Prysus wrote:I agree with the others that this conversation has long since become meaningless
I don't care. I view all conversations as meaningful. Find a more realistic and moderate criticism and I might agree with it.
Prysus wrote:I'm on the side that that Fencing adds M.D. to M.D. weapons due to the various written rules cited so far
Only on written rule exists supporting that, the one in Splicers.
Prysus wrote:I do NOT side with the unwritten rule of Tor triumps written rules
Lemme correct dat strawman Pry. What damage means is not unwritten. Numerous core books explain to us what damage is, it's right in the basic rules.
It also doesn't trump anything, I just do not view the version of fencing in Splicers to over-write the later-printed versions of Fencing in Rifts and Robotech.
There is a contradiction in using Splicers to argue for a MD bonus while ignoring the clear meaning of damage established in other core books.
Prysus wrote:The conclusion that an omission of a correction means that it's intentionally negated is just false, bad, wrong, and shows a total lack of knowledge of Palladium.
That is only one possibility I have explored.
A stronger possibility is that MD-from-fencing was a rule put into Splicers without Siembieda actually noticing it. A hacky editor job.
After all, Kev supposedly approved the PE-in-hours PPE storage statement to, but this was called a 'mistake' and changed to minutes. So we know that he doesn't always catch minor details like that.
Prysus wrote:Palladium Fantasy Revised Edition (which is basically 1st Edition):
u mean Palladium Role-Playing Game Revised Edition
Fantasy was 2nd ed.
Prysus wrote:Carpet of Adhesion (a level 2 spell). Range 90 feet. The mention of being able to cast it up to 90 feet away is also mentioned. The same 10x20 (200 square feet) references are also included.
HU Revised Edition (which is basically 1st Edition): Range is listed as 30 feet per level. The note of 90 feet away is included.
Rifts (original) main book & Book of Magic: Range is listed as 30 feet per level. The note of 90 feet away is included in both.
Rifts Ultimate Edition: Range is listed as 30 feet, +10 feet per level. The note of 90 feet away is included.
PF2 & HU2: Range is listed as 30 feet, +10 feet per level of experience. The 90 feet note is missing!
All editions: Mention the carpet can be 10 feet x 20 feet (and mention again 200 square feet limit), so neither of these numbers should apply to the size of the carpet (as that's a constant in all editions).
Note: I can't find the spell listed in BtS or Nightbane (or Through The Glass Darkly). I don't believe Dead Reign, Splicers, Ninjas & Superspies System Failure, or After the Bomb include magic.
My analysis started as a result of this thread:
http://palladium-megaverse.com/forums/v ... 9&t=124590However, if you follow the research, you can see that Palladium made a correction in both PF2 and HU2, but then
missed that correction in RGMG and RUE. All this really helps show is that the Palladium editing system is not flawless (most of us already knew this), and that the omission of a clarification or correction in one system does not indicate the omission was intentional.
Different stats for spells don't matter, as best evidenced by the TTGD Create Zombie ritual, or the triple-lightning bolt Call Lightning in original BtS, sometimes spells share the same name while having different stats.
Killer Cyborg wrote:Megaversal rules carry over unless they specifically conflict with local rules.
The rule in Splicers does not conflict, ergo it carries over.
The Splicers parenthesis is not a rule, it is a special property of the Splicers version of the skill.
Since it does not appear in Rifts or Robotech, this either means it is a special property the skill acquires when used in the Splicers dimension, or else it applies in all dimensions but you need to go to the Splicers world to learn it.
Setting-unique skill variations are well known. Kind of like how you wouldn't add MD to attacks in the HU or Palladium world.
It's funny how you say -megaversal rules carry over- yet the definition of what damage is gets-u rejected and I'm limited to finding 'damage' statements solely from Rifts to prove points.
Blue_Lion wrote:The damage note on page 326 Rue is the strongest thing I can think of to support it.
Damage Note: Damage listed with each ancient weapon is SDC/hit point damage. However high-tech or magical mega-damage weapons inflict the same number of dice only it is MD, not SDC.
I know people hate the hair-splitting, but the actual phrase is "Mega-Damage equivalent weapons". Or what I opt to call MEWs. This is not a statement about all mega-damage weapons, just -equivalent- class ones, which means the portion of MD weapons which match in MD the damage dice of normal weapons.
Blue_Lion wrote:do not get both weapon and pouch damage any more. So it could be ruled that unless it stacks on psi-weapons it does not. So weather or not it works is subject to your GM.
Punch damage? Page 286 is clearly a useless PF reprint, it doesn't even mention MD it talks about adding the PS damage bonus to SDC attacks. Seems pointless, a huge amount of Rifts weapons still say to stack with the SNPS punch damage, so either those are now special cases or else it's a general policy.
The official rifter FAQ says that psi-weapons do not benefit from strength since they lack a physical core.
HWalsh wrote:Not quite. You are playing the "political word game" and made a blatant attack, but now are trying to play it off.
You said you refused to see precedent, I agreed. Burden is on statement-initiator.
HWalsh wrote:When I said "I refuse to see any precedent." I was specifically referring to not seeing the item that you put forward as a legitimate precedent. Your item is a false precedent. Kind of like a false bit of logic.
Refuse-to-see and do-not-see are not the same thing.
HWalsh wrote:you are kind of like saying, "Thunder is a loud noise! This is a loud noise! Thus all loud noises must be thunder!"
I do not understand which statement you are saying resembles this, please specify.
HWalsh wrote:to me, and most rational people, Fencing adds +1d6 to the weapon's damage.
This would be closer to an actual attack, since by saying that only a minority of rational people agree with me, you are effectively communicating the idea that I am not a rational person.
The problem here is that how you are communicating here does not resemble the text, RUEp316 says "+1d6 to damage with a sword" not "+1d6 to the sword's damage"
Your so-called summary rewords it in a way that you find more useful for making your argument.
"to the weapon's damage" or "to the sword's damage" do not exist here. There is no reference to the type of damage the weapon inflicts. The damage is added to the attack made WITH one.
HWalsh wrote:That is clearly what was intended, it is also in-line with the rules.
Actually no, if it were intended, it would be made explicit, like the MD bonus in Horsemanship. There are no rules which change -damage- to MD without a statement.
HWalsh wrote:You are arguing because it doesn't explicitly say it. You are trying to cite a precedent which, at no other point, applies.
That's what you're doing. Numerous precedents exist for 'damage' being used to refer to SDC damage. You want it to be MD in this unique situation without addressing the bigger picture of what this means for other 'damage' statements.
HWalsh wrote:Fencing is a physical skill.
All other physical skills that add (or set) damage all add (or set) damage of the same type that would normally be dealt by the attack based on damage type.
No, they just add or set damage. There is no -type- discussion. This is your invention.
HWalsh wrote:You are insinuating that because the skill didn't include it in RUE or RSC, then it automatically is S.D.C.
Yes, like any other undefined 'damage' statement.
HWalsh wrote:Again. Petty attack, attempted to be prettied up. Comes off snarky. Does nothing but make people dislike you and disregard any point you may have had.
Accusing someone of straw-manning you is not a petty attack if it is correct. This is a valid criticism if someone is actually doing it. It is not petty if you explain how it is being done, and what the disconnect in meaning between origin and summary is.
It becomes petty when it is a wrong accusation and not backed by evidence, which is what this other poster had been doing.
Please avoid commenting on how you think others dislike me and stick to the argument topics. It is for others to dictate the impact of what my words have on them. If reading my words does nothing but make you dislike me, then say it, but you are the only person you are qualified to speak for. Such observations are still off-topic though.
HWalsh wrote:Tor wrote: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.
This belief is incorrect.
Strong sourcing here.
HWalsh wrote:You are aware that Palladium Books quite often does stats for characters incorrectly right?
You can't use the stat blocks of characters as a determination factor for anything.
NPCs often having mistakes does not mean we can not use them to learn some things.
Like observing the overwhelming trend of damage bonuses from PS and HtH being lumped together.
HWalsh wrote:Minor Psychic Cyber-Knight Psi-Swords (for non-Master Psychics) do:
1d6 M.D. at level 1, 2d6 at 3, 4d6 at 6, 5d6 at 9, 6d6 at 12, and 7d6 at 15
Segaya Cross (SoT4 pg 80)
14th Level Cyber-Knight, Major Psychic, Does 4d6 M.D. with his Psi-Sword
So he does 4 dice instead of 6. Cross is a Hermit, their combat bonuses are halved, maybe it has something to do with the damage bonus the psi-sword receives being considered a damage bonus or something.
Although.. you added 2 dice at level 6, so I think that we should expect him to do 5d6 by standard interpretation, so even if the 4d6 was halved by per my theory that would mean 3d6... so maybe he has one of those Amaki contraptions accounting for the extra d6
When NPCs vary from rules we can invent reasons why but we can still utilize them for pattern recognition.
If Assassin and Fencing both added conditional MD, this would mean every NPC which lumps that in with PS bonuses are some big conspiratorial exception. The more likely explanation is it's all the same.
HWalsh wrote:This isn't the only time, mind you, that characters get weird stats. The fact is that Palladium Books isn't exactly the best at checking for errors. So to say, "This character doesn't reflect it in its stat block..." Isn't really a good distinguishing point when we have tons of examples of characters having skills and abilities that they should not have as well as not having skills and abilities that they should have.
There are mechanisms that exist for losing skills and abilities and gaining new ones, both known and unknown. Those account for oddities, but physPS dmg lumping is a regular trend we observe which evidences their interchangeability.
HWalsh wrote:Tor wrote: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.
Not at all. The reason he is pointing out your strawman argument is the fact that you are trying to use something that has explicit rules to them. Namely Vampires. That fundamentally overrule common rules by their nature and attempting to apply a common rule to a target that explicitly supersedes that rule.
You clearly do not understand what Strawman means either. You two might be thinking of 'bad example' or something similar when you accuse me on these grounds.
Become competent in understanding what straw-man means before using it. Call me fallacious if you like, I can take that, it's broad, but you evidence no understanding of what straw-man means when you think it applies when I use vampires as an example.
HWalsh wrote:you aren't focused on weighing evidence. You ignore anything that possibly contradicts you
That is blatently false.
HWalsh I would greatly appreciate it if we could get back to actually discussing the evidence, as both of us have been attempting to do, rather than come up with BS accusations like you thinking you have some insight as to what it is I focus on.
When you propose things you think contradict me, I do not ignore them, I confront them, and I beat them.
HWalsh wrote:If we want to argue the evidence then we have to start with the reason you are dismissing the RUE WP quote, and explain why you logically feel that doesn't extend to Fencing, in this case to begin with.
Yes, and I have done that. The WP quote doesn't even support adding the WP's dmg bonus to polearms and whips to MD-inflicting polearms and whips, because it is discussing the base damage dice, not the bonuses.
Your life-preserver here is sunk before you can even attempt to think it applies to fencing.
HWalsh wrote:if your stance is, "Fencing is not a W.P. and as such that rule shouldn't be considered." That is fine.
There is no WP rule. The things mentioned in the WP discussion are discussing MEWs, not rules.
HWalsh wrote:If an M.D.C. creature gets Aerobic Athletics, do they gain +2D4 S.D.C? Common understanding is, "No! Of course not!" But by your seemingly (very) rigid stances, they should have their natural MDC but then an amount of S.D.C. due to their skill additive, simply because the skill additive does not explicitly state that this transfers up to M.D.C.
Unless otherwise indicated, yes, you would add SDC bonuses as a separate pool from the MDC total of a being. There is nothing preventing someone from having both stats concurrently.
That said, although I don't recall specifically where, I think there probably was a statement out there saying -don't add SDC bonuses from physical skills to MDC beings- or something along those lines.
There are also some statements for certain races which convert those SDC bonuses into MDC bonuses. I don't remember exactly whom.
HWalsh wrote:Athletics adds to P.S. it doesn't explicitly say that it adds to supernatural P.S. does this mean that it doesn't add to Supernatural PS and creatures with Supernatural P.S. do not gain a benefit?
That depends on whether you think the Heroes Unlimited rule for it's Major Power applies Megaversally or not. It does seem unrealistic to expect people who play Rifts to be aware of and enforce such text.
HWalsh wrote:Or that they have some kind of special floating non-Supernatural P.S. that comes into play in certain settings only?
Mega and Supernatural do not have the same status as modifiers. Strength always has an inherent status based on the being, it can't exist discretely like damage.
HWalsh wrote:if a creature with Supernatural P.S. takes Gymnastics, since Gymnastics gives an automatic kick attack at first level of 2D4 damage, if we assume that damage means S.D.C and since Kickboxing Explicitly states that damage from Kickboxing can be M.D.C. but no such explicit statement is made in Gymnastics that people who normally deal M.D.C. damage with kicks, only deal S.D.C. damage if they use the Gymnastics kick? The same question applies to the Acrobatics kick. The same questions go over to Wrestling.
You are forgetting that the enhanced-strength damage tables give their own guidelines for the MD inflicted by kicks and body blocks, this would override the standard damage. These questions also apply to HtH.
HWalsh wrote:Tor wrote:You have not actually cited a rule supporting the idea that adding 'damage' will change the added amount into mega-damage.
Sure we have. It is the same rule from the W.P. section.
That isn't a rule, it is a discussion of MEWs. It is not presented like a rule. It is not called a rule.
HWalsh wrote:It could be done, but we should by no means assume it is some kind of default state. We are told, numerous times, that if a person with non-Supernatural Strength hits a target with an M.D. melee weapon the damage from non-Supernatural strength is ignored save for in very specific circumstances. You are making an assumption here that such double damage dealing is a default state.
I believe people are told not to add it because some people for some reason assume the damage bonus becomes mega when added to mega.
Telling people not to add it is generally harmless because in most situations it will simply not matter. 2 MD destroys 299 SDC so +1 to +99 is ignorable in the majority of situations.
The SNPS table does not account for oddities like Prometheans or Vampires where it becomes ridiculously absurd not to add the standard PS damage bonus to MD attacks since those MD attacks convert to HP.
If it is not added, this would lead to silly situations like a vampire secretly improving his opponent's weapons by making them inflict MD so they would inflict LESS damage when wielded by a strong (but not supernatural) foe.
HWalsh wrote:The damage that wold normally be dealt by that attack type unless otherwise explicitly stated is a pretty good role of default. Damage additives without an explicit statement are the damage type of the weapon (as per the W.P. statement) and damage multiplication is the same.
The WP statement about MEWs does not state anything like that, you read it wrongly.
HWalsh wrote:You aren't being listened to Tor, because you are wrong.
That is impossible. To think someone is wrong and react to them based on that belief requires you to listen to them to form the idea of them being wrong.
HWalsh wrote:You ARE making a strawman argument.
No, a strawman argument would be if I misrepresented something you said.
HWalsh wrote:I told you, specifically, to find a section for FENCING that supports your stance that applies to Fencing. You obviously cannot. That is fine. You counter by saying "Find me one for Hand-To-Hand Assassin." Which would be fine, if, and only if, I were actually arguing that damage from Hand to Hand Assassin shouldn't transfer up if the normal attack it is applying to wouldn't be M.D. damage. Since I am NOT arguing that, your counter-argument is a strawman argument.
That is not what straw-man arguments are.
By asking me to find a fencing-section you pretend as if you are correct by default and that I need a statement to disprove you.
As a logical exercise I am taking that stance on Assassin.
I never said you were making any arguments about Assassin.
I am saying that the logic underpinning your fencing argument also applies to Assassin, so your logic creates a greater dilemma than the issue of fencing alone.
I am asking you to confront that greater dilema your logic creates.
HWalsh wrote:Meanwhile mine ISN'T a strawman argument because you ARE arguing that the damage from Fencing does not scale up based on the weapon type.
That statement is not what I was calling straw-man about.
My objection to you previously was the incorrect 'damage only refers to SDC' misquoting.
My objection now is that you are telling people I said you brought up Assassin.
The reality is that I am bringing it up to show the ramifications of your line of thinking and the contradictions to applying it.
HWalsh wrote:I am asking you to directly find an explicit rule that applies here, you can't.
Damage and mega-damage are discretely defined, the burden is on you to prove the existence of a situation-altered damage quantity.
HWalsh wrote:you are asking me to find an explicit rule to something that I'm not arguing.
Underpinning the context of the fencing skill is logic that applies to hand to hand skills. I am proposing you defend the merits of that logic or else exhibit how fencing should be treated differently than HtHs in regard to damage bonuses.
HWalsh wrote:examples of automatic scaling up to M.D. in all other cases where things scale up to M.D. based on the attack
There are no such examples, your WP section statements about MEWs are a red herring. You have not addressed my criticism of your introducing MEWs as part of your argument.
HWalsh wrote:If there is no valid grounds (and the ancientWP section is not grounds) then outlawing something never made legal would not be reasonable expected.
It most certainly is valid grounds.
You need to do more than that to try and make a point here.
I quoted the text and explained how MEWs are talking about specific weapons and not any kind of scaling rule.
Try and actually make an argument by citing the text and how you interpret that. We can discuss the linguistics of the ancient WP section in further detail if you like, but I see nothing substantial there, it's effectively discussing Resin/Dweomer weapons and similar EQUIVALENTS, not a damage-multiplier rule.
HWalsh wrote: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.
In your opinion. Which I, and most others, disagree with.
Actually, most others agree with ME. However like you, when I make such a claim, I will provide no evidence backing that statement.
HWalsh wrote:The ancient WP section is not evidence. I cut it up. Got anything else?
It is evidence. It is clear evidence of design intent if nothing else.
I quoted the section before, feel free to quote/bold the sentences or words in there you think are most important.
I don't think we'll actually get anywhere when we both just refer to the section unless we continually take a close look at it. I did so and nobody engaged me over it.
What on page 326 do you think supports you?
-damage starts as SDC- supports me.
Melee weapons that inflict MD are mentioned in a list of examples but it doesn't mention anything about bonus upgrading.
The thing I figure is the source of your dispute is what I call the MEWs statement.
"Mega-Damage equivalent weapons inflict the same amount of damage dice except it is MD not SDC"
MEWs are not all MD-inflicting weapons. Psi-swords are clearly not MEWs because they do not inflict the same amount of damage dice.
Is it something else? That bit about the sword at the end? The phrase "if a Mega-Damage weapon" has no clear meaning here. It can't mean having MDC because there are MDC swords out there which inflict SDC.
The only meaning discernable here is that MD weapons inflict MD.
Nowhere here is any mention of damage bonuses becoming MD bonuses.
Blue_Lion wrote:I do think the damage note in WP ancient does seam a valid issue that should not be dismissed.
LOL no, it's not as if I dismissed it without reading it. I read it and found nothing supporting the argument people claim is there. Where are the attempts to explain which part of it supports the argument? The attempts to defend such explanations?
Blue_Lion wrote:in its wording does apply to psi-sword.
LOL no, it refers to MEWs, psi-swords are not MEWs.
Blue_Lion wrote:I do not see much of a balance issue on adding it to psi-swords as there are swords that do way more damage than them thanks to FoM.
Those cost a lot of money, they can be destroyed or stolen, and they make you the target of thieves and a visible threat in battle. While having lower MD the psi-sword avoids a lot of these concerns.
Blue_Lion wrote:I do not see it ever clearly being made legal or illegal.
Technically there's nothing explicitly saying "a spinning round-house from a Gnome does 1 million MD" is illegal either. I mean yeah, the rules don't tell us to do it, but hey, if we need disclaimers...
Blue_Lion wrote:I am a little confused at why people seam to think you can add SD to md attacks or vise versa-as I understand it you do one or the other not both.)
It's usually pointless for most opponents. Some beings have MD>HP transferal powers though, where it would be worthwhile to do so.
Chronicle wrote:First of all you took my statement slightly out of context. Technique for hand to hand and fencing are purely hand to hand tactics.
I dunno man, the damage bonus for HtHasassin does specify just HtH but the bonuses for basic/expert/MA don't say that
Course I'm sure there's something that causes us to not stack HtH strike bonuses with modern WP bonuses which might similarly tell us not to add dmg ones too, though I don't recall where.
Chronicle wrote:If there were any gun techniques i am sure that knowing when to strike would make a difference.
Does this refer to initiative or something?
Chronicle wrote:I meant no offence against your opinion in any way. it is just my interpretation of the rules. (damage not being officially clarified as SDC only due to the fact that MDC objects take damage.)
I'm not offended because you are not disagreeing with me, you are disagreeing with a strawman constructed to parody me.
MDC objects take damage in the form of mega-damage. Damage does not always mean SDC. But if we are told a quantity of undefined damage, that does default to SDC, because that is the default context that damage has always had.