Forums of the Megaverse®

Shark, you dismissed vibrio blades as unimportant.
That's not the same as looking at the power growth that the fencing skill provides swords.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Shark, you dismissed vibrio blades as unimportant.
That's not the same as looking at the power growth that the fencing skill provides swords.

A 2d6 melee weapon used to be high end, and a 4d6 melee weapon used to be the maximum, except fit high-level characters using psi-swords.

yes, 4d6 was the maximum of pure melee weapons (with the possible exception of dragons). 2d6 was not really particularly high, though it also wasn't particularly low... for melee.

but it was never the high end of combat, or even close to it. and while i would certainly house rule that certain weapons (such as most rifles) are not viable in melee combat, there's absolutely no reason you couldn't just use a pistol in melee combat, and there are pistols, even in the RMB, that offer superior damage to any melee weapon because they can burst.

swords are just not that great of an option, with or without fencing. a person with a pistol forces you to use dodge (at -10, if you're using official rules, though those didn't come until later) to defend against it, as the rules go. that costs the target their action in most cases. a person with a sword only forces a parry, which costs no actions, and suffers no penalties. honestly, the only compelling reason to consider purely melee weapons in the RMB imo is because you need a silver weapon or similar, or because the neural mace is devastating even on a successful saving throw against targets susceptible to it. or, in other words, 4d6 damage may have been the maximum of purely melee weapon damage in the RMB, but it wasn't the maximum of damage in melee, and it wasn't even the best purely melee weapon in my opinion (if i wasn't clear, that title goes to the neural mace imo).

Tor wrote: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

This is a clear example of why people have trouble agreeing with you on much of anything Tor, you hear hooves and your thoughts head straight to Zebra which is cliche I know but you seem to take it to an entirely new level - in your mind you jump to zebra not because you don't think of horses but because in your mind, horses don't exist.
The far more likely "possibility" is number 5:
5) Kev did not notice the significance of the change because he had no idea it was a change. He had always intended the damage to be M.D. with M.D. attacks. The change wasn't added to the RUE or Robotech because he was both unaware of the significance and did the usual palladium cut & paste job and did so from a less obscure book.

Giant2005 & Tor wrote: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
5) Kev did not notice the significance of the change because he had no idea it was a change. He had always intended the damage to be M.D. with M.D. attacks. The change wasn't added to the RUE or Robotech because he was both unaware of the significance and did the usual palladium cut & paste job and did so from a less obscure book.

2,3 and 5 all seem likely.

Killer Cyborg wrote:PFRPG-style flaming sword, and the Fencing skill. Keep in mind that in Palladium, flaming swords have blades of pure fire.

Blah, just reread page 249 more closely, pure fire. Must have been remembering some other kind of flame-aura sword, possibly something Kuznya from Mystic Russia.

Killer Cyborg wrote:The character attacks, strikes, and inflicts 2d6 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?

The question is whether or not we would add the damage bonus at all. If we did, it would be fire, since this weapon only has a single property. The only dilemma comes up with physical base + energy aura since there's 2 considerations.

The general policy I've encountered (I believe it was said in an FAQ somewhere) was that we don't add physical strength bonuses (or punch damage, if SNPS) to energy weapons like this.

I believe the reason for that is due to strength being kinetic in nature.

So whether or not we would add the fencing damage bonus to purely energy blades.

I don't think they've been explicitly ruled out like PS, but then again, neither has the damage bonus from hand to hand combat.

In both the case of fencing bonus die and hand to hand fixed bonus, it would probably be left up to the GM to determine the nature of these two bonuses.

I don't know if hand to hand skills or fencing have been elaborated on enough for us to identify the nature.

HtH or Fencing might both be kinetic-based too, like physical strength, in which case you would not add them. I might take such an interpretation because HtH teaches people how to put more weight or lean into their hits and fencing teaches lunging techniques.

On the other hand, the interpertation's also brought up that fencing (and I would say HtH too then) damage bonus may relate to picking more vulnerable targets, or something along those lines. I don't favour this because I believe we have things like called/critical shots to cover that concept. But it's not meritless, because PU1p34 "Living Anatomy" represents vital spots with a damage bonus. Anyone seen that elsewhere?

In that case, the bonus is clearly related to a power giving knowledge of the target's structure. Since fencing is not so limited (the damage bonus doesn't care about the target) and no Lore/Biology roles need to be passed to get the damage bonus, this is the reason I'm inclined to think that the damage bonus it receives (and the ones HtH receive) are from higher-force blows and not from better-placed blows, because there's no reason to think being a fencer would mean you'd somehow know how to hit certain creatures or robots in more vulnerable areas.

So due to my favoured lunging/stepping-into interpretation of fencing/HtH damage bonuses, I would not apply them to a purely energy weapon. This is a house ruling in absence of a clear answer on the topic. Going RAW since they aren't ruled-out like PS, I suppose you would apply both to pure-energy blades, but I think it a common sense extrapolation from the "don't add PS damage bonuses to energy" that similar kinetic-based damage bonuses (as I conclude HtH and Fencing to most likely be) should also not apply to them.

Shark_Force wrote: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

2d6 is impressive in a weapon you can keep hidden until needed, that can't be disarmed/stolen, which is indestructible and capable of harming otherwise invulnerable creatures.

Shark_Force wrote:there are numerous superior melee-range options to use, even in the original core rulebook.

They have ammunition and cost limitations though.

Shark_Force wrote: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.

Yeah, the ability to harm vampires or astral beings and parry MD energy blasts is over-rated.

Shark_Force wrote:there are pistols, even in the RMB, that offer superior damage to any melee weapon because they can burst.

True. In most damage in a short period those rock. It's the ammo considerations that bog them down. Takes time to change clips, takes encumbrance to carry them, money to replace/refuel them (unless there's a mystic knight or sub-particle acceleration mage in your group, which only got added later, no such means in RMB)

Giant2005 wrote:

Tor wrote: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

This is a clear example of why people have trouble agreeing with you on much of anything

Cool, could you explain clearly how it is an example? Does coming up with multiple interpretations of possible examples and not strongly adhering to any of them because I'm open-minded make it hard to agree with me?

Giant2005 wrote:you hear hooves and your thoughts head straight to Zebra which is cliche I know but you seem to take it to an entirely new level - in your mind you jump to zebra not because you don't think of horses but because in your mind, horses don't exist.

Cool story bro, please be aware of my request to not engage in Ad Hominem attacks and stick to the actual topic though. Your metaphors don't explain to me what you have the problem with my 4 brainstorm points.

Giant2005 wrote:The far more likely "possibility" is number 5:
5) Kev did not notice the significance of the change because he had no idea it was a change. He had always intended the damage to be M.D. with M.D. attacks. The change wasn't added to the RUE or Robotech because he was both unaware of the significance and did the usual palladium cut & paste job and did so from a less obscure book.

Please explain why you think number 5 is more likely. I gave some reasons why I favoured some possibilites over other.

I view this example as more of a mule than a horse, it seems so absurd that it didn't even occur to me. Kev has a history of listing MD where he intends it.

BuzzardB wrote:2,3 and 5 all seem likely.

I favour 3 personally. Although I see 2 as less likely, it's certainly more plausible than 5. What issues do you take with 1 and 4?

Tor wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:The character attacks, strikes, and inflicts 2d6 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?

The question is whether or not we would add the damage bonus at all. If we did, it would be fire, since this weapon only has a single property. The only dilemma comes up with physical base + energy aura since there's 2 considerations.

The general policy I've encountered (I believe it was said in an FAQ somewhere) was that we don't add physical strength bonuses (or punch damage, if SNPS) to energy weapons like this.

I believe the reason for that is due to strength being kinetic in nature.

So whether or not we would add the fencing damage bonus to purely energy blades.

I don't think they've been explicitly ruled out like PS, but then again, neither has the damage bonus from hand to hand combat.

In both the case of fencing bonus die and hand to hand fixed bonus, it would probably be left up to the GM to determine the nature of these two bonuses.

I don't know if hand to hand skills or fencing have been elaborated on enough for us to identify the nature.

HtH or Fencing might both be kinetic-based too, like physical strength, in which case you would not add them. I might take such an interpretation because HtH teaches people how to put more weight or lean into their hits and fencing teaches lunging techniques.

On the other hand, the interpertation's also brought up that fencing (and I would say HtH too then) damage bonus may relate to picking more vulnerable targets, or something along those lines. I don't favour this because I believe we have things like called/critical shots to cover that concept. But it's not meritless, because PU1p34 "Living Anatomy" represents vital spots with a damage bonus. Anyone seen that elsewhere?

In that case, the bonus is clearly related to a power giving knowledge of the target's structure. Since fencing is not so limited (the damage bonus doesn't care about the target) and no Lore/Biology roles need to be passed to get the damage bonus, this is the reason I'm inclined to think that the damage bonus it receives (and the ones HtH receive) are from higher-force blows and not from better-placed blows, because there's no reason to think being a fencer would mean you'd somehow know how to hit certain creatures or robots in more vulnerable areas.

So due to my favoured lunging/stepping-into interpretation of fencing/HtH damage bonuses, I would not apply them to a purely energy weapon. This is a house ruling in absence of a clear answer on the topic. Going RAW since they aren't ruled-out like PS, I suppose you would apply both to pure-energy blades, but I think it a common sense extrapolation from the "don't add PS damage bonuses to energy" that similar kinetic-based damage bonuses (as I conclude HtH and Fencing to most likely be) should also not apply to them.

In short, going RAW, a GM would add the bonus, and it would all be fire damage.
House-ruling things, you personally would not add the bonus.

Correct?

Shark_Force wrote:yes, 4d6 was the maximum of pure melee weapons (with the possible exception of dragons). 2d6 was not really particularly high, though it also wasn't particularly low... for melee.

Dragons inflicted 2d6 MD in melee with their claws, and 2d4 MD with their bite.

but it was never the high end of combat,

Which is completely irrelevant to the issue of power creep.
Again, power creep is the increase of power over time, NOT the increase of the maximum power levels of combat overall over time.
A first level CK doubling the damage of his psi-sword is power creep.
It doesn't matter how that stacks up against missile damage, because power creep is about the same kind of attack/creature/whatever increasing in power.

Killer Cyborg wrote:It doesn't matter how that stacks up against missile damage, because power creep is about the same kind of attack/creature/whatever increasing in power.

I think we need to find an agreed upon definition of the term "power creep" because I think both yours and mine differ somewhat. To me, power creep relates to the setting as a whole, not to any individual thing within the setting.
It could be said that increasing the power of any given thing within a setting does increase the power of the setting somewhat but any change (even just defining a new area as populated) would have that same impact. For me, the change would have to have to be of reasonably high consequence for it to contribute to power creep in any way more than a technical definition. If an uncommon and inferior combat form is beefed up somewhat but still remains uncommon and inferior, then it has no meaningful impact on the setting at large as both prior to and after the change, the most dominant form of combat remains both dominant and unaffected by the change.

Giant2005 wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:It doesn't matter how that stacks up against missile damage, because power creep is about the same kind of attack/creature/whatever increasing in power.

I think we need to find an agreed upon definition of the term "power creep" because I think both yours and mine differ somewhat. To me, power creep relates to the setting as a whole, not to any individual thing within the setting.
It could be said that increasing the power of any given thing within a setting does increase the power of the setting somewhat but any change (even just defining a new area as populated) would have that same impact. For me, the change would have to have to be of reasonably high consequence for it to contribute to power creep in any way more than a technical definition. If an uncommon and inferior combat form is beefed up somewhat but still remains uncommon and inferior, then it has no meaningful impact on the setting at large as both prior to and after the change, the most dominant form of combat remains both dominant and unaffected by the change.

If you want to spin this off into a new topic, I'll be happy to discuss it at length.

I don't see why we're arguing strength adds to damage! No, the real issue is "How does a sword with no weight get used in any way the same fashion as a normal sword?!" WP bonuses can't apply to Psi-Swords! H2H Combat bonuses to strike and parry can't apply to Psi-Swords! How would boxing help you be a better sword fighter!?!?! THERE'S NO CONNECTION THERE AT ALL!!!!!!!!11!!!11one!!!!!

Sorry for the belligerence...but seriously.

Killer Cyborg wrote:going RAW, a GM would add the bonus, and it would all be fire damage. House-ruling things, you personally would not add the bonus. Correct?

So far as I'm aware, unless there's errata out there saying not to add HtH/physical dmg bonuses too, but the only one I'm aware of, I believe discussed strength. I think it's a fair extrapolation to lump them in with PS though.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Dragons inflicted 2d6 MD in melee with their claws, and 2d4 MD with their bite.

As we can see with Carlotta. Man, SNPS in CB1 was epic power creep, made dragons better than vibro-blades instead of just a match for the biggest swords/claws.

Alrik Vas wrote:I don't see why we're arguing strength adds to damage! No, the real issue is "How does a sword with no weight get used in any way the same fashion as a normal sword?!"

Did it say Psi-Swords are weightless? I can buy that, though I dont' remember one way or the other.

It's not so much the weight that concerns me though, it's more like the physicality. Weight just affects how hard it is to lift it and stuff. Psi-swords are energy weapons and that always gave me the idea of it being zappy and non-whammy.

Alrik Vas wrote:WP bonuses can't apply to Psi-Swords! H2H Combat bonuses to strike and parry can't apply to Psi-Swords!

I don't see why strike/parry from WP/HtH wouldn't apply. You presumably move it around the same way, and being weightless would just make you faster.

The bigger confusion is how an energy weapon can parry at all. If it lacks any physical substance, stuff should just go through it. If stuff gets destroyed in the process, then defense succeeded (like if you parry an SDC arrow or thrown knife or something) but if the damage against something (like some MDC-enchanted blade) wasn't enough to destroy it, I feel like it should just go right through a psi-sword and hit whatever is on the other side of it.

An exception could be made for vibro-blades since (in spite of the name, which implies vibration) they're apparently surrounded by some kind of energy field, so we could think of some 'field repulsion' explanation for how it's capable of parrying it. Ditto for things like Kittani Plasma swords since they presumably have energy auras to keep the plasma in.

I get energy parrying energy, but energy parrying physical stuff it can't destroy is so strange... can someone in physics give me some kind of example to how this could be possible? Hard to get head around.

Alrik Vas wrote:How would boxing help you be a better sword fighter!?!?! THERE'S NO CONNECTION THERE AT ALL!!!!!!!!11!!!11one!!!!!

The boxing rants have happened before, and I believe disillusion with the attacks aiding you with extra gun attacks is a place to go before wondering why it helps ancient weapons.

*really thinks boxing ought to have been 1 extra punch per round*

CB1 had some of the biggest mistakes that Palladium ever made, SNPS being high on the list.