEVER do.

RUE also does not say fencing can add MD,

Exactly the hypocrisy that I'm pointing out.
Because RUE never states explicitly that the Fencing damage bonus is MD, you claim that it must not be MD.
At the same time, RUE (nor any other Palladium book) states that the term "damage" has any other meaning/function when discussing x/ damage than when discussing +- damage... yet you insist that this must be a fact.

You take a hardline "it must be written in order to be so" stance when convenient for your hypotheses, but you take a softline "it doesn't have to be written in order to be so" stance when it's convenient for your hypotheses.
You chance your stance depending on how the stance would affect your argument.

what Splicers says doesn't matter.

THAT is a matter of opinion.
You claim that what Splicers says doesn't matter, but that's an opinion, not a fact.
The fact is that the rule in Splicers- since it's the same skill overall- can be (and arguably SHOULD be) taken as a clarification of the original rule/skill, NOT as a setting-specific change.
Since both settings are Mega-Damage settings, and since the rule in Splicers is both compatible with the RUE skill as described, AND with the precedent set by other RUE rules such as Horseback riding, there is no substantial reason to assume that the Splicers rule was ever intended to ONLY affect Splicers.

I've never claimed the books explicitly say something, but presented an argument of the clear meaning of the term based on continuous usage.

You've looked at the rules, and seen a pattern, and claimed that pattern as fact.
Just like the rest of us have done with the Fencing rule.
But when WE do it, you cry foul, and you claim that we're clearly wrong.
When YOU do it, you claim that it's pure logic and fact.

Palladium reprints a lot of stuff. Sometimes things get changed in reprints, sometimes not. Sometimes changes are carried over to future reprints, sometimes not.

We can agree on that, at least.

RUE and Robotech simply did not adopt the change Gleba made to the fencing skill in Splicers, so it doesn't apply elsewhere.

Wrong. Just because a rule is not written specifically in a setting does NOT mean that the rule does not necessarily apply in that setting.
And your entire argument rests on that assumption, combined with an apparent notion that Palladium for some reason wanted the Fencing skill to work differently in RUE and Robotech than in Splicers.

Tor's response to that will be the same as his previous responses:
"The fact that it's specified shows that it's an exception."

Yup. If it were a standard rule, it would not require such a statement, instead it would be presented under the basic rules once

You're claiming that IF a rule is standard, THEN Palladium does not restate it outside a single mention in the basic rules of the game?

if it's NOT specified, then he'll claim that shows that it's necessarily not an exception. It's a nice bit of circular logic.

I would not argue this because your straw-man argument here makes no sense to me.

If it's a strawman, demonstrate that fact.

Lack of exception-introducing language does generally imply that something operates normally and not exceptionally, sure.

Okay- I can agree to that, and I'll hold you to it.
Lack of exception-introducing language does generally imply that something operates normally, not exceptionally.

In the case of Fencing, the RUE passage is unclear. The Splicers passage clarifies what the normal operation of Fencing is within the context of Palladium's Megaversal System.
There is no exception-introducing language in RUE, therefore the norm applies.
Where you keep being thrown is that the norm is explained in Splicers, but that sort of thing happens with Palladium.
The rules for radiation poisoning in Rifts are the rules for radiation poisoning that were introduced in HU.
The rules for determining the stats of a lion in Rifts are the rules for determining the stats for a lion in PFRPG.
And so forth.
When a norm has been established for the Megaverse, that norm is only changed for a specific setting if there is exception-introducing language in that setting.

I also don't understand how you're painting circular logic here.

Because you're essentially using "rules only ever work as specifically written" as proof that "rules only ever work specifically as written."
Your premise is your conclusion.
That's a circle.

There is no circle. The baseline logic shows damage consistently being used in the text to represent SDC damage. The phrase 'SDC damage' or equivalent was added en-masse to reprinted things and new things, but occasionally didn't make it in, but it was still SDC damage. MD being such a big deal, we can reliably assume authors to be picky about specifying where it got included.

The bolded highlights another inconsistency.
You argue that if wording isn't present, then that means that we can only assume that the wording doesn't apply... in the case of Fencing.
But in the case of "SDC damage," you change your stance, and acknowledge that sometimes Palladium doesn't include wording that they intend to be there (or for us to intuit using "common sense").

[Tor]

Whatever you're saying, you're the only one saying it. The books NEVER do.

RUE also does not say fencing can add MD,

Exactly the hypocrisy that I'm pointing out.
Because RUE never states explicitly that the Fencing damage bonus is MD, you claim that it must not be MD.

I believe 'damage' defaults to mean SDC damage, yes, based on numerous precedents.

At the same time, RUE (nor any other Palladium book) states that the term "damage" has any other meaning/function when discussing x/ damage than when discussing +- damage... yet you insist that this must be a fact.

Did you mean "neither Rue nor any other Palladium book" or "RUE (not any other Palladium book)" possibly? The phrase as composed confuses me.

There are many forms of damage. They are not standard damage. Variant damage is modified by damage-modifying statements. But basic damage, when something inflicts it, or when it is added, is basic standard damage. It doesn't become variant damage (be it silver or MD) unless there is context to support that transformation.

Damage being added to variant damage does not make the added damage inherently also that variant damage. There is no basis for assuming this.

You take a hardline "it must be written in order to be so" stance when convenient for your hypotheses, but you take a softline "it doesn't have to be written in order to be so" stance when it's convenient for your hypotheses.

I don't think so, because my hypothesis is based on written examples which I have provided of 'damage' clearly defaulting as SDC damage. This is not the same thing as thinknig damage-modifying statements don't apply to variant damage.

You chance your stance depending on how the stance would affect your argument.

I don't think so, because what you say I stand for (unwritten assumptions) is not what I view myself as standing for. I believe the book examples support my stance. Not every operation is spelled out as overt statements, some we discern by looking at examples.

what Splicers says doesn't matter.

THAT is a matter of opinion. You claim that what Splicers says doesn't matter, but that's an opinion, not a fact.

It is an opinion formed based on similar conflicts that exist between books. Books print different things about skills.

I could just as easily argue that since the TMNT version of fencing adds no damage, that this means no damage bonus applies at all. This would certainly make the whole argument go away, right?

Or I could argue that Heroes Unlimited players should not use the hand to hand skills in their books. Instead, they should use the hand to hand tables in Dead Reign.

Or heck, that no MD bonus applies in Splicers because this was retconned by the removal of the MD option in Rifts and Robotech.

But the general policy I see is that you use the content native to the setting.

The fact is that the rule in Splicers- since it's the same skill overall- can be (and arguably SHOULD be) taken as a clarification of the original rule/skill, NOT as a setting-specific change.

"Prowl" is the same skill overall and has different percentages in different settings. Does that mean I ought to change the prowl percentage in N&SS to match more recent Palladium games?

Do TMNT fencers suddenly get a damage bonus with their fencing even though they never did before? Preposterous. Changes to skills in new games apply to those games, not older games. The same thing as with spells or with gods.

Since both settings are Mega-Damage settings, and since the rule in Splicers is both compatible with the RUE skill as described, AND with the precedent set by other RUE rules such as Horseback riding, there is no substantial reason to assume that the Splicers rule was ever intended to ONLY affect Splicers.

Horseback is not a precedent, it is a unique ability of horsemanship in Rifts that doesn't apply to other settings, otherwise they too would include notes or a general rule of damage = MD would be introduced. Selective rules under particular skills are not basic rules that apply to things outside of those skills.

Splicers being compatible isn't the same thing as 1 version of a named thing replacing another throughout the Megaverse. Exactly how to work it is unclarified and up to GM. They could work it that fencers from RUE inflict MD while in Splicers, or that fencers from Splicers inflict MD while in Rifts. They might allow RUE chars to learn the superior Splicer-fencing if they went there, just as a TMNT character could learn the superior RUE fencing if he visited.

You've looked at the rules, and seen a pattern, and claimed that pattern as fact. Just like the rest of us have done with the Fencing rule.

Fencing adding MD in one book written by a new writer isn't a pattern. Damage being consistently SDC/HP is.

But when WE do it, you cry foul, and you claim that we're clearly wrong. When YOU do it, you claim that it's pure logic and fact.

That's due to the degree of proof. You cite a single example of a unique trait as a pattern. I cited numerous examples of 'damage' being used to indicate SDC/HP.

Wrong. Just because a rule is not written specifically in a setting does NOT mean that the rule does not necessarily apply in that setting.

Perhaps, in which case, Splicers-fencing could potentially inflict MD in other settings too. But not Rifts-fencing or Robotech-fencing.

And your entire argument rests on that assumption, combined with an apparent notion that Palladium for some reason wanted the Fencing skill to work differently in RUE and Robotech than in Splicers.

Let's not speak of Palladium as if it were the Borg.

We know quite well from the Rifter/BoM debacle about how long extra PPE can be stored (hours vs minutes) that "Palladium" sometimes prints things that Kevin doesn't sign off on, in spite of it saying that he does, or conversely, that Kevin signs off on stuff without looking at it closely.

I don't know which of the 2 is the case with PPE storage, and I don't know which is the case with fencing. Which it is doesn't matter, Kev didn't include it in Robotech/Rifts. If this was a change brought specifically to his attention which he approved of, he would have processed how this would change low-tier MD melee combat and would have included it in at least RUE, which was being worked on when Splicers came out.

If it were a standard rule, it would not require such a statement, instead it would be presented under the basic rules once

You're claiming that IF a rule is standard, THEN Palladium does not restate it outside a single mention in the basic rules of the game?

I phrased my view wrongly, I will rephrase it for you.

Standard rules are presented under general rules sections, not under specific skills. Rules listed under specific skills are talking about that skill, not everything.

While standard rules can certainly be restated outside of basic rules, when there is no basic rule it requires overwhelming evidence to think of something as a standard rule.

The evidence of damage defaulting to SDC overwhelms the evidence of damage defaulting to nothing in particular.

For example the Botany skill says "characters will know how to farm". This does not mean that all characters know how to farm, it means that people who select the Botany skill know how to do it.

Confusion results from people thinking same-named things in different settings are the same thing, but if there are differences, they are not the same thing.

if it's NOT specified
he'll claim that shows that it's necessarily not an exception

I would not argue this because your straw-man argument here makes no sense to me.

If it's a strawman, demonstrate that fact.

It's a fact because I did not argue what you are saying I argued. It is your burden to prove you correctly paraphrased your argument, I do not think you did so.

It's a subtle bit of interpretation and a forgiveable one. But basically, I take issue with 'necessarily' since it's very assertive, and more like 'probably' in an overwhelming way.

You could of course say that about basically anything in the game. I mean, a Kittani MAY be a creature of magic. But I generally assume that Kittani are not creatures of magic until being explicitly told that they are, since there's no evidence suggesting this.

Just like there is no evidence suggesting that damage could reasonably be assumed to mean MD without explicit statements saying so.

Lack of exception-introducing language does generally imply that something operates normally and not exceptionally, sure.

Okay- I can agree to that, and I'll hold you to it.

Okay, but if you bring it up some time later, please quote a serviceable string I can search to confirm, as I might forget exactly how I phrased it

Lack of exception-introducing language does generally imply that something operates normally, not exceptionally.

In the case of Fencing, the RUE passage is unclear.

I do not view it that way. Rifts has always clearly used 'damage' the way SDC settings has, when assigning damage infliction to things, to mean the infliction of HP and SDC damage. Thus the finger-gun, and the various attacks and powers that inflict 'damage'. Some of which got "SDC" tacked on to it in RUE (like telekinesis) and some of it which didn't (like Ectoplasm).

The Splicers passage clarifies what the normal operation of Fencing is within the context of Palladium's Megaversal System.

I think our point of disagreement is clear here. I view the Splicers statement in parenthesis as exception-introducing for that skill and that book. You see the Splicers parentheses as introducing a precident on what 'damage' means in a Megaversal setting, or perhaps more narrowly, what it means in MDC settings (implying Palladium uses 'damage' differently in SDC and MDC settings)

There is no exception-introducing language in RUE, therefore the norm applies.

Splicers data is not presented as a Megaversal norm, it mentions nothing about doing this for other games' versions of Fencing.

Similarly, PF2nd's new Golem height minimum did not sudden make the shortest Rifts Golems grow 4 feet.

Where you keep being thrown is that the norm is explained in Splicers, but that sort of thing happens with Palladium.

That depends on what you're looking at.

While there are cases where things have the same stats in different settings, there are also cases where things do not have the same stats.

Where conflicts arise in presentation, one can take various approaches to resolve differences in stats. Some might include adopting setting-specific stats, always going with the latest book, always going with the highest-ranking author, etc. In all 3 of these approaches, fencing will not add MD in Rifts.

The rules for radiation poisoning in Rifts are the rules for radiation poisoning that were introduced in HU.

The rules for determining the stats of a lion in Rifts are the rules for determining the stats for a lion in PFRPG.

Some things stay the same and other things change. Some things being identical between books doesn't matter when things are different.

For example, comparing RMBp114 with PF2ndPg156. Lions (cat: large wild) have the same amount of PPE and HP. But statistical differences exist for other animals:
*Apes have 1d6 more PPE in PF than in Rifts
*Domestic Cats have more HP in PF than in Rifts

The amount of PPE that humans have at various life stages is also different in different dimensions.

If spells and creatures differ, and other skills differ, I'm not sure why this one skill suddenly becomes a Megaversal override.

When a norm has been established for the Megaverse, that norm is only changed for a specific setting if there is exception-introducing language in that setting.

You think Splicers introduced a norm, I do not, because different stats for same-name things is not introducing a norm.

Introducing a norm is more along the lines of 'base chi is equal to PE'. It's a norm because there are no conflicts.

Norms can not exist where conflicts exist.

you're essentially using "rules only ever work as specifically written" as proof that "rules only ever work specifically as written."
Your premise is your conclusion.

I see you flipped the two last next-to-last words there... but neither transmutation is something I specifically said, so I now have to match this up with what it is you are attempting to paraphrase...

I'm not making a mental connection of your stated premise/conclusion with my arguments, more exact quoting might help with this understanding.

From my perspective, an argument is being made that fencing will add MD to MD weapons in Rifts even though Rifts Ultimate Edition only states it adds damage (which clearly means SDC damage based on all preceding Rifts material to use the term in isolation like that) just because Splicers' (an older book not written by Siembieda ridden with reality-warping nanobots) version says so.

An interesting thing to discuss here may be the 'aerobic athletics' skill. It adds "kicking damage". Do you believe this adds 2 MD to a 1 MD power-kick made by a (moderately low PS) juicer or borg, bringing them to 3MD?

Even though their high PS would add much more SDC damage than aerobic athletics when using a standard non-power kick?

The phrase 'SDC damage' or equivalent was added en-masse to reprinted things and new things, but occasionally didn't make it in, but it was still SDC damage.

The bolded highlights another inconsistency.
You argue that if wording isn't present, then that means that we can only assume that the wording doesn't apply... in the case of Fencing.
But in the case of "SDC damage," you change your stance, and acknowledge that sometimes Palladium doesn't include wording that they intend to be there (or for us to intuit using "common sense").

There is a dramatic difference between the two:
*damage has always meant SDC damage from the outset, so adding SDC next to it is merely clarification, not something that changes anything
*damage never meant MD, MD was a concept introduced in later books, long after damage was introduced
**so adding "mega" next to damage, or replacing "damage" with "MD" is always a change from the baseline of what damage represents

I'm going to finish this off by stating my unrelated annoyance that for some reason Palladium will write "1d4x10 SDC or 1d4x10 MD". If MD can be stated opposite MDC then SD could be stated opposite SDC. So odd.

[eliakon]

This whole 'basic damage' thing confuses me. Is it actually spelled out in a book (any book) or is this jus inference?

[Prysus]

This whole 'basic damage' thing confuses me. Is it actually spelled out in a book (any book) or is this jus inference?

Greetings and Salutations. Let's see if I can help explain it.

When "damage" is used without a qualifier (neither listing S.D.C. or M.D.) it is clearly basic S.D.C. damage and cannot mean anything else. Though since Mega-Damage is a type of damage, damage can be used to mean M.D. (such as when it lists "damage" in the Critical Strike definition, which has been proven to mean S.D.C. or M.D.). Naturally this doesn't mean anything, since this is a multiplier and that's an exception, while anything that adds or subtracts follows different rules and must mean S.D.C. damage. In cases such as Horsemanship: Skilled Equestrians or Knight (RUE, page 311) or Chi-Gung Sense (Rifts China 2, page 60) where it gives a bonus ("+") to "damage" and then later clarifies it's S.D.C. or M.D. (whichever is applicable), this is proof that if they mean it to apply to both they'll state it, and shows that "damage" clearly always means S.D.C. damage, especially when added together such as with this skill. Don't even bother bringing up that Fencing in Splicers mentions "damage" and then clarifies it means S.D.C. damage or M.D., because that's totally meaningless and doesn't prove that Palladium ever uses "damage" to mean Mega-Damage as it only means S.D.C. damage and has nothing to do with the topic of the Fencing skill, d'uh! Skills such as Kick Boxing (RUE, page 317) that only mention "damage" and then later clarify the damage applies to either (neither adding nor multiplying) further shows that "damage" without qualifier only means S.D.C., which is obvious to everyone except those who are trolling just to disagree with Tor. So eliakon, stop trying to act confused and just admit that "damage" without qualifier always means S.D.C. damage, except when it's also used to mean Mega-Damage because it's a type of damage as well, but "damage" still only means S.D.C. damage, really. How is that confusing?

Now that that's cleared up ...

Just for fun, let's also not look at the definition of "Damage" in RUE on page 344, which discusses both S.D.C. and M.D. within its definition, and definitely don't focus on how it refers you to the Strength and "Damage" section to discuss M.D. punches. Afterall, the unwritten rule of Rifts is obviously that "Damage" only means S.D.C. damage, so the written definition including M.D. is totally irrelevant!

For note, I have no real intention of continuing in this thread. I just thought a quick sum up of the debate so far would be fun. Farewell and safe journeys to all.

[eliakon]

This whole 'basic damage' thing confuses me. Is it actually spelled out in a book (any book) or is this jus inference?

Greetings and Salutations. Let's see if I can help explain it.

When "damage" is used without a qualifier (neither listing S.D.C. or M.D.) it is clearly basic S.D.C. damage and cannot mean anything else. Though since Mega-Damage is a type of damage, damage can be used to mean M.D. (such as when it lists "damage" in the Critical Strike definition, which has been proven to mean S.D.C. or M.D.). Naturally this doesn't mean anything, since this is a multiplier and that's an exception, while anything that adds or subtracts follows different rules and must mean S.D.C. damage. In cases such as Horsemanship: Skilled Equestrians or Knight (RUE, page 311) or Chi-Gung Sense (Rifts China 2, page 60) where it gives a bonus ("+") to "damage" and then later clarifies it's S.D.C. or M.D. (whichever is applicable), this is proof that if they mean it to apply to both they'll state it, and shows that "damage" clearly always means S.D.C. damage, especially when added together such as with this skill. Don't even bother bringing up that Fencing in Splicers mentions "damage" and then clarifies it means S.D.C. damage or M.D., because that's totally meaningless and doesn't prove that Palladium ever uses "damage" to mean Mega-Damage as it only means S.D.C. damage and has nothing to do with the topic of the Fencing skill, d'uh! Skills such as Kick Boxing (RUE, page 317) that only mention "damage" and then later clarify the damage applies to either (neither adding nor multiplying) further shows that "damage" without qualifier only means S.D.C., which is obvious to everyone except those who are trolling just to disagree with Tor. So eliakon, stop trying to act confused and just admit that "damage" without qualifier always means S.D.C. damage, except when it's also used to mean Mega-Damage because it's a type of damage as well, but "damage" still only means S.D.C. damage, really. How is that confusing?

Now that that's cleared up ...

Just for fun, let's also not look at the definition of "Damage" in RUE on page 344, which discusses both S.D.C. and M.D. within its definition, and definitely don't focus on how it refers you to the Strength and "Damage" section to discuss M.D. punches. Afterall, the unwritten rule of Rifts is obviously that "Damage" only means S.D.C. damage, so the written definition including M.D. is totally irrelevant!

For note, I have no real intention of continuing in this thread. I just thought a quick sum up of the debate so far would be fun. Farewell and safe journeys to all.

Uh thanks...I think.... okay I am just going to chill and watch the fireworks in peace

[The Galactus Kid]

*KC drops MDC Rune mic, walks away*

Seems pretty legit.

[Killer Cyborg]

This whole 'basic damage' thing confuses me. Is it actually spelled out in a book (any book) or is this jus inference?

Greetings and Salutations. Let's see if I can help explain it.

When "damage" is used without a qualifier (neither listing S.D.C. or M.D.) it is clearly basic S.D.C. damage and cannot mean anything else. Though since Mega-Damage is a type of damage, damage can be used to mean M.D. (such as when it lists "damage" in the Critical Strike definition, which has been proven to mean S.D.C. or M.D.). Naturally this doesn't mean anything, since this is a multiplier and that's an exception, while anything that adds or subtracts follows different rules and must mean S.D.C. damage. In cases such as Horsemanship: Skilled Equestrians or Knight (RUE, page 311) or Chi-Gung Sense (Rifts China 2, page 60) where it gives a bonus ("+") to "damage" and then later clarifies it's S.D.C. or M.D. (whichever is applicable), this is proof that if they mean it to apply to both they'll state it, and shows that "damage" clearly always means S.D.C. damage, especially when added together such as with this skill. Don't even bother bringing up that Fencing in Splicers mentions "damage" and then clarifies it means S.D.C. damage or M.D., because that's totally meaningless and doesn't prove that Palladium ever uses "damage" to mean Mega-Damage as it only means S.D.C. damage and has nothing to do with the topic of the Fencing skill, d'uh! Skills such as Kick Boxing (RUE, page 317) that only mention "damage" and then later clarify the damage applies to either (neither adding nor multiplying) further shows that "damage" without qualifier only means S.D.C., which is obvious to everyone except those who are trolling just to disagree with Tor. So eliakon, stop trying to act confused and just admit that "damage" without qualifier always means S.D.C. damage, except when it's also used to mean Mega-Damage because it's a type of damage as well, but "damage" still only means S.D.C. damage, really. How is that confusing?

Now that that's cleared up ...

Just for fun, let's also not look at the definition of "Damage" in RUE on page 344, which discusses both S.D.C. and M.D. within its definition, and definitely don't focus on how it refers you to the Strength and "Damage" section to discuss M.D. punches. Afterall, the unwritten rule of Rifts is obviously that "Damage" only means S.D.C. damage, so the written definition including M.D. is totally irrelevant!

For note, I have no real intention of continuing in this thread. I just thought a quick sum up of the debate so far would be fun. Farewell and safe journeys to all.

Nice summary.

Basically, a lot of this comes down to Tor falling into what is sometimes called The Black Swan Fallacy.
He has found some examples where the term "damage" (without notation) refers ONLY to SDC.
He has concluded that the term "Damage" (without notation) must ALWAYS refer ONLY to SDC.
He dismisses any counter-examples that conflict with his conclusion.

[Tor]

In the SDC referring only to SDC examples (and Finger Gun always pops into mind so I'll use that, but there are others pointed out earlier) it doesn't explicitly say SDC, because it doesn't need to.

In the so-called counter-examples, I see no conflict because each one has an attached parenthesis which overrides the standard meaning of damage and allows the particular section to apply the dice to SDC or MDC in that particular case.

Even before Splicer's wacko-fencing, this was done in Rifts Atlantis under Bio-Wizardry, which may be the earliest case (anyone know anything earlier?).

In that case, Atlantis set no precedent of damage meaning MDC when shot by MDC targets. The 'damage' of the finger-gun did not suddenly inflict MD, nor did ectoplasm, if the weapon or power were used by an MDC being, like say a Bionic Brodkil or a Psychic Dragon.

[rat_bastard]

In the SDC referring only to SDC examples (and Finger Gun always pops into mind so I'll use that, but there are others pointed out earlier) it doesn't explicitly say SDC, because it doesn't need to.

In the so-called counter-examples, I see no conflict because each one has an attached parenthesis which overrides the standard meaning of damage and allows the particular section to apply the dice to SDC or MDC in that particular case.

Even before Splicer's wacko-fencing, this was done in Rifts Atlantis under Bio-Wizardry, which may be the earliest case (anyone know anything earlier?).

In that case, Atlantis set no precedent of damage meaning MDC when shot by MDC targets. The 'damage' of the finger-gun did not suddenly inflict MD, nor did ectoplasm, if the weapon or power were used by an MDC being, like say a Bionic Brodkil or a Psychic Dragon.

So basically before RUE or the fencing skill even existed damage always meant sdc?

[Killer Cyborg]

In the SDC referring only to SDC examples (and Finger Gun always pops into mind so I'll use that, but there are others pointed out earlier) it doesn't explicitly say SDC, because it doesn't need to.

In the so-called counter-examples, I see no conflict because each one has an attached parenthesis which overrides the standard meaning of damage and allows the particular section to apply the dice to SDC or MDC in that particular case.

Riight.
And in the OTHER counter-examples, you see no conflict because... uh... because THOSE are multiplication and/or division, and uh... that's different.
YEah... that's the ticket.
"Damage" "always" means "SDC," except for when it says otherwise, OR when there's multiplication/division involved.
Because THAT makes sense.

And when I come up with new examples later, THOSE won't count for some other reason.
Because you discount anything that runs counter to your theory.

[Shark_Force]

even if we accept that palladium actually *has* any sort of policy about various terms like "damage" always meaning regular damage unless otherwise specified, does anyone here actually believe that they would rigorously follow and/or enforce that?

let's be honest. who here thinks that palladium went out of their way to make a clarification in splicers, and then changed their minds rather than just completely forgot they ever did that by the time RUE came around, and copy/pasted what was in the RMB for that skill?

if this was WotC, i'd read a lot more into the language. but it isn't. palladium doesn't use key words or anything like that. they can barely keep entire rules straight, you seriously think they're carefully tracking the word "damage" to make sure it always only means one thing unless otherwise specified?

[Giant2005]

I'd like to hear Tor's thoughts on Phase Fields.
They divide incoming "damage" by 10, so according to his theory it would only effect S.D.C. attacks because "damage" does not cover Mega-Damage. However it also states to apply the reduced damage to the "hit points/S.D.C./M.D.C. of the character".
Why would a Phase Field bother mentioning M.D.C. in what to apply the damage to if it only effected S.D.C. weapons and M.D. beings/objects were unaffected by S.D.C. anyway?

[Prysus]

Greetings and Salutations. This is part of a PM regarding this topic (I will not discuss the rest of it), but decided to include it here since I typed it up anyways.

Spoiler:

Now, I said in the post I have no intention of getting involved in this debate. However, since you sent the PM, I'll take the time to tell you my thoughts on the matter (and break it down). I may also include this in the thread (just to be thorough). However, I have no real intention of getting into a debate on the matter or following this up further.


RMB had Mega-Damage gear (armor and weapons) as rare. It makes sense that damage would typically refer to S.D.C. damage. As such, they're not as likely to include an S.D.C. tag. As such, it's most likely to mean S.D.C. damage (though in some cases such as Critical Strikes or the combat steps, it can still mean both). Though, unless it states M.D. (or a level of common sense such as Critical Strikes or telling you to roll damage, which include both), it's probably safer to figure it only means S.D.C. damage. I can agree with to that extent.

Then we get books like SB1 which tells us the P.S. damage bonus only inflicts S.D.C. damage, or the Atlantis finger gun (which I've never looked at by the way, but I'm taking the word of those more experienced with Rifts on this one). These help support the "damage" means S.D.C. damage theory. These are also still the early books.

However, Rifts has come a long way in the last 24 years (?). It's had many different writers, and that M.D. gear that was once so rare is now relatively common place (at least commonly statted). As such, including the S.D.C. damage notes hasn't just become important, it's become necessary. So much stuff deals M.D. these days that if they don't list it, we get debates like these. This is why Palladium includes the S.D.C. damage notes so much now, though they are far from perfect and not as thorough as some of us may like.

Since RMB though, the setting and system have changed whether we like it or not. "Damage" is defined in combat terms (it was not in RMB) and includes notes about M.D. now. We have races such as Dragons who have a "Damage" category in their write-up that inflicts M.D. We also have "Damage" from Pyrokinesis (which in RMB was undefined) dealing M.D. We have 4 different types of horsemanship which give a damage bonus, and all are S.D.C. or M.D. depending on weapon (Note: Horsemanship: General is the only exception to this). We have skills such as Kick Boxing which show "Damage" to mean either S.D.C. or M.D. Then we have a whole lot of examples of S.D.C. damage being specifically defined as "S.D.C. damage" instead of taken for granted.

This takes us to Fencing, an undefined term. Without a specific statement, there's a door for argument. Afterall it could mean S.D.C. damage only, or it could mean both (in theory it could mean M.D. only, but I'm considering that one so unlikely I'm not going to waste more time on it than this statement).

In Splicers, it tells us it means both. This line isn't included in RUE. This could be an intentional change, however it's not stated as such. To keep consistent, if Palladium wanted to change it to S.D.C. damage only, they'd have listed it as "S.D.C. damage" like they do most other things. Also, Palladium has clarified things in one book without correcting them in another. For example: Carpet of Adhesion. In RUE (2005?), it still has the "90 feet" line in its description. I once researched this and believe I found that it was a result of the old PF1 days (when range was really 90 feet). This is even corrected in HU2 (1998), and the 90 feet line is removed. However, then we have RUE (7 years later), and this correction didn't find its way into it.

Leaving Splicers out of it, we see in RUE four skills which add a damage bonus to both types (Rifts China 2 with Chi-Gung Sense as well), and only one skill that doesn't (and clarifies that this is only "S.D.C. damage"). We see another skill (Kick Boxing) that includes damage both ways. So in just RUE alone, we have 5 skills that work for either S.D.C. or M.D., and only 1 skill that clearly states it only works for S.D.C.

Is there definitive proof how Fencing is supposed to work in RUE? I'd say no. Is there a LOT of strong evidence that Fencing should work for either damage type in RUE? I'd say yes (the skills already in RUE as precedent combined with Splicers makes for a very strong case, in my opinion).

Most of the arguments against the bonus working for either are based around the early days of Rifts (RMB), and pre-date RUE and the Fencing skill (in Rifts). They're also based on Palladium needing to be consistent, which is another fault in logic. Because while I love Palladium, one of the most consistent things about them is that they're inconsistent. Note: Palladium even admits they've been inconsistent in the past with terms (they use "R.C.C." as their example, but I assure you it's not the only thing) and RUE is an attempt to change that.

Anyways, that's all for now. Farewell and safe journeys to all.



P.S. Gleba didn't write Splicers. That was the Fresh Prince of Bellaire. Errr ... I mean ... Carmen San Diego. Ugh ... I mean ... Carmen Bellaire. Whew! Got it that time. This doesn't have much to do with the topic, but earlier (I do believe) Gleba was accredited with it and I just wanted to clarify that. So long everyone.

[Tor]

before RUE or the fencing skill even existed damage always meant sdc?

SDC in shorthand meaning "SDC or HP", yes. Within the context of defining how much damage something did, that is. MD when introduced was still a form of damage (like magical damage or psionic damage) and would be affected by multipliers.

in the OTHER counter-examples, you see no conflict because... uh... because THOSE are multiplication and/or division, and uh... that's different.

I see the introduction of your UHs into this as a desperate attempt to discredit it.

Yes, of course it's different. Damage-multiplying statements can refer to standard damage and variant damage (magic, mega, psionic, silver, etc.) while damage-establishing statements default to standard damage.

YEah... that's the ticket. "Damage" "always" means "SDC," except for when it says otherwise

Please stop misrepresenting my argument. I am not talking about the word damage in every instance of mention. I am talking about damage when it is defining an amount of damage that is done.

OR when there's multiplication/division involved.

Right, because those operations are not defining an amount of damage, they are modifying an amount that we already know.

when I come up with new examples later, THOSE won't count for some other reason. Because you discount anything that runs counter to your theory.

I can't predict how I will respond to future examples.

I do not discount anything that runs counter to my theories, I have given up on theories before when adequate examples are introduced against them. The criticism so far doesn't do this IMO.

even if we accept that palladium actually *has* any sort of policy about various terms like "damage" always meaning regular damage unless otherwise specified

They do, it's a policy evident in overwhelming evidence.

I mean heck, look at RMBp9's explanation of Hit Points:
"they indicate how much physical damage a character can withstand"
"these are the points observed during a battle to determine how much damage is inflicted"
"players keep score of how many hit points their character has by subtracting the damage from his/her character's hit points each time that character is hit by a weapon"

does anyone here actually believe that they would rigorously follow and/or enforce that?

Palladium isn't rigorous about making things consistent.

who here thinks that palladium went out of their way to make a clarification in splicers, and then changed their minds rather than just completely forgot they ever did that by the time RUE came around, and copy/pasted what was in the RMB for that skill?

There is no "they". Carmen Bellaire (not Carl Gleba, I mistakenly mixed up the names previously, thanks Pry for correcting me) wrote Splicers and made the change. Kevin Siembieda wrote Ultimate and Shadow Chronicles and did not opt to change fencing in those games.

you seriously think they're carefully tracking the word "damage" to make sure it always only means one thing unless otherwise specified?

I'm not sure why you're thinking tracking would be needed. That 'damage' kept its traditonal SDC/HP meaning would be common knowledge of writers and people who've read a significant number of PB's books. Though I must not respectfully to those looking through the rose-colored glasses of pretending that Splicers and RUE are the only books that exist to be able to play Devil's Advocate.

I'd like to hear Tor's thoughts on Phase Fields. They divide incoming "damage" by 10, so according to his theory it would only effect S.D.C. attacks because "damage" does not cover Mega-Damage.

False. Like KC you are misrepresenting my argument.

"Damage" statements can situationally cover magical damage, mega-damage, silver damage, electrical damage, and all kinds of stuff. It covers them because these variant forms of damage. Multipliers (such as multiplying by 0.1 or 1/10th) cause no controversy to me, because the type of damage is preset by the nature of whatever type of attack is being launched at this phase field.

The difference is when the term is being used to alter or to establish.

It is different when a 'damage' statement is being used to define a discrete amount of damage. Unless we are told otherwise, when something says 'damage', it is basic damage. Meaning that we don't assume it to have special properties like "direct to hit points" or "mega" or "magic" or "psionic" unless there are statements indicating that we should apply those properties to the standard damage.

also states to apply the reduced damage to the "M.D.C. of the character" Why would a Phase Field bother mentioning M.D.C. in what to apply the damage to if it only effected S.D.C. weapons and M.D. beings/objects were unaffected by S.D.C. anyway?

Even though I have already discredited your straw-man argument, I'll answer this anyway.

Mentioning "apply to MDC" is relevant even if a phase field did only reduce the damage from SDC attacks, because SDC attacks CAN affect MDC.

For example, if I inflicted 1000 points of SDC (which I'm sure I could wrangle out of the chi attacks in N&SS) and a phase field reduced that to a tenth, the 100 damage would still harm 1 MDC worth.

Although chi is a bad example as phase fields may not protect against that.

[Shark_Force]

mmhmm.

hold on. let me open my splicers book and check the credits:

written and created by carmen bellaire.

additional text, names, and concepts by kevin siembieda.

editors: alex marciniszyn, wayne smith, and kevin siembieda.

so ummm... i'm just gonna go out on a limb here and speculate that *gasp* kevin did in fact have something to do with the book, on account of his name is in there three times (the other one is art direction and keylining), and is on the spine of the book.

no, he's not the main author. that doesn't somehow mean that he never had anything to do with the book. it just means that he's not the main author.

[Giant2005]

Even though I have already discredited your straw-man argument, I'll answer this anyway.

No, I think I can speak for everyone here when I say you haven't yet discredited anything in this thread.
Here is another one for you; the Mercurials of Dimension Book 12.
Included in their natural abilities, they have a feature called "limited shape-changing" which involves turning their limbs into weapons t-1000 style, this is what it has to say for the matter: "+2D6 M.D. bonus in addition to Supernatural P.S.damage.". Later in the completely separate "Damage" listing it states this: "Varies per Supernatural Strength. Add 2D6 to damage when transforming a limb into a bladed weapon."

According to your theory, that second statement limits the damage bonus to S.D.C. attacks but we know from the first statement that that is not the case. Either it is an editing error or more likely, your theory is thoroughly debunked.

[dreicunan]

It's not a direct rule in Rifts that damage defaults to SDC, it is a generally observed reality of all Palladium games, including Rifts, as clear in the Finger Gun.

You are ignoring the Finger Gun. It is an ideal example of damage clearly meaning SDC without explicitly saying so.

The Finger Gun, from p. 235 of the RMB, feels the need to clarify that the explosive shells inflict 6d6 SDC damage. It is in no way the proof that you seem to think it is.

The far better proof from the RMB is that on page 244, in the equipment section, they felt the need to indicate that all damage following was SDC unless otherwise indicated. If your theory about the meaning of "damage" was correct, that clarification would not have been necessary. It was included; therefore, from the inception of Rifts, it was clear that the word damage, absent other modifiers and referring to neither division nor multiplication, did NOT automatically default to meaning sdc damage.

[Killer Cyborg]

in the OTHER counter-examples, you see no conflict because... uh... because THOSE are multiplication and/or division, and uh... that's different.

I see the introduction of your UHs into this as a desperate attempt to discredit it.

More like using it to point out how far you're reaching with your argument, and increasing number of addendums.

Damage-multiplying statements can refer to standard damage and variant damage (magic, mega, psionic, silver, etc.) while damage-establishing statements default to standard damage.

And you consider "+2 to damage" to be a damage-establishing statement, but "x2 to damage" to NOT be a damage-establishing statement.
So a PS damage bonus, for example, would be a "damage establishing" statement.
But a Critical HIt damage multiplication would not.
Yes?

YEah... that's the ticket. "Damage" "always" means "SDC," except for when it says otherwise

Please stop misrepresenting my argument. I am not talking about the word damage in every instance of mention. I am talking about damage when it is defining an amount of damage that is done.

No misrepresentation intended, and your clarification is appreciated.
I will discard future examples that use the word "damage" in any context other than defining an amount of damage.
Of course, "x2 damage" or "double damage" or "half damage" IS defining an amount of damage.

OR when there's multiplication/division involved.

Right, because those operations are not defining an amount of damage, they are modifying an amount that we already know.

But "+1 damage" or "+1d6 damage" DOES define an amount of damage?
How do you figure?

And what about cases that say stuff like, "Double the normal damage, plus PS bonuses," or something like, "does double damage plus any other damage bonuses," or

when I come up with new examples later, THOSE won't count for some other reason. Because you discount anything that runs counter to your theory.

I can't predict how I will respond to future examples.

I can, and I did.
Let's see how accurate I am over time.

I do not discount anything that runs counter to my theories, I have given up on theories before when adequate examples are introduced against them. The criticism so far doesn't do this IMO.

I disagree with your assessment on this situation.

It is different when a 'damage' statement is being used to define a discrete amount of damage. Unless we are told otherwise, when something says 'damage', it is basic damage.

RGMG p. 30
Kick Attack: This is a conventional, karate-style kick... Does 2d4 damage.

1. Does "damage" in that case necessarily mean SDC/HP damage?
2. Are we "told otherwise?"

RMB 126
Pyrokinesis:
Damage: 4d6 from the pillar, 6d6 from the wall.
and
Another fire creation ability is the hurling of a fire ball. Damage: 6d6

1. Does "damage" in that case necessarily mean SDC/HP damage?
2. Are we "told otherwise?"

RMB 29
Horsemanship
This provides the following bonuses when charging on horseback: +1 to parry and dodge, +4 damage.

1. Does "damage" in that case necessarily mean SDC/HP damage?
2. Are we "told otherwise?"

[Dakchronos]

In my opinion, I'd rule it as something dependent on the weapon and/or strength. If it's a MD weapon, solid or energy otherwise, the damage bonus is received. The character has took additional training to be better with swords. Why debate this further? If a GM would rule otherwise, that would only decrease the value of the skill and most likely be skipped in skill selection. All in all, its just another min/max skill.

[Tor]

Nekira I think we all agree the damage bonus applies, the argument's over whether it remains a damage bonus or if it's upgraded to a mega-damage bonus like the Bellaire-beefed Splicers version.

additional text, names, and concepts by kevin siembieda.

Which doesn't specify fencing. Kevin contributing to parts of the book doesn't mean this part.

editors: alex marciniszyn, wayne smith, and kevin siembieda.

Wayne Smith edits the Rifter, you know that book which mistakenly said PE in hours when Kev supposedly intended it to be PE in minutes?

We were told that Kev personally approved the Questions and Answers errata sections in the Rifter. Yet it includes something that is a mixup. So why should I have more faith in this bit of Splicers? Both are equally canon sources overseen by Smith and Siembieda.

gonna go out on a limb here and speculate that *gasp* kevin did in fact have something to do with the book

Yes, but not necessarily enough that I'm going to assume that a statement in this book overrides the skills described in 2 later books that he took the lead on.

doesn't somehow mean that he never had anything to do with the book. it just means that he's not the main author.

I don't recall saying he had nothing to do with it, just that I don't think we should speak of Palladium as a plural indivisible entity when some authors are more credited and thus more involved with certain works.

I think I can speak for everyone here when I say

You don't speak for everyone, speaking for yourself is fine.

you haven't yet discredited anything in this thread.

People can discredit something without others understanding that they have, though I can understand that you don't perceive the validity I perceive to be in my argument. I've done my best to explain why the counter-examples given are not actually countering my argument, because they either had disclaimers or they were about multipliers.

Here is another one for you; the Mercurials of Dimension Book 12.

Keeping in mind that although part of the Rifts Dimension Book series, page 1 says this is also a sourcebook for Heroes Unlimited and Palladium Fantasy...checking page 166-9 now.

Included in their natural abilities, they have a feature called "limited shape-changing" which involves turning their limbs into weapons t-1000 style, this is what it has to say for the matter: "+2D6 M.D. bonus in addition to Supernatural P.S.damage.".

More specifically, this is added for bladed weapons, and they don't get it when transforming it into clubs or other blunt weapons.

Later in the completely separate "Damage" listing it states this: "Varies per Supernatural Strength. Add 2D6 to damage when transforming a limb into a bladed weapon."

Correct, and since it doesn't mention MD, it is not MD.

This bonus not being MD doesn't cancel out the other one being MD, of course. They are separate and different and apply simultaneously.

According to your theory, that second statement limits the damage bonus to S.D.C. attacks but we know from the first statement that that is not the case. Either it is an editing error or more likely, your theory is thoroughly debunked.

You're introducing a false dichotomy. A third explanation exists: one is listed for MDC settings and the other is listed for SDC settings. These guys are given HP/SDC/natural armor rating for non-MDC dimensions, since they could also be encountered in Heroes Unlimited or Palladium Fantasy.

These is no direct contradiction here, because you can just view these as 2 distinct bonuses. When using a blade-hand they get +2d6 sdc AND +2d6 MD. It for the most part would not make a major difference, but the extra might come in handy for those who get a very high PS somehow and might be near the +100 barrier that wins you an extra point.

Bonuses to sdc damage would also be applicable when battling things like vampires who are not MDC and thus have no immunity to SDC attacks, but are vulnerable (I think?) to SNPS attacks (or was that creature of magic?)

You are ignoring the Finger Gun. It is an ideal example of damage clearly meaning SDC without explicitly saying so.

The Finger Gun, from p. 235 of the RMB, feels the need to clarify that the explosive shells inflict 6d6 SDC damage. It is in no way the proof that you seem to think it is.[/quote]You're ignoring the "2d6 damage" of the basic round not needing "SDC damage"/

The far better proof from the RMB is that on page 244, in the equipment section, they felt the need to indicate that all damage following was SDC unless otherwise indicated.

That is not proof of anything. Much like the constant "SDC damage" notifications we receive, this is merely a reminder.

It is simply a much less offensive reminder since it only appears once rather than repeating 'SDC damage' under every entry unnecessary, which gets annoying.

If your theory about the meaning of "damage" was correct, that clarification would not have been necessary.

I view it as a reminder, not a clarification. Numerous examples clarify that basic damage is SDC. You can see for example how telekinesis says "damage" in Rifts Main Book and "SDC damage" in Rifts Ultimate Edition. A reminder was added there. Telekinesis did not originally inflict mega-damage and get de-powered.

It was included; therefore, from the inception of Rifts, it was clear that the word damage, absent other modifiers and referring to neither division nor multiplication, did NOT automatically default to meaning sdc damage.

No, it's clear that Rifts since inception has included unnecessary reminders of SDC damage to provide contrast.

What was probably done to avoid confusion ended up generating confusion in other respects since they forgot to apply it everywhere.

Forgetting to tack on 'SDC' to the "damage" statements is not an endorsement of it being MD though. Never has been. MD has always had to be spelled out some way or another to be mega.

using it to point out how far you're reaching with your argument, and increasing number of addendums.

Adding absent pauses doesn't point anything out, an argument for reaching or addenduming (we're totally verbing that) can be made through direct evidence and does not require caricature.

you consider "+2 to damage" to be a damage-establishing statement, but "x2 to damage" to NOT be a damage-establishing statement. So a PS damage bonus, for example, would be a "damage establishing" statement. But a Critical HIt damage multiplication would not. Yes?

I'm trying to find a proper term for the idea, establish may not be the ideal verb, my logic/math vocabulary's limited. I can try something else.

Terming this "discrete damage" may be better. Something that multiplies or divides cannot be damage on its own, it is not an actual amount. But things that get added are discrete amounts which exist as damage on their own. Due to being discrete, it has its own properties.

Discrete damage could potentially take on the properties of the base it is added to. I believe this is probably the case of say (using SDC setting example) a PS bonus taking on the property of 'silver' when wielding a silver weapon against a werebeast. In the case of something like a rune sword wielded against an incorporeal foe (like an astral being or a ghost) I don't know whether or not PS would be applied.

Magical weapons that catch fire get a damage bonus that is fire-based, it has distinct properties from the base damage of that weapon though. A bonus from strength while wielding a flaming weapon would obviously apply to improving the base kinetic damage but not to improving the fire-based damage. These distinctions come into play when fighting monsters immune to one or the other.

Multipliers aren't discrete entities with their own properties like this, they just alter the amount of already-established things.

No misrepresentation intended, and your clarification is appreciated.
I will discard future examples that use the word "damage" in any context other than defining an amount of damage.
Of course, "x2 damage" or "double damage" or "half damage" IS defining an amount of damage.

Correct, I value the nitpicking as in a fresh day I can see there is still a problem with how I'm trying to put words to the thinking process. To refine this further:

I mean 'damage' when defining a discrete amount of damage.

Doubling/halving damage does define damage, but it does not define a NEW and SEPARATE amount of damage. Rather, it RE-defines an already existing amount of it.

But "+1 damage" or "+1d6 damage" DOES define an amount of damage? How do you figure?

In the sense that 1 and d6 produce amounts that can exist independently, but multipliers can't, since they are undefined.

If I roll 2 dmg on a punch and double it, I'm doing 2d times 2, not 2d times 2d, since if variable d (damage) were used on both, the result would be d^2.

what about cases that say stuff like, "Double the normal damage, plus PS bonuses," or something like, "does double damage plus any other damage bonuses"

Not sure what you mean with this. Palladium hasn't exactly remained clear or consistent about whether damage bonuses apply before or after critical-doubling. That's a big can of worms. This can break down into 2 operations so I'm not seeing the link to the discussion.

I can, and I did.

I don't agree that you did. You said I discount anything, which already makes you wrong, there have been things posted contrary to my past theories on other issues which I have counted rather than discounted.

The subtext of your prediction is also a veiled accusation that I am discounting things primarily (or even only) because they contradict me. I don't think so. I refuse to discount anything unless I can put together words that make sense to me about why it's wrong. If I couldn't do that, I'd be stuck. I've also actively looked for something to prove me wrong, some 'damage' which really ought to be MD.

All I seem to find is 'damage' that is clearly meant to be SDC. Someone brought up via PM how Pyrokinesis in RMB had 'damage' statements. If you compare this to the MD inflicted by the burster, if 'damage' could mean MD then a level 1 Mind Melter who selected Pyrokinesis would inflict more damage than a Burster, which made no sense.

I disagree with your assessment on this situation.

Since we don't come to the same view on the validity of each other's arguments, the resolution process appears to be to break down the nature of them.

I'll freely admit that I've initially chosen improper terms to encapsulate some of the ideas I'm communicating about the book content, I hope that revising that has made the intent clearer.

RGMG p. 30
Kick Attack: This is a conventional, karate-style kick... Does 2d4 damage.

1. Does "damage" in that case necessarily mean SDC/HP damage?
2. Are we "told otherwise?"

Yes, it does necessarily mean HP/SDC. Being able to inflict MD with a kick is a special situation. When kicks inflict MD, we are told specifically what they inflict, whether it being an assigned damage or a PS table based one.

RMB 126
Pyrokinesis:
Damage: 4d6 from the pillar, 6d6 from the wall.
and
Another fire creation ability is the hurling of a fire ball. Damage: 6d6

1. Does "damage" in that case necessarily mean SDC/HP damage?
2. Are we "told otherwise?"

Yes, it does necessarily mean SDC/HP.

We are told this is so, because we are told that Bursters are more powerful pyrokinetics.

If this power did MD then it would inflict more mega-damage than Bursters can with their own fire bolt (essentially ball) and with their own pillar/wall.

Since the MD interpretation would clearly contradict the Burster's description, assuming discrete dice listed as 'damage' to be potentially MD is contra-indicated by RMB Pyro.

Pyrokinesis was changed to inflict MD as of RUE, just like TK acceleration was changed into a super psi. It was not MD prior to this, unless perhaps if a Sea Inquisitor used it.

RMB 29
Horsemanship
This provides the following bonuses when charging on horseback: +1 to parry and dodge, +4 damage.

1. Does "damage" in that case necessarily mean SDC/HP damage?
2. Are we "told otherwise?"

I believe here that yes, horsemanship at this time did necessarily mean SDC damage, as that was the default meaning of 'damage', that 'SDC' was an optional contrast-inducing reminder and never a necessity.

I believe the ability to add MD to attacks is a change made at a later time.

In regard to being explicitly spelled out as SDC, I am not presently aware of an example, but will look at various NPCs to see if I can find any with Horsemanship that might list this in their bonuses. So far the horsemanship-capable NPCs I remember seem to ignore that the skill adds bonuses (much like many NPCs ignore various WP bonuses in their summaries) so it could be a goose chase.

[Shark_Force]

see, this is why no one takes you seriously.

your position on my point appears to be "maybe kevin didn't notice that part, therefore, kevin definitely didn't notice that part".

now, if you just said that might be the case, i couldn't argue it. but you're not even acknowledging the possibility that kevin's oversight was to not make the update to later books, rather than kevin not noticing the change in the one book. you have already decided what you want to be true, and you refuse to accept any possibility that it might not be true. anything that could be interpreted against what have decided is ignored, and anything that can be interpreted to mean what you want it to mean is declared to be gospel truth.

someone who has decided what is true and refuses to accept any evidence to the contrary simply cannot have any credibility. if you won't even consider that want you want to be true is not true, then how can anyone trust that you've come to a logical conclusion when you started with the premise that only one conclusion was allowed to be true, and everything that might contradict that conclusion is inherently false?

you can present your argument as one possible conclusion, and i could take that seriously. did kevin intend for fencing to be updated in splicers? maybe, maybe not. i can't tell. we can speculate, and your speculation would be just as valid as mine, unless one of us has access to relevant information that the other doesn't.

but when you just out-and-out declare that what you want to be true is true, and anything else is false, well, i can't take your argument seriously.

[Killer Cyborg]

using it to point out how far you're reaching with your argument, and increasing number of addendums.

Adding absent pauses doesn't point anything out, an argument for reaching or addenduming (we're totally verbing that) can be made through direct evidence and does not require caricature.

I agree that it is not required.

Something that multiplies or divides cannot be damage on its own, it is not an actual amount.

Agreed.

But things that get added are discrete amounts which exist as damage on their own. Due to being discrete, it has its own properties.

THAT has not been established.

Discrete damage could potentially take on the properties of the base it is added to. I believe this is probably the case of say (using SDC setting example) a PS bonus taking on the property of 'silver' when wielding a silver weapon against a werebeast. In the case of something like a rune sword wielded against an incorporeal foe (like an astral being or a ghost) I don't know whether or not PS would be applied.

Okay- so we agree that it IS possible that discrete damage could take on the properties of the base.
As in, a +1d6 modifier COULD take on the "mega-damage" property of the base damage (assuming that the base is MD).

Magical weapons that catch fire get a damage bonus that is fire-based, it has distinct properties from the base damage of that weapon though.

Agreed.
Other times, the damage bonus does NOT have distinct properties.

A bonus from strength while wielding a flaming weapon would obviously apply to improving the base kinetic damage but not to improving the fire-based damage. These distinctions come into play when fighting monsters immune to one or the other.

Unknown. I don't believe that's ever discussed in the books.

Multipliers aren't discrete entities with their own properties like this, they just alter the amount of already-established things.

It's mathematical semantics.
"x2 damage" and "+100% damage" mean the same thing mathematically.
But one is a multiplication, and the other is addition.

To refine this further:
I mean 'damage' when defining a discrete amount of damage.

Doubling/halving damage does define damage, but it does not define a NEW and SEPARATE amount of damage. Rather, it RE-defines an already existing amount of it.

Addition does not necessarily start a NEW and SEPARATE amount of damage.

But "+1 damage" or "+1d6 damage" DOES define an amount of damage? How do you figure?

In the sense that 1 and d6 produce amounts that can exist independently, but multipliers can't, since they are undefined.

Addition can't exist independently. You have to add them to something, even if the something is zero.
There are no attacks that inflict +1d6 damage; there are only modifiers that inflict +1d6 damage. There has to be something to be modified.

If I roll 2 dmg on a punch and double it, I'm doing 2d times 2, not 2d times 2d, since if variable d (damage) were used on both, the result would be d^2.

You lost me there. I don't see the relevance.

what about cases that say stuff like, "Double the normal damage, plus PS bonuses," or something like, "does double damage plus any other damage bonuses"

Not sure what you mean with this. Palladium hasn't exactly remained clear or consistent about whether damage bonuses apply before or after critical-doubling. That's a big can of worms. This can break down into 2 operations so I'm not seeing the link to the discussion.

The link is that in a case where you have damage along the lines of "1d6 MD x2 +PS bonus," or "1d6 damage x2 +PS bonus," there are a number of ways that you could resolve the equation.
Which way, according to your hypotheses, would be kosher?

I can, and I did.

I don't agree that you did. You said I discount anything, which already makes you wrong, there have been things posted contrary to my past theories on other issues which I have counted rather than discounted.

I was clearly speaking in the context of this conversation.

The subtext of your prediction is also a veiled accusation that I am discounting things primarily (or even only) because they contradict me.

Yes.

I don't think so.

I disagree.

I refuse to discount anything unless I can put together words that make sense to me about why it's wrong.

I disagree.

If I couldn't do that, I'd be stuck. I've also actively looked for something to prove me wrong, some 'damage' which really ought to be MD.

I disagree.

All I seem to find is 'damage' that is clearly meant to be SDC.

That's all that you're looking for.
Because the rest of us see that "damage" is clearly meant to be SDC sometimes, and other times it means other things.
Even there, what you said doesn't represent your position. Your position would be more accurately described as "'damage' is clearly meant to be SDC (when it's in the context of addition or subtraction damage modifiers)."

Someone brought up via PM how Pyrokinesis in RMB had 'damage' statements. If you compare this to the MD inflicted by the burster, if 'damage' could mean MD then a level 1 Mind Melter who selected Pyrokinesis would inflict more damage than a Burster, which made no sense.

The Mind Melter can create a Fire Ball.
The Burster can NOT create a Fire Ball, only a Fire Bolt.
The Burster can inflict more than 6d6 MD, they just can't do that level of damage with a Fire Ball specifically.
This might not make sense to you, but your ability to comprehend does not define reality nor sensibility.

I'll freely admit that I've initially chosen improper terms to encapsulate some of the ideas I'm communicating about the book content, I hope that revising that has made the intent clearer.

Yes, revising has made it clearer.

RGMG p. 30
Kick Attack: This is a conventional, karate-style kick... Does 2d4 damage.

1. Does "damage" in that case necessarily mean SDC/HP damage?
2. Are we "told otherwise?"

Yes, it does necessarily mean HP/SDC. Being able to inflict MD with a kick is a special situation. When kicks inflict MD, we are told specifically what they inflict, whether it being an assigned damage or a PS table based one.

RGMG 28
The following are some of the typical damage amounts inflicted by types of punches and kicks. Each inflicts roughly the same equivalent SDC or MD damage depending on whether the attacker is an SDC being (like humans) or a Mega-Damage being (like power armor, bots, oni, dragons and supernatural beings). Remember to add PS attribute bonuses to damage.
and
Kick Attack: 2d4

RMB 126
Pyrokinesis:
Damage: 4d6 from the pillar, 6d6 from the wall.
and
Another fire creation ability is the hurling of a fire ball. Damage: 6d6

1. Does "damage" in that case necessarily mean SDC/HP damage?
2. Are we "told otherwise?"

Yes, it does necessarily mean SDC/HP.

We are told this is so, because we are told that Bursters are more powerful pyrokinetics.

If this power did MD then it would inflict more mega-damage than Bursters can with their own fire bolt (essentially ball) and with their own pillar/wall.

Since the MD interpretation would clearly contradict the Burster's description, assuming discrete dice listed as 'damage' to be potentially MD is contra-indicated by RMB Pyro.

Pyrokinesis was changed to inflict MD as of RUE, just like TK acceleration was changed into a super psi. It was not MD prior to this, unless perhaps if a Sea Inquisitor used it.

RGMG 103
Fire Ball Anotehr fire creation ability is the hurling of a fire ball. Damage: 1d6x10 SDC or 6d6 MD

RMB 29
Horsemanship
This provides the following bonuses when charging on horseback: +1 to parry and dodge, +4 damage.

1. Does "damage" in that case necessarily mean SDC/HP damage?
2. Are we "told otherwise?"

I believe here that yes, horsemanship at this time did necessarily mean SDC damage, as that was the default meaning of 'damage', that 'SDC' was an optional contrast-inducing reminder and never a necessity.

I believe the ability to add MD to attacks is a change made at a later time.

Yes, you believe that.
But you have no definitive proof that the later books were changes instead of clarifications.
Ultimately, your position comes down to unsupported opinion.

[Killer Cyborg]

see, this is why no one takes you seriously.

This IS something to consider, Tor.
When one person holds a position that the rest of the people around him/her hold to be absurd, it IS possible that the lone individual is correct, and the rest of the people are incorrect...
But it's NOT the way to bet.

[rat_bastard]

Oh allmighty Athiesmo, we could have just checked the FAQ like thirty posts ago!

http://palladium-megaverse.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1610031#p1610031

Question: Fencing in RUE: Does the +1d6 damage with swords and knives apply to just sdc weapons or both sdc and mdc(ie vibro weapons and psi-swords)?
Answer: According to RUE, page 326, it applies to both SDC and MDC.

[dreicunan]

Oh allmighty Athiesmo, we could have just checked the FAQ like thirty posts ago!

http://palladium-megaverse.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1610031#p1610031

Question: Fencing in RUE: Does the +1d6 damage with swords and knives apply to just sdc weapons or both sdc and mdc(ie vibro weapons and psi-swords)?
Answer: According to RUE, page 326, it applies to both SDC and MDC.

It is actually p. 316.

Unfortunately, there is a later FAQ entry that states:

Question: Does the Fencing skill add a 1D6 damage to Mega-Damage rolls as well? If it does I would assume that would also cover Psi-swords, right?
Answer: Yes and yes. While the RUE version of Fencing leaves some room for debate, the Splicers version specifically states that the damage bonus is either S.D.C. or M.D.C., depending on the weapon. A Psi-Sword benefits from combat bonuses just like any other sword.

So I fully expect Tor to start claiming that the FAQ got it wrong in both places (as in that p. 316 is not clear and that the Splicers version doesn't matter) instead of admitting that he got it wrong.

Of course, the actual take-away here is that damage -- unmodified -- clearly can't always mean SDC automatically without any reference to context, that the use of just the word damage -- unmodified -- can indicate that it add the type of damage as appropriate to the base type, and that fencing does apply to psi-swords.

So now the question is, will people start considering it munchkin for a cyberknight to take fencing, or obvious that this should now be elevated to an OCC Skill for them?

[Alrik Vas]

I honestly can't see why +1d6 damage could be considered munchkin.

[Killer Cyborg]

I honestly can't see why +1d6 damage could be considered munchkin.

It effectively doubles the damage of a low level psi-sword.
But yeah, I'd count it a power creep, not munchkin.

[Prysus]

Oh allmighty Athiesmo, we could have just checked the FAQ like thirty posts ago!

http://palladium-megaverse.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1610031#p1610031

Question: Fencing in RUE: Does the +1d6 damage with swords and knives apply to just sdc weapons or both sdc and mdc(ie vibro weapons and psi-swords)?
Answer: According to RUE, page 326, it applies to both SDC and MDC.

It is actually p. 316.

Greetings and Salutations. Actually, I think they're referring to page 326 as noted.

Page 316 is the Fencing skill, but does not clearly state either M.D. or S.D.C. damage as the FAQ states.

Page 326, however, discusses Weapon Proficiencies. I'll specifically draw your attention to the "W.P. Ancient Weapons" category. Second colum of the page, under the "Damage Note" section. There we find this quote:

Mega-Damage equivalent weapons inflict the same number of damage dice only it is M.D., not S.D.C. (e.g. a sword that inflicts 2D6 damage does 2D6 Hit Point/S.D.C. damage if an S.D.C. weapon or 2D6 M.D. if a Mega-Damage weapon.)

It specifically uses "2D6 damage" to mean either S.D.C. or M.D. depending on type of weapon.

Again, not joining this debate. I just pop in from time to time to help with accuracy. Farewell and safe journeys to all.

[Shark_Force]

I honestly can't see why +1d6 damage could be considered munchkin.

It effectively doubles the damage of a low level psi-sword.
But yeah, I'd count it a power creep, not munchkin.

yes, but it effectively doubles the damage of a weapon that isn't particularly impressive in the first place. 1d6 MD on a melee attack is nothing to write home about. neither is 2d6. honestly, I wouldn't even be impressed by 4d6. it's *still* a melee attack, it still requires that you get in that close, it is still resisted by automatic parry which means that a hit won't cost your enemy an action to try and avoid damage, and it's still not better than just owning a welder.

obviously it is better to have it than to not have it, particularly since it is unlimited use and can be pulled out of nowhere.

but I wouldn't even really consider it power creep. it's still on the low end of almost everything.

[Alrik Vas]

Even if a psi-sword dealt 1d6x10, +1d6 isn't moving it that much further. It's a great bonus that helps characters who want to melee. If they're putting themselves out there, let her rip.

[Killer Cyborg]

I honestly can't see why +1d6 damage could be considered munchkin.

It effectively doubles the damage of a low level psi-sword.
But yeah, I'd count it a power creep, not munchkin.

yes, but it effectively doubles the damage of a weapon that isn't particularly impressive in the first place. 1d6 MD on a melee attack is nothing to write home about. neither is 2d6. honestly, I wouldn't even be impressed by 4d6. it's *still* a melee attack, it still requires that you get in that close, it is still resisted by automatic parry which means that a hit won't cost your enemy an action to try and avoid damage, and it's still not better than just owning a welder.

obviously it is better to have it than to not have it, particularly since it is unlimited use and can be pulled out of nowhere.

but I wouldn't even really consider it power creep. it's still on the low end of almost everything.

Doubling the original damage is power creep.
Power creep is about the way that power levels creep up over time. It has nothing specifically to do with high-end power, and is more often visible (and factors in more) at the lower end of things.

The fact that a 2d6 MD weapon isn't all that powerful anymore is due exactly to power creep.

[Shark_Force]

a 2d6 MD weapon was never particularly powerful. right in the original book, we had mini-missiles that could deal 1d6x10, a boom gun that deals 3d6x10, an energy rifle that does 1d4x10 per blast and can potentially burst, and numerous energy weapons that could burst where the damage for a single shot was anywhere from 2d6-4d6 damage

you could buy vibro weapons that did that much damage in melee if you wanted (either the large sword or the claws), and they were specifically noted as being so useless that the CS had the designs for years and didn't produce them until they had to start issuing weapons to the dog boys and were satisfied they had found something sufficiently crappy to give them by issuing them vibro-blades. literally, the reason vibro-blades were ever mass produced was because they sucked so much that the CS brass was actually comfortable making them standard issue to an army of untrusted and expendable mutants, but not other weapons (presumably the situation had improved since that decision was first made, since even in RMB dog boys are given an energy handgun as standard issue).

so not only in the sense that players had better options, but in-setting, a 2d6 damage melee weapon was considered to be severely underwhelming to the point where it wasn't even worth making them until the CS developed a specific need for a mass-produced underwhelming weapon.

[BuzzardB]

a 2d6 MD weapon was never particularly powerful. right in the original book, we had mini-missiles that could deal 1d6x10, a boom gun that deals 3d6x10, an energy rifle that does 1d4x10 per blast and can potentially burst, and numerous energy weapons that could burst where the damage for a single shot was anywhere from 2d6-4d6 damage

you could buy vibro weapons that did that much damage in melee if you wanted (either the large sword or the claws), and they were specifically noted as being so useless that the CS had the designs for years and didn't produce them until they had to start issuing weapons to the dog boys and were satisfied they had found something sufficiently crappy to give them by issuing them vibro-blades. literally, the reason vibro-blades were ever mass produced was because they sucked so much that the CS brass was actually comfortable making them standard issue to an army of untrusted and expendable mutants, but not other weapons (presumably the situation had improved since that decision was first made, since even in RMB dog boys are given an energy handgun as standard issue).

so not only in the sense that players had better options, but in-setting, a 2d6 damage melee weapon was considered to be severely underwhelming to the point where it wasn't even worth making them until the CS developed a specific need for a mass-produced underwhelming weapon.

Yeah, pretty much every time I play anything that does less than 4d6 damage is usually not bothered with. I think there is a huge disconnect between the damage somethings do and the M.D.C. of armor in the later books. You bring your 2d6 vibro sword to fight someone in fairly common 100 M.D.C. armor and your in for a long, boring fight.

[Killer Cyborg]

Shark, you're comparing swords to missiles.
You're missing the point.

[Alrik Vas]

Shark, you're comparing swords to missiles.
You're missing the point.

I don't know why, but i couldn't stop giggling after i read that. Only in Rifts, man.

[rat_bastard]

Shark, you're comparing swords to missiles.
You're missing the point.

I don't know why, but i couldn't stop giggling after i read that. Only in Rifts, man.

Its swords to eye beams that are emitting from a parasite that is part of a multidimensional being bent on megaversal domination.

[Tor]

But things that get added are discrete amounts which exist as damage on their own. Due to being discrete, it has its own properties.

THAT has not been established.

I believe it has, because we have cases where things are added to weapons which clearly have other properties, like when a PF magic sword flames on. There is a discrete phys/energy divide.

This shows us that damage additions summed in an attack CAN have distinct properties.

This means that we should assume by default that they all do, but that sometimes those distinct properties coincide with the properties of the original attack (like PS damage bonus to silver knives and wooden clubs vs werewolves and vampires) but that unless we have reason to believe so, it should not (like flame-surrounded weapons).

The Rifts line has been consistent as far as I have seen of "damage" amounts introduced being SDC. The 3rd level spell Telekinesis (RMBp171, BoMp98, not in RUE) still says 'damage' for example, and we can reasonably think this is the SDC default that makes sense in all other 'damage' establishment circumstances. RUE added "SDC" for the physical psionic power, but it originally just said 'damage' too. This doesn't mean the power was better than the super-psi and inflicted MD, just that SDC reminders were sometimes not put in, but the reminders were not necessary.

we agree that it IS possible that discrete damage could take on the properties of the base.

Yes, I believe there is adequate evidence of PS bonuses enhancing the woodiness or silveriness of attacks against vamps/weres.

As in, a +1d6 modifier COULD take on the "mega-damage" property of the base damage (assuming that the base is MD).

True, but since this is not standard policy (since PS and HtH damage bonuses don't get added as MD) I believe it requires explicit statements to make an exception.

Other times, the damage bonus does NOT have distinct properties.

A bonus from strength while wielding a flaming weapon would obviously apply to improving the base kinetic damage but not to improving the fire-based damage. These distinctions come into play when fighting monsters immune to one or the other.

Unknown. I don't believe that's ever discussed in the books.

Not directly. I am tempted to scour PF for an NPC with one of those weapons and discussions pertaining to scarecrows, but I'm not sure if I'd find anything. Just seems to be the right gamble to me.

We have been told that force-based damage (like from PS) is not added to pure energy weapons (which did include psi-swords) so I think it's reasonable to assume PS isn't added to energy auras, and is enhancing the base of the weapon, the whole reason it can be added at all.

It's mathematical semantics. "x2 damage" and "+100% damage" mean the same thing mathematically. But one is a multiplication, and the other is addition.

In the case of adding something based on a percentage of the original, it is inheriting properties based on that original.

In the case of damage bonuses (be they fixed number, die or dice) these are raw amounts we are told to add, not percentages of the original amount we are adding.

If fencing said something like "increase sword damage by 50%" I wouldn't be having this argument.

Addition does not necessarily start a NEW and SEPARATE amount of damage.

It can, so my default assumption is that it does, and that property-inheritance must be proven.

Addition can't exist independently. You have to add them to something, even if the something is zero.

But what you are adding can exist independently.

There are no attacks that inflict +1d6 damage; there are only modifiers that inflict +1d6 damage. There has to be something to be modified.

Consider:
*1d6 dmg x 2
*1d6 dmg + 1d6 dmg
*1d6 dmg + 1d6 MD
*1d6 MD + 1d6 dmg

In the first case, the modifier has no damage variable, no property of its own. In the second/third/fourth case, it does.

what about cases that say stuff like, "Double the normal damage, plus PS bonuses," or something like, "does double damage plus any other damage bonuses"

Not sure what you mean with this. Palladium hasn't exactly remained clear or consistent about whether damage bonuses apply before or after critical-doubling. That's a big can of worms. This can break down into 2 operations so I'm not seeing the link to the discussion.

The link is that in a case where you have damage along the lines of "1d6 MD x2 +PS bonus," or "1d6 damage x2 +PS bonus," there are a number of ways that you could resolve the equation.

Which way, according to your hypotheses, would be kosher?

In math, creating products via multiplication is the operation done prior to addition. You would only resolve addition first if there were brackets. Difference between:
*(1d6+PS)*2
*1d6*2+PS

Since the PS bonus is just damage (unless you're beltThor) adding it would probably not change the end result of the core MD (crit doubled) roll.

An exception would possibly be to SDC creatures. Like if you attacked a Promethean or a Vampire. Fencing and high PS seem like they would add when hitting those guys with MD melee weapons (needing to be magic/wood/silver in case of vamp)

I was clearly speaking in the context of this conversation.

That wasn't so clear, seemed more generalized. I've experienced generalized attacks relating to off-thread events in the past so I've come to assume that nature unless explicitly told otherwise.

The subtext of your prediction is also a veiled accusation that I am discounting things primarily (or even only) because they contradict me.

Yes.

I don't think so.

I disagree.

I refuse to discount anything unless I can put together words that make sense to me about why it's wrong.

I disagree.

If I couldn't do that, I'd be stuck. I've also actively looked for something to prove me wrong, some 'damage' which really ought to be MD.

I disagree.

All I seem to find is 'damage' that is clearly meant to be SDC.

That's all that you're looking for.

While I understand you have come to those conclusions, I would ask that you and others keep them to yourselves from now on. This is classic ad hominem line of attack which is inappropriate in civil debates. Please confine criticism to the issues you see in my statements and not the thought processes you believe underlie them.

the rest of us see that "damage" is clearly meant to be SDC sometimes, and other times it means other things.

This is something I also see. A reminder that I am discussing 'damage' in terms of establishing discrete amounts and not general usage. In regard to other usage, whether it be a "damage" heading or damage-doubling, we are all in agreement about its flexibility.

There are times when flexibility will not do though, such as telling us how much a weapon does, or how much a bonus adds. In those cases, a default policy is necessary, and Rifts has consistently presented SDC as the default.

Even there, what you said doesn't represent your position.

Even where? Sorry, due to bulk am losing track of things here, hoping others have a better sense of location.

Your position would be more accurately described as "'damage' is clearly meant to be SDC (when it's in the context of addition or subtraction damage modifiers)."

Excluding disclaimers to the contrary, yes this is my position, although it is a sub-position of a greater stance which also includes damage when established as an amount something does, like Super-Bionic Black Market Finger Gun, which is not addition.

The Mind Melter can create a Fire Ball. The Burster can NOT create a Fire Ball, only a Fire Bolt.

Even though there are different spells associated with these phrases, since the idea of a Pyrokinetic being able to do things a Burster can't seems absurd, the Ball/Bolt dichotomy seems kind of artificial, since they essentially do the same thing.

The Burster can inflict more than 6d6 MD, they just can't do that level of damage with a Fire Ball specifically. This might not make sense to you, but your ability to comprehend does not define reality nor sensibility.

Keep in mind we're discussing the RMB version of the Burster for comparison to RMB's Pyro, not the enhanced RUE version.

6d6 MD is the highest a Burster could do in a single action. The only way they could do more would be via using Super Fuel Flame.

What I am pointing out here is that Pyrokinesis did more "damage" with a fire projectile (ball/bolt, meh, sometimes 'just semantics' is justified I guess) than a Burster did MD. Pyro-Melters (or Pyro-Mystics) could do DOUBLE the damage with a pillar and TRIPLE the damage with a wall, compared to a Burster's MD.

The only way the Burster caught up to Pyro's pillar/wall dmg in MD was by making giant 20/40 ft sq area fires (not always the best tactical option) and could only exceed that by making their infernos even larger.

Yes, revising has made it clearer.

I sternly acknowledge your approval.

RGMG 28
The following are some of the typical damage amounts inflicted by types of punches and kicks. Each inflicts roughly the same equivalent SDC or MD damage depending on whether the attacker is an SDC being (like humans) or a Mega-Damage being (like power armor, bots, oni, dragons and supernatural beings). Remember to add PS attribute bonuses to damage.
and
Kick Attack: 2d4

"typical" and "roughly" mean these are just general guidelines. We know examples exist of MD beings (including power armor and bots, apparently, epic) who do not always inflict MD with an attack.

PS damage bonuses still get added to MD attacks, they're just of negligible consideration when against MDC targets who will shrug off 1-99 of damage bonuses, since those are SDC.

RGMG 103 Fire Ball Anotehr fire creation ability is the hurling of a fire ball. Damage: 1d6x10 SDC or 6d6 MD

Correction: Pyrokinesis was changed to inflict MD as of GMG. In the big RMB>RUE comparison it's easy to forget magic/psi alterations in BoM/GMG sometimes.

Of course this change doesn't mean anything in regard to the meaning of 'damage' in RMB since GMG changed things. Like TK acceleration going physical>super.

One will note that GMGp100 still has boiling water to the face inflicting plain "damage" still. As does Electrokinesis on page 99 (did not get an MD upgrade until RUE, prob to give Xiticix a more thorough defense against astral invasions)

you have no definitive proof that the later books were changes instead of clarifications. Ultimately, your position comes down to unsupported opinion.

There is definitive proof that later books were changes: because we both realize the text was altered and the "MD" phrase was added.

Changing dmg to MD is a change. If GMG were a big clarify-fest then why were Electro/Hydro "damage" left intact?

MD substitution is a clear change to mechanics because we consistently see 'damage' statements throughout Rifts (and GMG, and RUE) which are pertaining to basic SDC content. Never have I seen, disclaimer-free, any "damage" we could reasonably assume to be MD.

I mean, is there really any "the boom gun did 3d6x10 damage" type stuff out there?

I'd count it a power creep, not munchkin.

Same, power creep we can explicitly prove (power statistically increasing) whereas munchkin is a vague slang term for motivations behind a player's actions which can only be guessed at, a hypothetical construct often used to bully and isolate other players.

When one person holds a position that the rest of the people around him/her hold to be absurd, it IS possible that the lone individual is correct, and the rest of the people are incorrect... But it's NOT the way to bet.

This is not the process I use to come to conclusions.

If this were proper, we would not discuss our reasons for our beliefs at all in threads and simply hold a poll and go with what gets the most votes.

your position on my point appears to be "maybe kevin didn't notice that part, therefore, kevin definitely didn't notice that part".

If Kevin can miss PE in hours instead of PE in minutes, he can certainly miss Bellaire sneaking in MD notes for fencing.

Isn't part of your position that Kevin must have not noticed he did not include MD capability for Fencing in RUE/ShadowChronicles?

you're not even acknowledging the possibility that kevin's oversight was to not make the update to later books, rather than kevin not noticing the change in the one book.

It's possible that Kevin possibly wanted to have Cyber-Knight Psi-Swords inflict 1d6x10 MD at first level too, maybe he just forgot. But RAW, Rifts+Robotech don't get MD from fencing. The slim possibility that Kev say Bellaire's change in Splicers and then forgot to include it in two later books as he added fencing to them (keeping in mind that he would have looked at this skill since it wasn't originally in RMB) does not seem adequate enough to consider.

you have already decided what you want to be true, and you refuse to accept any possibility that it might not be true.

I'll not go that extreme. I can accept that your interpretation has a slim possibility of being true, but I believe evidence indicates otherwise, that Kev initially missing Bellaire's inclusion (or tolerating it but ignoring it for other settings) is more strongly indicated.

anything that can be interpreted to mean what you want it to mean is declared to be gospel truth.

The only thing I treat as gospel truth is the data in the books. I speak confidently about the interpretations I draw from it because I believe the evidence is overwhelming, but as KC has pointed out inadequacies in the phrasing, I have amended my terms as the discussion evolved, so that's hardly gospel.

someone who has decided what is true and refuses to accept any evidence to the contrary simply cannot have any credibility.

Your application of this summary relies on the assumption that your counter-arguments qualify as adequate evidence pertaining to this situation to either falsify my interpretation or support yours.

if you won't even consider that want you want to be true is not true, then how can anyone trust that you've come to a logical conclusion when you started with the premise that only one conclusion was allowed to be true, and everything that might contradict that conclusion is inherently false?

I'm not that stubborn, I agree that it is theoretically possible Kev read Splicers and thought "fencing adding MD? AWESOME! This will change the Megaverse!" and then forgot his epiphany and did not include this change in RUE/SC, but it just seems really unlikely.

did kevin intend for fencing to be updated in splicers? maybe, maybe not. i can't tell. we can speculate, and your speculation would be just as valid as mine, unless one of us has access to relevant information that the other doesn't.

I believe we can weigh which speculation is a better interpretation. We have evidence Kev has endorsed other people's writing in spite of it including a 'mistake' that was later changed (hours>minutes PPE). The only book I've seen fencing add MD is a book by another person. This is a change that, if Kev approved, we would expect to see in later books he wrote. But we don't see it in RUE/SC.

Some possibilities are:
1) Kev approved MD fencing for Splicers but at the time of writing RUE and SC decided he didn't want MD fencing in those games
2) Kev approved MD fencing for Splicers and intended it to be a Megaversal change, but then forgot about that intention and did not include the change in RUE/SC
3) Kev did not approve MD fencing for Splicers, he overlooked it while editing the book, and didn't know about it when he did RUE/SC
4) Kev did not approve MD fencing for Splicers, was aware of it while writing RUE/SC, but opted not to include the change

Your interpretation appears to be #2. I have no particular fixed interpretation, but I believe that 1 and 3 and 4 are all more likely.

I think they're referring to page 326 as noted.

I'll specifically draw your attention to the "W.P. Ancient Weapons" category. Second colum of the page, under the "Damage Note" section. There we find this quote:

Mega-Damage equivalent weapons inflict the same number of damage dice only it is M.D., not S.D.C. (e.g. a sword that inflicts 2D6 damage does 2D6 Hit Point/S.D.C. damage if an S.D.C. weapon or 2D6 M.D. if a Mega-Damage weapon.)

It specifically uses "2D6 damage" to mean either S.D.C. or M.D. depending on type of weapon.

It does, but in the context of a section to which a disclaimer applies. This is similar to the Atlantis Bio-Wizardry section. The disclaimer only applies to that section, not to the entire game.

What "MD equivalent weapons" means is also up for grabs. A likely candidate would be the Enchant Weapon ritual popular among High Magi that makes magic weapons which inflict MD equivalent to their normal SDC damage.

It definitely shouldn't mean that any MDC weapon automatically inflicts MD since we have numerous examples of MDC weapons which only inflict SDC, like the Scathach stuff in England (which wonderfully confuses us with MD inflicted to vampires instead of HP)

I fully expect Tor to start claiming that the FAQ got it wrong in both places (as in that p. 316 is not clear and that the Splicers version doesn't matter) instead of admitting that he got it wrong.

Good, we understand each other.

The FAQ often gets things wrong and often introduces new rules that are not in the books.

If we interpret this statement as canon, then it means that the rule changed.

Not knowing who actually writes these, and with them not being properly dated, I am skeptical to view them as authoritative.

Standard policy is not to apply skill changes in 1 book to another if the other has different statistics for it.

If the FAQ introduces an abnormal "Splicers trumps RUE/SC" stance, I question the authority they use to do so.

Even so, it would be a change, and not influence what the actual rules were prior to the FAQ change.

the actual take-away here is that damage -- unmodified -- clearly can't always mean SDC automatically without any reference to context, that the use of just the word damage -- unmodified -- can indicate that it add the type of damage as appropriate to the base type

Wrong, even if this FAQ statement is interpreted as canon, that would only mean that fencing MD is added dependent on base, not that all damage is. For example, damage bonuses gained from hand to hand skills, which usually just get lumped in with PS damage bonuses (see Angel of Death) if authors remember to include them at all (see Angel of Vengeance)

[Killer Cyborg]

Tor, I'm on my phone at the moment, so I can't respond to your thorough reply.
For now, I'll ask you this:

A character in has a PFRPG-style flaming sword, and the Fencing skill.
Keep in mind that in Palladium, flaming swords have blades of pure fire.
The character attacks, strikes, and inflicts Xd6 SDC + the 1d6 damage from Fencing.
Is that extra 1d6 damage fire damage, or some other kind of damage?
If some other kind of damage, what kind exactly?

[Shark_Force]

Shark, you're comparing swords to missiles.
You're missing the point.

not really. i also compared the cyber knight's psi-sword to a vibro-blade and a laser welder with a 10 foot range, both of which are decidedly melee range, as well as to various other weapons which are perfectly functional up close and personal while still performing better than the cyber-knight's psi-sword.

2d6 MD in a melee weapon has never been impressive for the rifts line. dog boys were given such a weapon purely on the basis that it was not in the least bit impressive in the fluff text, and as players of the game we can observe the game mechanics and recognize that there are numerous superior melee-range options to use, even in the original core rulebook.

it has niche uses (like cutting your way out of a magic net, which i must admit it is incredibly well-suited for considering the ability to alter it's shape as needed, and the fact that it doesn't occupy your hand until you need it). outside of those niche uses, it just isn't impressive in the slightest.