Nightmask wrote: Yes, one is a character class that a particular race has available to it that others don't, and while a class might be restricted to a race that doesn't mean the race is restricted to that class.
And just because one race is not restricted to one class does not mean that another can't be restricted to one class. Example of point, the CS dogboys are restricted to the Psi-Hound class.
Re: R.C.C. and skills
Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2012 10:18 pm
by Nightmask
Akashic Soldier wrote:
Nightmask wrote:That's not safe to say, which would make you wrong in claiming that. There are obvious examples of something called an RCC (the hotly argued Dog Boy Psi-Hound for example) which is later shown quite clearly to just be a Dog Boy specific OCC and that they're quite capable of learning other OCC given the opportunity. So it's obviously wrong to declare that an RCC is the only OCC available to a race. You're simply assuming something not supported by the material, something that can be shown to be explainable by other more likely reasons as I already point out. If you'd like to go on being wrong insisting RCC are all a race can be go right ahead though, it's a free country and you're free to be wrong as much as you'd like to be.
Dogboys are a Race, Psihound is a Dogboy specific O.C.C. (meaning it is an R.C.C.), Dogboys were genetically genetically--engineered for a specific purpose. What is so difficult to understand?
Stop for a minute and look at the content and the situation instead of trying to apply sweeping absolutes, that isn't how Palladium works--that isn't how life works. If Psi-Hound does not conform to the standard structure ask yourself WHY and look at the facts. The fact is that Psi-Hounds are a a type of Dogboy that is conditioned to be a Psi-Hound. It is that simple. They were unnaturally engineered by men to fulfill a specific purpose and role within their species, thus becoming an R.C.C.
I'm not having any problems at all understanding things, you are. The content is obvious that the Psi-Hound is a character class where a Dog Boy is focused into a particular set of skills, nothing about that says only Psi-Hounds are the only Dog Boys that have psi-abilities, in fact that claim contradicts the books that show other Dog Boy classes that also have those abilities. Why? Because detecting the supernatural and magic aren't trained abilities they're natural abilities as laid out in the books. They're engineered to have those natural abilities of the original dog breeds in enhanced levels. Only genetic anomalies lack those abilities which in no way prevents them from being Psi-Hounds. Really, you need to carefully reread all the material and stop going 'oh no I can't accept that point that'd make Nightmask right' and actually be objective instead of biased.
Akashic Soldier wrote:[Deleted]
I had written a few paragraphs but I realized there is no point. As you have said you're free to misinterpret it and be wrong or you could consider all the information and use common sense. Something a lot of people on this forum need a lot more of in my honest opinion. Just because something is not explicitly explained with hard rules does not make it untrue. Nowhere does it say that gravity keeps us anchored to the planet or the sky is blue. By your logic we could fall into the sky or the sky could be green. You're not thinking this through, you're thinking critically and AT the problem instead of taking a step back and making a context-based observation.
No, I said you're free to be wrong and resorting to whatever fallacies you feel like won't make you any less wrong. Such as that tired old fallacy of 'well your logic means gravity doesn't exist in the game', a complete misrepresentation trying to associate my valid points with a patent absurdity. Particularly since common sense and considering all the information wouldn't lead one to your conclusions, which has it that unless something's put into a book of races and shown a list of OCC available to it that it must only have one OCC available, the RCC shown when it's introduced.
Akashic Soldier wrote:Writing is an art, we forget that too quickly. Each of those books sitting in front of you is an attempt to convey an idea. You may be able to dream up several ideas from it that were not intended, in the case of role playing games that inspiration is the point. However, expecting a writer to waste (or an editor to permit) precious space to be wasted on explaining rational on trivial matters like this is just unrealistic. The difference between O.C.C. and R.C.C. is clearly explained. Instead of slamming something with a hammer and saying "it doesn't fit" take a step back and look at it and make sense of it.
In Rifts every Fingletooth Carpetbagger is going to be interested in business, profit and cutting corners. They do not have a culture with Ley Line Walkers or Mind Melters. That isn't what they are. Now, we look at the Dirari Ecto-men, they are mostly criminals but it specifically says that this is because the criminals flee to our dimension. It does not mean they are a race of criminals.
For someone who insists on having so much common sense you seem to miss the part of your own argument there that undercuts your position: 'in their culture'. Which means they aren't given access while within their own culture to other OCC to learn. Removed from that culture they have the opportunity to learn something else that wasn't available in their schools and around where they lived. One would think you could tell the difference between things that are locked in and things that aren't when you can distinguish that it's cultural upbringing for why they're the way that they are instead of 'just born that way'.
Akashic Soldier wrote:The Psi-Hound is a specialized Dogboy, like the Outback Phreaker it is a type of mutant deviation that is what it is, they're a separate cast. Psi-Hounds are always Psi-Hounds and act and think like Psi-Hounds. A non-Psi-Hound Dogboy can change O.C.C. and adapt to different styles of life but the Psi-Hound is BRED, genetically modified, to do a specific thing. Yes, all Dogboys are made this way but the Psi-Hound has awakened that potential and been irrevocably transformed mentally into biological weapon designed to detect, locate and destroy supernatural entities. That is what he is now, he can never be anything else.
That's you trying to spin the material to suit your argument instead of going by the material and working forward. Dog Boys are TRAINED a specific way, they can be trained other ways without any loss of their natural animal or psychic abilities, trying to argue otherwise directly contradicts the books. It should be evident to anyone actually reading the material that Dog Boys have their psi-abilities as active natural features, the entire point of tweaking them up was to take the already active psi-powers of animals particularly canids to sense the supernatural and magic and augment it.
You can ignore this, disregard it and say "wrong, wrong, wrong" all you like but just make sure that you're doing so because you are preventing yourself from processing all the information within context rather than a failing of system. You are given an apple to eat, looking at it and then demanding to know why it was cut in half without considering that the person handing it to you may have thought two halves would be easier for you eat. If something doesn't make sense immediately look at all the information in context.[/quote]
The condescending and patronizing language just demonstrates how poorly you handle someone pointing out the flaws in your position. The material makes complete sense as I've already stated because I have processed all the information and handled the context just fine and recognize unlike yourself what the system does and doesn't say and what one can derive from the material that has been omitted either by mistake or because the writer assumed readers aren't morons and didn't need it pointed out to them. People telling you you're wrong aren't doing it because 'well obviously if they have an opinion different from mine they failed to read the material right' they're doing it because you're wrong and you should reread the material. Otherwise you're handing people half an apple while they're wondering why you didn't give them the orange they actually asked for and insisting they asked for the apple no matter how often they say 'no I asked for the orange'.
Re: R.C.C. and skills
Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2012 10:21 pm
by Nightmask
drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
Nightmask wrote: Yes, one is a character class that a particular race has available to it that others don't, and while a class might be restricted to a race that doesn't mean the race is restricted to that class.
And just because one race is not restricted to one class does not mean that another can't be restricted to one class. Example of point, the CS dogboys are restricted to the Psi-Hound class.
However much you want to pretend Lone Star and all the other stuff on Dog Boys doesn't exist you know quite well that you're wrong in claiming this. Dog Boys are a race, Psi-Hound is a Class, just like the K-9 'Sniffer' and Special Forces Dog Boy are. Dog Boys are no more restricted to being Psi-Hounds than humans are restricted to being Vagabonds or Elves to being Ley Line Walkers.
Re: R.C.C. and skills
Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2012 10:55 pm
by Akashic Soldier
Spoiler:
Nightmask wrote:
Akashic Soldier wrote:
Nightmask wrote:That's not safe to say, which would make you wrong in claiming that. There are obvious examples of something called an RCC (the hotly argued Dog Boy Psi-Hound for example) which is later shown quite clearly to just be a Dog Boy specific OCC and that they're quite capable of learning other OCC given the opportunity. So it's obviously wrong to declare that an RCC is the only OCC available to a race. You're simply assuming something not supported by the material, something that can be shown to be explainable by other more likely reasons as I already point out. If you'd like to go on being wrong insisting RCC are all a race can be go right ahead though, it's a free country and you're free to be wrong as much as you'd like to be.
Dogboys are a Race, Psihound is a Dogboy specific O.C.C. (meaning it is an R.C.C.), Dogboys were genetically genetically--engineered for a specific purpose. What is so difficult to understand?
Stop for a minute and look at the content and the situation instead of trying to apply sweeping absolutes, that isn't how Palladium works--that isn't how life works. If Psi-Hound does not conform to the standard structure ask yourself WHY and look at the facts. The fact is that Psi-Hounds are a a type of Dogboy that is conditioned to be a Psi-Hound. It is that simple. They were unnaturally engineered by men to fulfill a specific purpose and role within their species, thus becoming an R.C.C.
I'm not having any problems at all understanding things, you are. The content is obvious that the Psi-Hound is a character class where a Dog Boy is focused into a particular set of skills, nothing about that says only Psi-Hounds are the only Dog Boys that have psi-abilities, in fact that claim contradicts the books that show other Dog Boy classes that also have those abilities. Why? Because detecting the supernatural and magic aren't trained abilities they're natural abilities as laid out in the books. They're engineered to have those natural abilities of the original dog breeds in enhanced levels. Only genetic anomalies lack those abilities which in no way prevents them from being Psi-Hounds. Really, you need to carefully reread all the material and stop going 'oh no I can't accept that point that'd make Nightmask right' and actually be objective instead of biased.
Akashic Soldier wrote:[Deleted]
I had written a few paragraphs but I realized there is no point. As you have said you're free to misinterpret it and be wrong or you could consider all the information and use common sense. Something a lot of people on this forum need a lot more of in my honest opinion. Just because something is not explicitly explained with hard rules does not make it untrue. Nowhere does it say that gravity keeps us anchored to the planet or the sky is blue. By your logic we could fall into the sky or the sky could be green. You're not thinking this through, you're thinking critically and AT the problem instead of taking a step back and making a context-based observation.
No, I said you're free to be wrong and resorting to whatever fallacies you feel like won't make you any less wrong. Such as that tired old fallacy of 'well your logic means gravity doesn't exist in the game', a complete misrepresentation trying to associate my valid points with a patent absurdity. Particularly since common sense and considering all the information wouldn't lead one to your conclusions, which has it that unless something's put into a book of races and shown a list of OCC available to it that it must only have one OCC available, the RCC shown when it's introduced.
Akashic Soldier wrote:Writing is an art, we forget that too quickly. Each of those books sitting in front of you is an attempt to convey an idea. You may be able to dream up several ideas from it that were not intended, in the case of role playing games that inspiration is the point. However, expecting a writer to waste (or an editor to permit) precious space to be wasted on explaining rational on trivial matters like this is just unrealistic. The difference between O.C.C. and R.C.C. is clearly explained. Instead of slamming something with a hammer and saying "it doesn't fit" take a step back and look at it and make sense of it.
In Rifts every Fingletooth Carpetbagger is going to be interested in business, profit and cutting corners. They do not have a culture with Ley Line Walkers or Mind Melters. That isn't what they are. Now, we look at the Dirari Ecto-men, they are mostly criminals but it specifically says that this is because the criminals flee to our dimension. It does not mean they are a race of criminals.
For someone who insists on having so much common sense you seem to miss the part of your own argument there that undercuts your position: 'in their culture'. Which means they aren't given access while within their own culture to other OCC to learn. Removed from that culture they have the opportunity to learn something else that wasn't available in their schools and around where they lived. One would think you could tell the difference between things that are locked in and things that aren't when you can distinguish that it's cultural upbringing for why they're the way that they are instead of 'just born that way'.
Akashic Soldier wrote:The Psi-Hound is a specialized Dogboy, like the Outback Phreaker it is a type of mutant deviation that is what it is, they're a separate cast. Psi-Hounds are always Psi-Hounds and act and think like Psi-Hounds. A non-Psi-Hound Dogboy can change O.C.C. and adapt to different styles of life but the Psi-Hound is BRED, genetically modified, to do a specific thing. Yes, all Dogboys are made this way but the Psi-Hound has awakened that potential and been irrevocably transformed mentally into biological weapon designed to detect, locate and destroy supernatural entities. That is what he is now, he can never be anything else.
That's you trying to spin the material to suit your argument instead of going by the material and working forward. Dog Boys are TRAINED a specific way, they can be trained other ways without any loss of their natural animal or psychic abilities, trying to argue otherwise directly contradicts the books. It should be evident to anyone actually reading the material that Dog Boys have their psi-abilities as active natural features, the entire point of tweaking them up was to take the already active psi-powers of animals particularly canids to sense the supernatural and magic and augment it.
You can ignore this, disregard it and say "wrong, wrong, wrong" all you like but just make sure that you're doing so because you are preventing yourself from processing all the information within context rather than a failing of system. You are given an apple to eat, looking at it and then demanding to know why it was cut in half without considering that the person handing it to you may have thought two halves would be easier for you eat. If something doesn't make sense immediately look at all the information in context.
The condescending and patronizing language just demonstrates how poorly you handle someone pointing out the flaws in your position. The material makes complete sense as I've already stated because I have processed all the information and handled the context just fine and recognize unlike yourself what the system does and doesn't say and what one can derive from the material that has been omitted either by mistake or because the writer assumed readers aren't morons and didn't need it pointed out to them. People telling you you're wrong aren't doing it because 'well obviously if they have an opinion different from mine they failed to read the material right' they're doing it because you're wrong and you should reread the material. Otherwise you're handing people half an apple while they're wondering why you didn't give them the orange they actually asked for and insisting they asked for the apple no matter how often they say 'no I asked for the orange'.[/quote]
Who can tell me what Nightmask is doing here?
A crisp $50.00 Australian bill in the mail to the first person to correctly classify this this school of thinking and/or debate style.
After that it should be a simple matter of googling and reading my previous post to findout why I am taking this opportunity to lay my cards on the table and step out of this argument.
EDIT: The money has been claimed, posting it out on Friday.
Re: R.C.C. and skills
Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2012 10:58 pm
by Nightmask
Akashic Soldier wrote:
Spoiler:
Nightmask wrote:
Akashic Soldier wrote:
Nightmask wrote:That's not safe to say, which would make you wrong in claiming that. There are obvious examples of something called an RCC (the hotly argued Dog Boy Psi-Hound for example) which is later shown quite clearly to just be a Dog Boy specific OCC and that they're quite capable of learning other OCC given the opportunity. So it's obviously wrong to declare that an RCC is the only OCC available to a race. You're simply assuming something not supported by the material, something that can be shown to be explainable by other more likely reasons as I already point out. If you'd like to go on being wrong insisting RCC are all a race can be go right ahead though, it's a free country and you're free to be wrong as much as you'd like to be.
Dogboys are a Race, Psihound is a Dogboy specific O.C.C. (meaning it is an R.C.C.), Dogboys were genetically genetically--engineered for a specific purpose. What is so difficult to understand?
Stop for a minute and look at the content and the situation instead of trying to apply sweeping absolutes, that isn't how Palladium works--that isn't how life works. If Psi-Hound does not conform to the standard structure ask yourself WHY and look at the facts. The fact is that Psi-Hounds are a a type of Dogboy that is conditioned to be a Psi-Hound. It is that simple. They were unnaturally engineered by men to fulfill a specific purpose and role within their species, thus becoming an R.C.C.
I'm not having any problems at all understanding things, you are. The content is obvious that the Psi-Hound is a character class where a Dog Boy is focused into a particular set of skills, nothing about that says only Psi-Hounds are the only Dog Boys that have psi-abilities, in fact that claim contradicts the books that show other Dog Boy classes that also have those abilities. Why? Because detecting the supernatural and magic aren't trained abilities they're natural abilities as laid out in the books. They're engineered to have those natural abilities of the original dog breeds in enhanced levels. Only genetic anomalies lack those abilities which in no way prevents them from being Psi-Hounds. Really, you need to carefully reread all the material and stop going 'oh no I can't accept that point that'd make Nightmask right' and actually be objective instead of biased.
Akashic Soldier wrote:[Deleted]
I had written a few paragraphs but I realized there is no point. As you have said you're free to misinterpret it and be wrong or you could consider all the information and use common sense. Something a lot of people on this forum need a lot more of in my honest opinion. Just because something is not explicitly explained with hard rules does not make it untrue. Nowhere does it say that gravity keeps us anchored to the planet or the sky is blue. By your logic we could fall into the sky or the sky could be green. You're not thinking this through, you're thinking critically and AT the problem instead of taking a step back and making a context-based observation.
No, I said you're free to be wrong and resorting to whatever fallacies you feel like won't make you any less wrong. Such as that tired old fallacy of 'well your logic means gravity doesn't exist in the game', a complete misrepresentation trying to associate my valid points with a patent absurdity. Particularly since common sense and considering all the information wouldn't lead one to your conclusions, which has it that unless something's put into a book of races and shown a list of OCC available to it that it must only have one OCC available, the RCC shown when it's introduced.
Akashic Soldier wrote:Writing is an art, we forget that too quickly. Each of those books sitting in front of you is an attempt to convey an idea. You may be able to dream up several ideas from it that were not intended, in the case of role playing games that inspiration is the point. However, expecting a writer to waste (or an editor to permit) precious space to be wasted on explaining rational on trivial matters like this is just unrealistic. The difference between O.C.C. and R.C.C. is clearly explained. Instead of slamming something with a hammer and saying "it doesn't fit" take a step back and look at it and make sense of it.
In Rifts every Fingletooth Carpetbagger is going to be interested in business, profit and cutting corners. They do not have a culture with Ley Line Walkers or Mind Melters. That isn't what they are. Now, we look at the Dirari Ecto-men, they are mostly criminals but it specifically says that this is because the criminals flee to our dimension. It does not mean they are a race of criminals.
For someone who insists on having so much common sense you seem to miss the part of your own argument there that undercuts your position: 'in their culture'. Which means they aren't given access while within their own culture to other OCC to learn. Removed from that culture they have the opportunity to learn something else that wasn't available in their schools and around where they lived. One would think you could tell the difference between things that are locked in and things that aren't when you can distinguish that it's cultural upbringing for why they're the way that they are instead of 'just born that way'.
Akashic Soldier wrote:The Psi-Hound is a specialized Dogboy, like the Outback Phreaker it is a type of mutant deviation that is what it is, they're a separate cast. Psi-Hounds are always Psi-Hounds and act and think like Psi-Hounds. A non-Psi-Hound Dogboy can change O.C.C. and adapt to different styles of life but the Psi-Hound is BRED, genetically modified, to do a specific thing. Yes, all Dogboys are made this way but the Psi-Hound has awakened that potential and been irrevocably transformed mentally into biological weapon designed to detect, locate and destroy supernatural entities. That is what he is now, he can never be anything else.
That's you trying to spin the material to suit your argument instead of going by the material and working forward. Dog Boys are TRAINED a specific way, they can be trained other ways without any loss of their natural animal or psychic abilities, trying to argue otherwise directly contradicts the books. It should be evident to anyone actually reading the material that Dog Boys have their psi-abilities as active natural features, the entire point of tweaking them up was to take the already active psi-powers of animals particularly canids to sense the supernatural and magic and augment it.
You can ignore this, disregard it and say "wrong, wrong, wrong" all you like but just make sure that you're doing so because you are preventing yourself from processing all the information within context rather than a failing of system. You are given an apple to eat, looking at it and then demanding to know why it was cut in half without considering that the person handing it to you may have thought two halves would be easier for you eat. If something doesn't make sense immediately look at all the information in context.
The condescending and patronizing language just demonstrates how poorly you handle someone pointing out the flaws in your position. The material makes complete sense as I've already stated because I have processed all the information and handled the context just fine and recognize unlike yourself what the system does and doesn't say and what one can derive from the material that has been omitted either by mistake or because the writer assumed readers aren't morons and didn't need it pointed out to them. People telling you you're wrong aren't doing it because 'well obviously if they have an opinion different from mine they failed to read the material right' they're doing it because you're wrong and you should reread the material. Otherwise you're handing people half an apple while they're wondering why you didn't give them the orange they actually asked for and insisting they asked for the apple no matter how often they say 'no I asked for the orange'.
Who can tell me what Nightmask is doing here?
A crisp $50.00 Australian bill in the mail to the first person to correctly classify this this school of thinking and/or debate style.
After that it should be a simple matter of googling and reading my previous post to findout why I am taking this opportunity to lay my cards on the table and step out of this argument. [/quote]
He's disagreeing with you while you resort to 'attack the poster' and other fallacies including this bit of misdirection rather than actually address what's posted, while attempting (and failing) to present yourself as the 'voice of reason' in hopes people don't pay attention to how you don't actually address anything.
Re: R.C.C. and skills
Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2012 11:08 pm
by Akashic Soldier
Nightmask wrote:He's disagreeing with you while you resort to 'attack the poster' and other fallacies including this bit of misdirection rather than actually address what's posted, while attempting (and failing) to present yourself as the 'voice of reason' in hopes people don't pay attention to how you don't actually address anything.
I have disengaged from this conversation. I have provided the necessary information in my previous posts. You have refuted them. You are more than welcome to consider yourself the victor here. I am not going to continue an argument with you on the topic. Posters in this thread can look at the information for themselves and make up their own minds. I will not address your statement because to do so will only further antagonize you (as we have already seen) and it would be fruitless. I have provided clear and concise evidence and precedence in published material and offered perspective. I can do no more.
My offer still stands however, $50.00 to the first person that can correctly classify Nightmask's approach and presentation to (and of) this information. Anyone with a year in psyche, law or a couple of years logged in a high school debate team should instantly recognize it.
EDIT: The money has been claimed, posting it out on Friday.
Re: R.C.C. and skills
Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2012 11:27 pm
by Nightmask
Ninjabunny wrote:This is really silly. Many examples show that RCC's are a job class that is most likely only inherent to that race I.E. Gosai Assassin R.C.C. Gosai can be other things beside the Gosai Assassin but only Gosai can be a "Gosai Assassin". Yet we also have a strange problem when things like Dragons pop up they are labeled as an R.C.C but the only thing they can be is a dragon, while they can be the equivalent of a magic user they are still just a dragon.
So a quick and simple summing up is this: R.C.C= Job class that only one race can be and sometimes the only thing that race can be (most dragons fall into this area). Race= A species Dwarf, elf, Human ECT. O.C.C= A job you are trained in but is normally open to multiple species/races. To be sure what is what just read things in full and keep to the simplest reading.
Concise and accurate summation.
Re: R.C.C. and skills
Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 12:45 am
by Dr. Doom III
Nightmask wrote:Yes, one is a character class that a particular race has available to it that others don't, and while a class might be restricted to a race that doesn't mean the race is restricted to that class.
Nope. One is a character class that the member of a certain race must take unless given other choices.
Re: R.C.C. and skills
Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 12:46 am
by Dr. Doom III
Nightmask wrote:That however isn't the rule, because RCC aren't used just to mean it's the only thing a particular race can learn, they're used to simply mean 'a character class only available to this particular race'.
You are mistaken in that belief.
Re: R.C.C. and skills
Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 12:51 am
by Dr. Doom III
Ninjabunny wrote:This is really silly. Many examples show that RCC's are a job class that is most likely only inherent to that race I.E. Gosai Assassin R.C.C. Gosai can be other things beside the Gosai Assassin but only Gosai can be a "Gosai Assassin". Yet we also have a strange problem when things like Dragons pop up they are labeled as an R.C.C but the only thing they can be is a dragon, while they can be the equivalent of a magic user they are still just a dragon.
So a quick and simple summing up is this: R.C.C= Job class that only one race can be and sometimes the only thing that race can be (most dragons fall into this area). Race= A species Dwarf, elf, Human ECT. O.C.C= A job you are trained in but is normally open to multiple species/races. To be sure what is what just read things in full and keep to the simplest reading.
Because a Gosai Assassin is given the opportunity to choose another class. RCCs are only an optional class if there are options given. If there are none they can only be the RCC.
Re: R.C.C. and skills
Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 1:04 am
by drewkitty ~..~
Nightmask wrote:
drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
Nightmask wrote: Yes, one is a character class that a particular race has available to it that others don't, and while a class might be restricted to a race that doesn't mean the race is restricted to that class.
And just because one race is not restricted to one class does not mean that another can't be restricted to one class. Example of point, the CS dogboys are restricted to the Psi-Hound class.
However much you want to pretend Lone Star and all the other stuff on Dog Boys doesn't exist you know quite well that you're wrong in claiming this. Dog Boys are a race, Psi-Hound is a Class, just like the K-9 'Sniffer' and Special Forces Dog Boy are. Dog Boys are no more restricted to being Psi-Hounds than humans are restricted to being Vagabonds or Elves to being Ley Line Walkers.
Might you want to reference where said sniffer and spec.F DB class are listed? Since you seam to know where they are.... But they sound like they are just Psi-hound variants, much like the Seadog variant for the CS navy that is restricted to just the newfoundland breed of dogboys.
You equating what is available to dogboys to what is available to humans and elves has already be shown to be false because I WAS BEING SPECIFIC TO CS DOGBOYS, WHO DO NOT GET A CHOICE, not the race as a whole. If you do not like how the Dogboy text reads in RUE and the RMB then make a write up an artical for the rifter and see if KS will make it an OFFical source matierial.
As a whole the race can take just about any OCC there is. It is Just that the CS dogboys are locked into their restrictive RCC. Slavery will do that to a race.
I keep saying "specific item." you counter with 'genralality' that is irrelevant to the 'specific item'. Get your head on straight, if you want to argue with me you had better start trying to argue about the "specific item" I am saying. Otherwise you just end up saying nonsense, because the 'genralalities' you are spouting do not cover the 'specific items' I am saying.
To make an analagy: it is like I am saying "the catcher squats down while playing baseball" and you are saying "Everybody stands up to play baseball". While you may be correct for all the players but the catcher, you are not correct when talking about the catcher.
Re: R.C.C. and skills
Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 1:30 am
by Nightmask
drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
Nightmask wrote:
drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
Nightmask wrote: Yes, one is a character class that a particular race has available to it that others don't, and while a class might be restricted to a race that doesn't mean the race is restricted to that class.
And just because one race is not restricted to one class does not mean that another can't be restricted to one class. Example of point, the CS dogboys are restricted to the Psi-Hound class.
However much you want to pretend Lone Star and all the other stuff on Dog Boys doesn't exist you know quite well that you're wrong in claiming this. Dog Boys are a race, Psi-Hound is a Class, just like the K-9 'Sniffer' and Special Forces Dog Boy are. Dog Boys are no more restricted to being Psi-Hounds than humans are restricted to being Vagabonds or Elves to being Ley Line Walkers.
Might you want to reference where said sniffer and spec.F DB class are listed? Since you seam to know where they are.... But they sound like they are just Psi-hound variants, much like the Seadog variant for the CS navy that is restricted to just the newfoundland breed of dogboys.
You equating what is available to dogboys to what is available to humans and elves has already be shown to be false. So I do not need to comment on it farther.
To be false your premise that Dog Boys can't have anything but the Dog Boy Psi-Hound class must be true, since that is not true your statement that Dog Boys aren't a race just like humans and elves is shown to be wrong.
Page 30 of Lone Star under 'The Supernatural Enemy' notes that Dog Boys along with normal canines both wild and domesticated can sense supernatural beings. It goes on at the top of the following page to state 'The sensitivity to the supernatural is how the mutant got their original name of Psi-Hounds, and is another reason they are so valuable to humans as allies and defenders against the supernatural'. So they originally got the name because ALL Dog Boys can sense the supernatural, its their instinctive natural ability and not something that they learn from training.
Page 39 details the feral offspring. It states that the basic stats are the same as the CS Dog Boy Trooper. RCC skills and related abilties are shown to be dependent upon the actual OCC that they select, one of them being the Dog Pack/Psi-Hound OCC. They avoid implants because they can negatively impact their natural abilities, they wouldn't avoid them if they had no natural abilities as you suggest.
Pages 40-43 detail two other Dog Boy-specialized OCC, the Sea Dog RCC and the K-9 Sniffer RCC, areas of specialized training different than the standard Psi-Hound RCC training. Both specifically note under attributes that any given bonuses are in addition to those of the standard ones acquired from being a Dog Boy. Why is that? Because like the standard Dog pack RCC it's a dog boy specific educational package so only Dog Boys get run through these training programs. They don't run humans through them because humans don't have the natural animal abilities and psionics of the Dog Boy to qualify hence why they're an RCC, they're racially restricted.
You simply so determined to reject anything but the idea that everything about a Dog Boy is training that you simply don't want to admit that it's not, that everything under natural abilities from the psi-powers to animal senses are the root of the race and the RCC are just the OCC programs that the CS developed specifically for what they wanted to use Dog Boys for and have no bearing on their natural powers or abilities (beyond a little extra specialization in the sniffers with some specialized training to maximize certain attributes that they were specifically chosen at a young age for having higher ability in than average). When away from the CS's limited educational programs Dog Boys can learn other OCC than just those the CS makes available to them. Something made VERY clear under the feral dog boy entry. Constantly saying 'no they didn't say that' because you loath the idea that I've shown you to be in error won't make you look any less in error, when simply admitting 'okay I was wrong' makes one look far better. You've simply invested too much of yourself and your pride into insisting it must be so and that pride is blinding you to what's actually there in black and white. Don't be letting pride decide things for you.
Re: R.C.C. and skills
Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 1:33 am
by Nightmask
Dr. Doom III wrote:
Nightmask wrote:Yes, one is a character class that a particular race has available to it that others don't, and while a class might be restricted to a race that doesn't mean the race is restricted to that class.
Nope. One is a character class that the member of a certain race must take unless given other choices.
And that's where you're wrong. It is a character class only available to members of a certain race it is not the only class available to a member of a race unless noted otherwise. If it were available to everyone it'd be called an OCC, but it's only selectable by a particular race so it's an RCC.
Re: R.C.C. and skills
Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 1:35 am
by Nightmask
Dr. Doom III wrote:
Nightmask wrote:That however isn't the rule, because RCC aren't used just to mean it's the only thing a particular race can learn, they're used to simply mean 'a character class only available to this particular race'.
You are mistaken in that belief.
You're free to continue being wrong on that point, and keep repeating it at your leisure. It'll still be wrong. The books clearly have examples showing that point to be wrong on your part, they aren't 'exceptions to the rule', they show that what you insist is the rule isn't actually the rule at all.
Re: R.C.C. and skills
Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 1:48 am
by drewkitty ~..~
Will edit out all the irrelevant statements you just made because you have not recognized any change of stance I've made.
Nightmask wrote:Pages 40-43 detail two other Dog Boy-specialized OCC, the Sea Dog RCC and the K-9 Sniffer RCC, areas of specialized training different than the standard Psi-Hound RCC training. .
Thank you for referencing where the sniffer was found. Just looked at the sniffer class and it seams to be just a variant of the standard dogboy RCC along with Seadogs.
By the way, Where is the special forces dog boy class you said there was? or was that the Seadogs I brought up?
Re: R.C.C. and skills
Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 1:59 am
by Nightmask
drewkitty ~..~ wrote:Will edit out all the irrelevant statements you just made because you have not recognized any change of stance I've made.
Nightmask wrote:Pages 40-43 detail two other Dog Boy-specialized OCC, the Sea Dog RCC and the K-9 Sniffer RCC, areas of specialized training different than the standard Psi-Hound RCC training. .
Thank you for referencing where the sniffer was found. Just looked at the sniffer class and it seams to be just a variant of the standard dogboy RCC along with Seadogs.
By the way, Where is the special forces dog boy class you said there was? or was that the Seadogs I brought up?
That's the heading for the page detailing the two other Dog Boy educational programs. In my haste browsing the page originally I'd confused the heading with being the actual name of one of the Dog Boy classes rather than being a heading. So it meant special forces in the context of 'Dog Boys who got a different educational package' not 'Dog Boy Special Forces RCC' as an actual class with that heading as I mistook it for. Much like the human Grunt OCC vs the more specialized OCC for CS troops like the Commandos and the power armor pilots.
Re: R.C.C. and skills
Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 2:11 am
by Dr. Doom III
Nightmask wrote:
Dr. Doom III wrote:
Nightmask wrote:Yes, one is a character class that a particular race has available to it that others don't, and while a class might be restricted to a race that doesn't mean the race is restricted to that class.
Nope. One is a character class that the member of a certain race must take unless given other choices.
And that's where you're wrong. It is a character class only available to members of a certain race it is not the only class available to a member of a race unless noted otherwise. If it were available to everyone it'd be called an OCC, but it's only selectable by a particular race so it's an RCC.
You still have it backwards. And I never said it was available to everyone.
Re: R.C.C. and skills
Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 2:15 am
by Dr. Doom III
Nightmask wrote:
Dr. Doom III wrote:
Nightmask wrote:That however isn't the rule, because RCC aren't used just to mean it's the only thing a particular race can learn, they're used to simply mean 'a character class only available to this particular race'.
You are mistaken in that belief.
You're free to continue being wrong on that point, and keep repeating it at your leisure. It'll still be wrong. The books clearly have examples showing that point to be wrong on your part, they aren't 'exceptions to the rule', they show that what you insist is the rule isn't actually the rule at all.
You are mistaken yet again. I cannot continue to be wrong since I'm not wrong in the first place. I cannot continue something I never did.
Re: R.C.C. and skills
Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 2:21 am
by Nightmask
Dr. Doom III wrote:
Nightmask wrote:
Dr. Doom III wrote:
Nightmask wrote:That however isn't the rule, because RCC aren't used just to mean it's the only thing a particular race can learn, they're used to simply mean 'a character class only available to this particular race'.
You are mistaken in that belief.
You're free to continue being wrong on that point, and keep repeating it at your leisure. It'll still be wrong. The books clearly have examples showing that point to be wrong on your part, they aren't 'exceptions to the rule', they show that what you insist is the rule isn't actually the rule at all.
You are mistaken yet again. I cannot continue to be wrong since I'm not wrong in the first place. I cannot continue something I never did.
You seem to be doing a fine job of continuing to say you aren't in error when you are, so please do continue doing so.
Re: R.C.C. and skills
Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 2:34 am
by Nightmask
Dr. Doom III wrote:
Nightmask wrote:
Dr. Doom III wrote:
Nightmask wrote:Yes, one is a character class that a particular race has available to it that others don't, and while a class might be restricted to a race that doesn't mean the race is restricted to that class.
Nope. One is a character class that the member of a certain race must take unless given other choices.
And that's where you're wrong. It is a character class only available to members of a certain race it is not the only class available to a member of a race unless noted otherwise. If it were available to everyone it'd be called an OCC, but it's only selectable by a particular race so it's an RCC.
You still have it backwards. And I never said it was available to everyone.
You can keep typing that as much as you like, it won't make you right. Just makes you look silly insisting something that isn't so is no matter how much it's proven wrong.
I never said you said it was available to everyone either. I provided you a comparison to clear up your misconceptions but apparently I need to be more detailed. OCC are available to everyone in general, so they're given the general availability heading of an OCC. RCC aren't available to everyone, they're only available for a particular race to choose so are given the RCC designation so you know that only a particular race can select it. You can't become a a class if you lack the basic attribute requirements of it after all, and RCC automatically carry the attribute requirement of 'be of this race only'. A Rogue Scholar on the other hand anyone can learn to be, whether it be a human, dog boy, or elf. Meanwhile a human can't learn the Dog Boy K-9 Sniffer character class because it requires enhanced senses humans don't have. He lacks the physical requirement for it. The Dog Boy though isn't restricted to only being a K-9 Sniffer, he could be a regular Psi-hound in training or even a Super-Spy OCC if brought up that way instead.
I get the feeling that no amount of charts or diagrams will do any good though, you seem too interested in insisting you're right than actually being right because it would require admitting someone else was right first.
Re: R.C.C. and skills
Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 2:45 am
by Dr. Doom III
Nightmask wrote:You seem to be doing a fine job of continuing to say you aren't in error when you are, so please do continue doing so.
No but you are doing a fine job of getting things backwards as it is you who are continuing to repeat your errant interpretations as factual. Or perhaps you could back up your belief that all races with RCCs given that have no specific text saying that they can get any OCC may take any OCC that the player wishes?
Re: R.C.C. and skills
Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 2:54 am
by Dr. Doom III
Nightmask wrote:You can keep typing that as much as you like, it won't make you right. Just makes you look silly insisting something that isn't so is no matter how much it's proven wrong.
I never said you said it was available to everyone either. I provided you a comparison to clear up your misconceptions but apparently I need to be more detailed. OCC are available to everyone in general, so they're given the general availability heading of an OCC. RCC aren't available to everyone, they're only available for a particular race to choose so are given the RCC designation so you know that only a particular race can select it. You can't become a a class if you lack the basic attribute requirements of it after all, and RCC automatically carry the attribute requirement of 'be of this race only'. A Rogue Scholar on the other hand anyone can learn to be, whether it be a human, dog boy, or elf. Meanwhile a human can't learn the Dog Boy K-9 Sniffer character class because it requires enhanced senses humans don't have. He lacks the physical requirement for it. The Dog Boy though isn't restricted to only being a K-9 Sniffer, he could be a regular Psi-hound in training or even a Super-Spy OCC if brought up that way instead.
I get the feeling that no amount of charts or diagrams will do any good though, you seem too interested in insisting you're right than actually being right because it would require admitting someone else was right first.
And that is your opinion and it's still wrong. Can you back it up with anything?
Your examples are two races without RCCs and one with given exceptions. Can you point to an NPC example in any book of a race with an RCC without any exception OCCs that has an OCC? Any at all?
Re: R.C.C. and skills
Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 2:58 am
by Giant2005
Nightmask wrote:
Dr. Doom III wrote:
Nightmask wrote:
Dr. Doom III wrote:
Nightmask wrote:Yes, one is a character class that a particular race has available to it that others don't, and while a class might be restricted to a race that doesn't mean the race is restricted to that class.
Nope. One is a character class that the member of a certain race must take unless given other choices.
And that's where you're wrong. It is a character class only available to members of a certain race it is not the only class available to a member of a race unless noted otherwise. If it were available to everyone it'd be called an OCC, but it's only selectable by a particular race so it's an RCC.
You still have it backwards. And I never said it was available to everyone.
You can keep typing that as much as you like, it won't make you right. Just makes you look silly insisting something that isn't so is no matter how much it's proven wrong.
I never said you said it was available to everyone either. I provided you a comparison to clear up your misconceptions but apparently I need to be more detailed. OCC are available to everyone in general, so they're given the general availability heading of an OCC. RCC aren't available to everyone, they're only available for a particular race to choose so are given the RCC designation so you know that only a particular race can select it. You can't become a a class if you lack the basic attribute requirements of it after all, and RCC automatically carry the attribute requirement of 'be of this race only'. A Rogue Scholar on the other hand anyone can learn to be, whether it be a human, dog boy, or elf. Meanwhile a human can't learn the Dog Boy K-9 Sniffer character class because it requires enhanced senses humans don't have. He lacks the physical requirement for it. The Dog Boy though isn't restricted to only being a K-9 Sniffer, he could be a regular Psi-hound in training or even a Super-Spy OCC if brought up that way instead.
I get the feeling that no amount of charts or diagrams will do any good though, you seem too interested in insisting you're right than actually being right because it would require admitting someone else was right first.
The duelist is an RCC that can be learned by other races. You might claim it is a simple case of the RCC being mislabeled as an RCC but the same argument could be posed about your Dogboy example.
The fact is that in canon, RCCs cannot select an OCC. There are exceptions to this rule but exceptions don't define a rule. You are literally arguing about two house-rules and you are declaring your house-rule right and his wrong. Protip: It is a house-rule, that means you are both right within your games.
Re: R.C.C. and skills
Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 3:07 am
by Nightmask
Dr. Doom III wrote:
Nightmask wrote:You can keep typing that as much as you like, it won't make you right. Just makes you look silly insisting something that isn't so is no matter how much it's proven wrong.
I never said you said it was available to everyone either. I provided you a comparison to clear up your misconceptions but apparently I need to be more detailed. OCC are available to everyone in general, so they're given the general availability heading of an OCC. RCC aren't available to everyone, they're only available for a particular race to choose so are given the RCC designation so you know that only a particular race can select it. You can't become a a class if you lack the basic attribute requirements of it after all, and RCC automatically carry the attribute requirement of 'be of this race only'. A Rogue Scholar on the other hand anyone can learn to be, whether it be a human, dog boy, or elf. Meanwhile a human can't learn the Dog Boy K-9 Sniffer character class because it requires enhanced senses humans don't have. He lacks the physical requirement for it. The Dog Boy though isn't restricted to only being a K-9 Sniffer, he could be a regular Psi-hound in training or even a Super-Spy OCC if brought up that way instead.
I get the feeling that no amount of charts or diagrams will do any good though, you seem too interested in insisting you're right than actually being right because it would require admitting someone else was right first.
And that is your opinion and it's still wrong. Can you back it up with anything?
Your examples are two races without RCCs and one with given exceptions. Can you point to an NPC example in any book of a race with an RCC without any exception OCCs that has an OCC? Any at all?
Many races don't have examples given, and as much as you keep calling it an exception it's not an exception. You only insist on calling it an exception because it disproves your position. 'Oh well that's just an exception it doesn't count!' is what you're stating here, so anything that proves you wrong you're labeling an exception. They aren't exceptions they're proof of how wrong your position is.
Re: R.C.C. and skills
Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 3:09 am
by Nightmask
Dr. Doom III wrote:
Nightmask wrote:You seem to be doing a fine job of continuing to say you aren't in error when you are, so please do continue doing so.
No but you are doing a fine job of getting things backwards as it is you who are continuing to repeat your errant interpretations as factual. Or perhaps you could back up your belief that all races with RCCs given that have no specific text saying that they can get any OCC may take any OCC that the player wishes?
I'd say back up your claims that if there's an RCC given then a race can't have any other OCC but as the books show that not to be the case.
Re: R.C.C. and skills
Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 3:12 am
by Giant2005
Nightmask wrote:
Dr. Doom III wrote:
Nightmask wrote:You seem to be doing a fine job of continuing to say you aren't in error when you are, so please do continue doing so.
No but you are doing a fine job of getting things backwards as it is you who are continuing to repeat your errant interpretations as factual. Or perhaps you could back up your belief that all races with RCCs given that have no specific text saying that they can get any OCC may take any OCC that the player wishes?
I'd say back up your claims that if there's an RCC given then a race can't have any other OCC but as the books show that not to be the case.
There are plenty of RCCs in DBoNA that state definitively that they cannot have another OCC...
Re: R.C.C. and skills
Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 3:21 am
by Nightmask
Giant2005 wrote:
Nightmask wrote:You can keep typing that as much as you like, it won't make you right. Just makes you look silly insisting something that isn't so is no matter how much it's proven wrong.
I never said you said it was available to everyone either. I provided you a comparison to clear up your misconceptions but apparently I need to be more detailed. OCC are available to everyone in general, so they're given the general availability heading of an OCC. RCC aren't available to everyone, they're only available for a particular race to choose so are given the RCC designation so you know that only a particular race can select it. You can't become a a class if you lack the basic attribute requirements of it after all, and RCC automatically carry the attribute requirement of 'be of this race only'. A Rogue Scholar on the other hand anyone can learn to be, whether it be a human, dog boy, or elf. Meanwhile a human can't learn the Dog Boy K-9 Sniffer character class because it requires enhanced senses humans don't have. He lacks the physical requirement for it. The Dog Boy though isn't restricted to only being a K-9 Sniffer, he could be a regular Psi-hound in training or even a Super-Spy OCC if brought up that way instead.
I get the feeling that no amount of charts or diagrams will do any good though, you seem too interested in insisting you're right than actually being right because it would require admitting someone else was right first.
The duelist is an RCC that can be learned by other races. You might claim it is a simple case of the RCC being mislabeled as an RCC but the same argument could be posed about your Dogboy example.
The fact is that in canon, RCCs cannot select an OCC. There are exceptions to this rule but exceptions don't define a rule. You are literally arguing about two house-rules and you are declaring your house-rule right and his wrong. Protip: It is a house-rule, that means you are both right within your games.
Left out that the entry under Oni Ninja also suggests the possibility of non-oni being trained to become one.
The Duelist entry specifically notes that the techniques for becoming one are a jealously guarded secret of the Amaki House of Swords, for why it's generally restricted to them. It then goes on to note that potentially any race with the psionic potential could become one but the Amaki aren't making that possible. So the entry makes it clear that it's called an RCC because the race in question keeps it contained to themselves almost exclusively, but the entry you bring up also makes it clear that it's by no means the only RCC an Amaki can take and that it's not something only they can learn.
It and the Dog Boy entries (along with any others) aren't exceptions, they simply disprove the idea that if you see an RCC then that's all a race has available to it, clearly that's not true. If it ever was a rule Palladium abandoned that idea a long time ago and RCC became simply 'an OCC associated with a particular race', there are simply too many entries that exist to support that to make it possible to dismiss them as exceptions.
Re: R.C.C. and skills
Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 3:33 am
by The Beast
Nightmask wrote:
Akashic Soldier wrote:Who can tell me what Nightmask is doing here?
A crisp $50.00 Australian bill in the mail to the first person to correctly classify this this school of thinking and/or debate style.
After that it should be a simple matter of googling and reading my previous post to findout why I am taking this opportunity to lay my cards on the table and step out of this argument.
He's disagreeing with you while you resort to 'attack the poster' and other fallacies including this bit of misdirection rather than actually address what's posted, while attempting (and failing) to present yourself as the 'voice of reason' in hopes people don't pay attention to how you don't actually address anything.
Agreed.
Re: R.C.C. and skills
Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 1:05 pm
by Dr. Doom III
Nightmask wrote:Many races don't have examples given, and as much as you keep calling it an exception it's not an exception. You only insist on calling it an exception because it disproves your position. 'Oh well that's just an exception it doesn't count!' is what you're stating here, so anything that proves you wrong you're labeling an exception. They aren't exceptions they're proof of how wrong your position is.
Sorry but I can point to every NPC in any book and they will be examples of their RCC. I'm saying they're exceptions because the descriptions of the RCC gives them as exceptions (or in few cases retconed exceptions). I didn't make it up out of whole cloth unlike apparently you who cannot back up your position.
