Although this issue doesn't appear to be resolved, we are rehashing a lot of issues discussed in prior threads...
May 2011
http://www.palladiumbooks.com/forums/vi ... 8&t=122826May 2014
http://palladium-megaverse.com/forums/v ... 4&t=143519and then finally this thread, started in September...
Whether or not it is a Cyber-Knight is pretty inconsequential, since it's an issue pertaining to all Psi-Sword use. Melters wanna know.
Or really... this is a discussion even broader than Psi-Swords. It's an issue that pertains to all MD attacks. Vibro-swording City-Rats wanna know.
I would even argue that this extends beyond fencing and swords. Fencing is not the only physical skill which adds a 'damage' bonus.
Perhaps we should create a new thread on the broader topic of
"do -damage- bonuses add MD to MD attacks?"or something similar.
That way, we can not just discuss the physical skill of fencing, but also the physical skill of Hand to Hand Assassin. We can go beyond just discussing swords and discuss ALL attacks.
I am wondering what various opposition on this topic over time thinks of this. Do you agree with my proposed title or do you have something you'd rather propose instead?
Am trying to remember everyone... besides Eliakon and HWalsh in prior threads there was Dog_O_War and Giant2005. Drew sounded neutral. Am I missing anyone else who would participate?
eliakon wrote:Tor wrote:HWalsh wrote:countering your claim that it "Defaults" to meaning S.D.C.
the wording you chose was more broad, your phrasing countered a straw-man.
HWalsh wrote:I utterly refuse to see any precedent for non-explicitly stated incidents of weapons dealing both S.D.C. and M.D.C. simultaneously. For example, when someone doesn't have Supernatural Strength they don't deal, with a Vibro-Sword, 2D6 M.D.C. + (insert bonus number here) S.D.C. damage.
Well I can agree that the situation here is a refusal to see...
No need to make insults. Aren't those reportable?
HW stated 'I refuse to see any precedent' and I agreed with him. If what he said is an insult then he insulted himslf. Rather than demean him for saying that, I applaud his honesty
eliakon wrote:Tor wrote:Damage bonuses always get added, unless you can find something stating you should not add it. Official FAQs clearly state to add PS bonuses to vibro-blades since they have a physical core. It never says 'only if it matches the damage type'.
Strawman. The Strength rules explicitly explain that the PS bonus is always SDC your still always adding SDC there....BECAUSE OF THE PS RULE not some universal 'damage is sdc' rule
If the intent of your first sentence was to warn readers that you were about to create a straw-man of my arguments, then I also applaud your honesty. But if you meant to accuse me of engaging in a straw-man argument, then you have used the term incorrectly. Please provide context in the future to be more specific. Straw-man situations have at least 4 necessary elements so far as I know them. Person A making argument A, and person B who claims to represent argument A, and does so by introducing argument B. Something is a valid straw-man situation when B does not accurately represent A.
I really have no clue what you're calling SM here, but let me explain what you are doing wrong in this response.
You exclaim 'the PS rule is not some universal -damage is SDC rule-. I agree with that. I never suggested any such transference. You are mistaken if you think I was.
Rather, my view is moreso: even prior to CB1's specifying that PS damage bonuses are SDC only (I do not recall if this was present in RMB) I believe 'damage' clearly meant MD.
Rather than being a 'unique' rule for physical strength introduced in CB1, my perspective is that this was establishing status quo (damage defaulting to mean SDC when lacking other implications) and using the most prominent example (PS) to represent that.
My point is simply that damage bonuses get added to things, and that if 'damage' on its own meant MD, then other examples of this (such as hand to hand skills) would show ongoing evidence of doing so.
Instead, we see with guys like Karl Prosek, that the 'damage' from his HtH did not enhance his MD-inflicting abilities, since his bonuses did not describe that.
eliakon wrote:Tor wrote:You're effectively arguing that a wooden sword that does d6 sdc will do d6+10 HP to a vamp if wielded by a guy with PS25, but if PS25 guy wields a magic wooden sword that does d6 MD, it will only do d6 HP to a vamp. It's silly. Particularly since in an SDC setting where magic swords inflict SDC you would add that PS when smacking a vamp. Or equiv example with vibro-stuff vs Prometheans. For some reason moving to MDC settings makes stuff that grows more powerful LESS effective?
Strawman, because of above
Your above reasoning did not make any clear sense, and your attempting to apply whatever it was here confuses me further.
The scenario I describe here appears to be a natural consequence of the rules we are discussing.
eliakon wrote:Tor wrote:SDC bonuses get added but we generally ignore them in usual situations due to MD rounding rules of destroying <100 remainders. We can effectively overlook them in most situations and only need to remember them from unique 'I suffer from everything' cases with supernatural creatures.
Again not relevant
I'll leave the relevance of this example up to other readers, I feel a bit ignored here so perhaps you'll listen to others.
eliakon wrote:Tor wrote:HWalsh wrote:Damage is always of the main damage type of the attack unless explicitly otherwise stated. That is my stance.
I'm aware of your stance, instead of reminders, I want us to focus on weighing evidence.
I think that's what we are trying to do....you know the passages in the book that actually have rules in them
Rules like 'this does mega damage' or 'this adds mega damage' perhaps.
eliakon wrote:Tor wrote:rules are MD if indicated, not MD unless otherwise indicated
MDC is not the base attribute of matter in the universe.
DO you have a source for that contention? Because that is stating that the cited RULE IS WRONG so I am going to need a rule to back it up rather than just a 'nuh uh'
You have not actually cited a rule supporting the idea that adding 'damage' will change the added amount into mega-damage.
eliakon wrote:Tor wrote:Let's look at a flip-side here. Instead of discussing what I propose, that it adds SDC to an MD attack, what about adding MD to an SDC attack?
Do you think this can't be done?
Its not really relevant....but in theory it could be done
I'm glad we can agree that it could be done. The relevance here is that if we can add a MD amount to an SDC damage amount, it is possible to have an attack which has 2 distinct damage types hitting simultaneously. So if we can add MD to dmg, we should be able to add damage to mega-damage. They can travel together without influencing each other.
eliakon wrote:Tor wrote:HWalsh wrote:Tor wrote:If you continue to imply I said that by putting it in quotes, I will report you. I never say 'always means'.
I then, wish you to stop stating that damage, as a default, is S.D.C. because there are too many examples where it is not.
We are not bartering here HWalsh
I am not obligated to agree with you to get you to stop straw-manning me.
Paraphase isn't a straw man, nor is it reportable.
An alleged paraphrase is not one if you are missing the point and representing a different meaning than the original statement. As I explained in other threads, I can extend the olive leaf of entertaining this is a mistake, and someone can similarly entertain the idea that they read it wrongly and misinterpreted what I wrote.
eliakon wrote:Tor wrote:I think damage without context means SDC.
Um wouldn't that mean that that you just said that damage is always sdc unless otherwise....or what you just got mad at him for saying?
The 'unless otherwise' addition is a step in the right direction, but it is still too loose. The problem I have here is that people keep claiming 'oh, well that means the 'damage' doubled by natural 20s will not enhance MD attacks' or similar which I find disconnected from the discussion. Mega-damage is a type of damage so it gets modified by damage-modifiers, but there must exist a default 'damage' concept since there are default 'damage' declarations. What besides SDC suits this role as defaultD?
eliakon wrote:Tor wrote:I consider addition and subtraction to be amount introductions. Division and multiplication are amount-modifications. The difference has to do with whether or not a variable is used. 2a*3 versus 2a+3b notice how the first will not have a variable and the second will have one.
Sadly, that is not what the book seems to say, and while its a nice house rule....if its not what the book actually says....then its not really relevant is it?
The book says this we have to make sense of. That a kick attack inflicts '1d6 damage' for example. We are given 'damage' amounts without SDC modifiers. We know for a fact 'damage' amounts can exist independently of an SDC reminder or a MD enhancer. This means a default damage must exist. The overwhelming evidence is that this is SDC damage, I have not seen any evidence of this being MD.
If you think it is a variable declaration then there must be some basis for determining what it becomes, but I have not seen any indicators of such variability or how to resolve it when it comes up.
eliakon wrote:not just about items though, its about weapons. And a psi-sword is a weapon. That means that a discussion about weapons applies to a psi-sword
there are some Official FAQ questions
the RUE book has a black and white rule that damage matches the weapon should be sufficient.
There is no black-and-white rule, you're making it up. Let's read the actual key book statements.
RMBp326 wrote:1. The Damage stat indicates the number of damage dice rolled to inflict the appropriate amount of damage for that type of weapon. Damage starts as SDC..
2. Melee weapons that inflict Mega-Damage include...
3. The damage listed with each ancient weapon is SDC..
4. High-tech or magical Mega-Damage equivalent weapons inflict the same number of damage dice only it is MD
The text is actually only describing individual weapons here. There are a class of things that are 'Mega Damage equivalent' which basically means that the MD dice rolled for them matches the damage dice normally rolled for them. Not all MD weapons are MDEs. Some MD weapons inflict more, some MD weapons inflict less. Psi-Swords can fall into both categories since 1d6 less dice than many of the larger swords a CyberK may opt to create, yet it can grow to exceed the base dice of all sword. Psi-swords are not -Mega Damage equivalent- because their dice are not MD mirrors of standard damage dice. That's something we see in a few things like resin weapons.
Beyond this though... the key phrase here is "damage dice" plus the verb 'rolled'. This is discussing the base damage that weapons inflict, the dice rolled. It is not discussing damage bonuses (something that WP Polearm and WP Whip give). Nothing at all is mentioned about upgrading the damage bonus (which is not a die) to MD.
Since we've yet to see any NPC examples of someone getting a MD bonus from fencing, do you have any NPC examples of someone with WP Polearm or WP Whip getting a MD bonus?
eliakon wrote:cant be universal if there are exceptions
if the damage for weapons always matches the weapon type then damage, for weapons, is not always sdc
but instead that of the weapon type.
Ergo all damage is not always sdc unless noted. Sometimes is mdc even with out a note.
You are using an unevidenced conclusion to support your premise.
I quoted the relevant statements above. None of them support the idea that "damage for weapons always matches the weapon type." Would I be correct in thinking that when you say this you mean 'when -damage- is added to a MD amount, the -damage- becomes MD" ? Do you mean something else?
eliakon wrote:Tor wrote:The precedent of damage amounts being SDC makes that unnecessary.
Except there is no such precedent.
Every other book prior to Rifts, plus Rifts itself, and even RUE, clearly show that this is logically what 'damage' represents. The damage bonus from PS is clearly following precedent and not establishing a unique exception.
eliakon wrote:Tor wrote:HWalsh wrote:the ONLY instances we have of damage being added to melee that isn't the same damage as the weapon usually deals out we are specifically told of it.
That is false, HWalsh. We are told that the damage bonus from high PS is SDC...
Again strawman. Your arguing that something your explicitly told does NOT apply here, should apply just so you can then prove it doesn't apply.
You are not using the phrase -strawman- correctly. I am not convinced you know what it means.
If someone is wrong about what rules apply, or (as you did above) using circular logic, while that would be a form of logical fallacy, that would NOT be a straw-man argument.
Please find a correct term to apply to your criticism of me before levying it. While all straw-man arguments are fallacies, all fallacies are not straw-man arguments.
As for criticism of my reply here, HW describes some kind of 'instance'. Before analyzing this or my reply to it, I'm going to request that this example referenced be provided, because looking back I'm having trouble following the flow of this line of thought and what it was about. Apparently I understood (or thought I did) what HW meant at the time I replied before, but I don't remember what that was anymore. I am hoping providing the -instance- will provide some foundation.
eliakon wrote:Tor wrote:Are we told that it is SDC only for damage bonuses attained from hand to hand combat skills, like HtH Assassin for example, which gets them most generously?
Strawman incoming! H2H damage bonuses add to hand to hand damage, not the weapon damage explicitly. Yes this is a minor difference, but its an important one. They are NOT the same bonus. Apples and Orange and all that.
If this were N&SS and someone was not using a weapon kata I would agree with you, but in Rifts the HtH bonuses are added with ancient WP combat.
and again, I really think you don't understand what straw-manning means.
Unless I am purporting to cite or paraphrase another poster's argument, the context for accusing me of straw-manning another poster is absent. Thus I am very confused why you are accusing me of doing this at moment when I am discussing the rules, yet the accusations are absent when I am purporting to paraphrase HWalsh.
For example if the head of Society of Sages wrote "earth belongs to humans, humans should rule Earth" and I replied "so you're saying we should kill all other species?" I would be straw-manning the SoShead, because the conclusion I am stating is not a natural result of his argument. It is possible for humans to rule earth without killing other species in many other ways. Evicting them, enslaving them, or co-operating with them so long as they are second-class citizens without ruling powers, etc.
eliakon wrote:Tor wrote:By your logic, Assassin would add MD to vibro-stabs. Yet if we look at NPC stats throughout the Rifts, giving some indication of how rules apply, you will regularly find that damage bonuses from HtH skills and damage bonuses from PS are simply lumped together.
If PS damage bonuses were the sole 'SDC only' bonus, then they would be listed separately and not added together with HtH damage bonuses. Can you find a single instance of this being done?
There are NPCs out there who can inflict MD with weapons or even with their bare hands who have HtH skills high enough to get a 'damage' bonus. Why is this lumped in with their PS bonus instead of being a separate MD bonus?
For easy remembering, I am going to call this the strong-assassin-dilemma, or SAD. Please resolve the SAD issue, as it is a major one.
Yay for strawmen. (And for a huge lack of internal consistency in the game....but that's a different issue)
I explained above with a hypothetical reply to Cagliostro Smith what an actual straw-man argument is.
The reason why what I said to HWalsh here is NOT a straw-man is because (so far as I can tell) if a physical skill that adds -damage- adds MD to an attack which inflicts MD as a base, then this would also give Assassin to apply its damage bonus to attacks as well.
If my conclusion is wrong, I would like it if you could explain to me why the damage bonuses from HtHs and Fencing would operate differently.
eliakon wrote:'overwhelming precedent' is not the same as 'universal rule' (my word there).
The parenthesis is appreciated. When lacking a universal rule, a void must be filled, and overwhelming precedent is the best we have.
If we look at the very basic descriptions of what damage is in PB's core books, it clearly goes to SDC and HP. MD is an addition to the core system, a unique category, it doesn't change the core.
eliakon wrote:rule in RUE is sort of an explicity pointed out bonus
RUEp326 is addressed above, unless you mean somewhere else. 326 does not refer to bonuses, it refers to base damage dice, and it refers to MDEs, which Psi-Sword is NOT.
eliakon wrote:Both sides have exceptions....which suggests that neither side is based on a 'universal rule' and should instead concentrate on the rules as written
What exceptions are you talking about?
The issue here is how to treat -damage- written without SDC or MD or similar affixations.
The argument 'it is whatever it is added to' (or however you'd like to phrase your stance, if you find that wanted) does not work because sometimes just "damage" is used for stand-alone amounts rather than additions.
A policy must exist for treating stand-alone amounts, and that policy should be used for treating added amounts.
eliakon wrote:Tor wrote:HWalsh wrote:The only place we have to go to is in the W.P. section. It indicates that damage is set by the weapon.
Your argument is that a physical skill, fencing, has 'damage' be mega when added to mega. Fencing is a rare skill to see in NPCs for us to actually test this theory in practice. The books are well populated with NPCs who have HtHs at high enough levels to get 'damage' bonuses, however.
Again a strawman
Fencing adds to the weapon damage. Which is explicitly made MD. THe H2H skill adds to the H2H attack, which may or may not add to the weapon damage. They are
not the same thing.
Fencing (RUEp316) and Hand to Hand skills (RUEp347) are both physical skills. They both add 'damage' to attacks.
Weapon damage nos not 'explicitly made MD' as you claim. The RUEp326 mentions MEWs (how I will abbreviate the phrase 'Mega-damage Equivalent Weapons" which occurs in the damage note preceding Archery) doing the same MD as standard damage dice.
Psi-Swords are not MEWs. You'd have a much easier time trying to make an argument for Vibro-Swords here, I'd suggest you take that path.
When it talks about the 'same number of damage dice' though, it is talking about the weapon itself, not bonuses the weapon receives. It's MD matching the damage the weapon does, not the damage PLUS whatever cool stuff you can add from physical or WP skills.
Even looking at the final part... "a sword that inflicts 2d6 damage does 2d6 HP/SDC if an SDC weapon or 2d6 MD if a MD weapon"
That's how much the SWORD does. Plus this isn't talking about all swords (psi-swords at level 1 would do 1d6 MD even if it is mimicking a sword which should do 2d6 based on size) it is only talking about some of them (Wormwood resin weapons being the most memorable example since they appear to follow that pattern, I think the FoM spell also does damage-as-MD)
eliakon wrote:Tor wrote:I challenge you to find any which note to add this as MD to their attacks.
He has no reason to respond to a challenge to find strawmen for you to fight
The HtHassassin dilemma is not a straw-man argument.
It is an example I am giving of the natural extension of fencing-gives-MD logic. There is no distinction between the damage additions that leads me to think fencing's damage becomes MD while assassin's does not.
eliakon wrote:Tor wrote:All I have ever seen is a cumulative sum of PS and HtH shown as either damage or SDC damage. Never has HtH been shown as damage.
PS is not an exception to damage being MD-transformable, it is demonstrating the most common basis of damage meaning SDC damage.
And? Its not fencing....so its not using the fencing rules....so um....strawman
That's not what straw-manning is, go study the proper terms for fallacies or put it in your own words please.
There is no 'fencing rules'.
HWalsh and yourself appear to be constructing -fencing rules- about the damage becoming MD when added to a MD attack.
The construction of such a rule depends in applying certain logical ideas.
Those logical ideas would apply equally to HtH assassin's damage bonus.
Although this is all a secondary argument since there is no actual basis for converting the damage to MD to begin with.
Maybe I should stop discussing this, doing so makes it seem as if you have a basis to begin with. I just like to argue on multiple fronts when there are numerous contrary examples on multiple fronts, but it may be bad in distracting from the core counter-argument..
eliakon wrote:That's one reason to assign to the rewriting of the rule....but since there is no way to know why it was done....
I find it misleading to call it a re-writing since damage and MD were distinct entities anyway.
I never once thought prior to CB1 "oh, cool, bonus MD from my PS" because it said damage and not MD. Just like I didn't assume I could inflict MD with my kicks just because kicks said damage instead of SDC damage.
eliakon wrote:there is nothing in the books that says that there is such a thing as an 'inherent meaning to damage as a stand-alone'
You can also argue that 'there is nothing in the books that says there is such a thing as an 'inherent meaning to Greater Demon'
The exact phrase is not used... but the meaning IS conveyed.
Our entire dispute is because damage is used on its own when defining an amount.
This means, for those parts to make any sense, damage must have an inherent meaning when standing alone.
If it doesn't, you are accusing those portions of being meaningless.
eliakon wrote:It is also not a RUE book, so the RUE rule set trumps it for RUE discussions (of which this is one)
The RUEleset does not actually contradict the Skraypers example though. RUE itself also contains clear contradictions to the idea of "damage"-flexibility. Damage statements existing on their own and a lack of any support (WP ancient argument is unfounded) for dmg>MD transformation are major wholes in your non-argument.
eliakon wrote:Tor wrote:HWalsh wrote:specifically find me a spot, in a book, by Palladium, that explicitly states that the additive damage from Fencing is strictly and only S.D.C. if not, then I will continue to consider you wrong in regards to the matter.
How about first, you find me a statement like that for hand to hand assassin.
Again that's a strawman.
You ought to be banned from using that word. Since I'm not being listened to, perhaps one day someone will explain to you what straw-man arguments are. Or maybe you do know and are hoping others do not so that your complaints will seem genuine.
Instead of catch phrases, I would prefer if you would explain why you think what I say is a problem. I have been trying to do this lately too instead of using SM on its own to complain, to encourage opposition to do the same.
HWalsh is under some impression that Palladium needs explicit rules outlawing things which were never legal to begin with for them to be outlawed.
If there is no valid grounds (and the ancientWP section is not grounds) then outlawing something never made legal would not be reasonable expected.
Damage statements sometimes exist in telling us an amount without saying MD or SDC. We need a policy on treating that. Based on collectively considering these instances, SDC damage is the most believable default meaning here.
The argument of variability must establish conditions for variability.
Those conditions must be backed by evidence.
The ancient WP section is not evidence. I cut it up. Got anything else?