Forums of the Megaverse®

To set the stage, I am a huge fan of the style of the original 'Aimed, Burst, Wild' system, presented in the original Rifts rulebook. Guns (energy weapons specifically, and these will be what I am talking about from here on in unless otherwise noted) having that ability, to me, adds a lot to the game. For the following discussion, all weapons with 'Standard' rates of fire, unless noted otherwise, will be considered to have Standard: Aimed, Burst, Wild. This is due to the fact that "Semiautomatic/automatic weapons, machine guns and sub-machineguns, are designed for Burst Firing" (Rifts rulebook, Page 34, under 'Burst'), as well as "A semi-Automatic weapon will fire...a blast every time the trigger is depressed/squeezed...The shooter can usually squeeze off an entire 20 round clip in six to eight seconds".

My favourite weapon in all of Rifts is the original JA-11 Juicer Assassin's Energy Rifle, because it is designed incredibly well, and offers huge options. The long range laser, with two settings even, is a great sniper weapon, and as such can only be fired in single shots. The secondary mode on the rifle, the Ion Beam, whose damage is between the two laser settings, adds the additional level of an assault weapon, with the ability to fire multiple shots for each pull of the trigger (bursts). The weapon works pretty perfectly with the original 'Aimed, Burst, Wild' rules of the game, but becomes terrible when changed to the 'each shot counts as one attack' system (ie, no real reason to use the Ion Beam).


For those who may not remember, the original rules for 'Bursts or Sprays from Automatic Weapons and Sub-Machine Guns' used 3 different firing options (plus the Spray, a special option used to hit several targets), the Short Burst, Long Burst, and Entire Magazine. Each option adds a modifier to the weapons single shot damage, the more rounds fired, the higher the modifier. This allows automatic weapons to potentially inflict great damage in a short period of time, indeed, only the firing of an entire magazine uses up more than one attack, and makes them clearly superior to single shot=one attack weapons in most confrontations. Although your total efficiency is reduced as more rounds will miss, the time in which it takes you to land those shots is reduced by a much greater amount.

(For the sake of completeness, the original bursts and sprays system is as follows)

Short Bursts fire 20% of the entire magazine; i.e., 30 round mag-6 shots fired. Damage: roll normal damage x2. Uses up one attack.
Long Burst fire 50% of the entire magazine; i.e., 30 round mag-15 shots fired. Damage: roll normal damage x5. Uses up one attack.
Entire Magazine fire 100% of the entire magazine; u]Damage[/u]: roll normal damage x10. Uses up 2 attacks.

Now, the obvious problem with this system is that when using the above example of a 30 round clip which fires a percentage for each burst and then adds a modifier, the system works (roughly one in three shots are going to hit their target). However, as Kevin Siembieda points out in the Rifts Game Master Guide "All in all the original rules are not bad. They have a few flaws (one notable one is not taking into good account the fact that some ammo clips have 8-16 round magazines, others 30-50..." (R:GMG, page 39 'The problem with modern combat'). What this shows is the problem of the percentage of clip vs the damage multipier. For a thirty round clip it's perfect. For a 10 round clip, like the old C-27 Plasma Cannon, it's absolutely ludicrous (as an Entire Magazine would fire 10 shots, doing x10 damage), as it ignores the idea of more shots missing in bursts.

Shortly thereafter, with the release of the Rifts Conversion Book (or Conversion Book 1), KS attempts to fix this issue by changing the damage from each of the burst types. The modified system is below, changes have been bolded and italicized.


Short Bursts fire 20% of the entire magazine; i.e., 30 round mag-6 shots fired. Damage: roll normal damage x2. Uses up one attack.
Long Burst fire 50% of the entire magazine; i.e., 30 round mag-15 shots fired. Damage: roll normal damage x3. Uses up one attack.
Entire Magazine fire 100% of the entire magazine; u]Damage[/u]: roll normal damage x7. Uses up 2 attacks.


This system works better for the C-27 example, as it ensures that a full 10 short clip being fired does not result in every shot hitting. However, it does hurt the overall effectiveness of the 30 shot weapon, and shows no consideration for the difference between firing 10, 20 or 30 rounds. Regardless of how well this modification worked, the entire system was eventually scrapped.


Now, since I love the Aimed, Burst, Wild system, here is how I think it would work perfectly.

The average weapon is assumed to have a 20 round magazine. Damage for the different types of bursts is what was updated in the Conversion book (again below)


Short Bursts fire 20% of the entire magazine; i.e., 30 round mag-6 shots fired. Damage: roll normal damage x2. Uses up one attack.
Long Burst fire 50% of the entire magazine; i.e., 30 round mag-15 shots fired. Damage: roll normal damage x3. Uses up one attack.
Entire Magazine fire 100% of the entire magazine; u]Damage[/u]: roll normal damage x7. Uses up 2 attacks.

A weapon which only has a 10 round magazine is only capable of firing up to the Long Burst, so teh C-27 used as an example can fire up to the x3 damage level (in line with the original idea of 1/3 shots hitting their desired target when burst firing).

Some assault style infantry weapons have an even greater payload, offered either by long e-clips or canisters. Weapons with 30 rounds in the magazine use the ORIGINAL, unmodified chart (again below)


Short Bursts fire 20% of the entire magazine; i.e., 30 round mag-6 shots fired. Damage: roll normal damage x2. Uses up one attack.
Long Burst fire 50% of the entire magazine; i.e., 30 round mag-15 shots fired. Damage: roll normal damage x5. Uses up one attack.
Entire Magazine fire 100% of the entire magazine; u]Damage[/u]: roll normal damage x10. Uses up 2 attacks.





This system allows weapons which are meant to use the original Aimed,Burst, Wild system (so not pulse weapons, for instance, and not applying to machineguns) to do so, but in my opinion solves the constant problems with clip sizes.

If you've gotten this far, thanks for reading! Any opinions on anything I have said? As I stated, this is just how I like it, it uses the original system, and is how I would have fixed the problems that arose, as opposed to just scrapping the system in it's entirety. I realize that this is probably not an issue in many peoples games, because most weapons later introduced are Pulse Weapons (a limited, but more efficient burst) or, like Railguns, have set burst lengths and damage, but I just love that JA-11 so much, I hate to see it made useless.

I also like the original burst/spray rules, and I have similarly held up the JA-11 as a prime example of how some weapons got ruined by the rule changes.

While your solution does improve things, there are a few things that I find some level of dissatisfaction with.

1. I would prefer one simple table or rule to use, that could apply to everything.
2. Some ammunition capacities exceed 30 rounds. What happens in this case? Just assume a 30 round magazine for the percentage purposes, and use the second (original) table?
3. I was always somewhat dissatisfied with bursts/sprays that took multiple attacks, because that lead to some odd questions, like when is the damage dealt? We always dealt it initially, when the decision to attack was made, but I don't believe that it was ever officially specified. Later, with other multiple-attack attacks, it's been specified that the damage is dealt at the end, not the initial round of attacks.
Which I don't like.
Also, there's the question of what happens if your attack gets interrupted.
In some ways, I think it's better to just go with one-attack bursts, and if you make them multiple times in a row to just assume that it's continuous fire.

(My solution to the JA-11 issue, btw, is to use the double-tap rules from the RGMG, so the ion-beam can fire a two-shot burst for double damage, a fairly respectable (though not as awesome as the original) 6d6 MD per attack.)

All said and done, though, I appreciate the work you've put into this system, and would be perfectly willing to play under your rules.

Killer Cyborg wrote:1. I would prefer one simple table or rule to use, that could apply to everything.

Any examples of such a table you can think of, or ideas for how it would go? Currently, using the above system, there is one table for almost all weapons (around 20 shots/clip), and some weapons can only use part of it (10 shot and under clips). The second table is only used for larger clip weapons.

Killer Cyborg wrote:2. Some ammunition capacities exceed 30 rounds. What happens in this case? Just assume a 30 round magazine for the percentage purposes, and use the second (original) table?

Can you think of any examples of such a weapon? So far the only examples I have been able to come up with have been old style assault rifles with box magazines, and weapons made to run on power packs in Rifts (though most, like the new Coalition gear in Coalition War Campaign, are Pulse weapons anyways). For both, I've always felt that simply applying the Burst or Sprays from Machinegun rules from the rulebook worked perfectly, after all:

"Bursts and Sprays from a machinegun is different only in the number of rounds fired, targets struck, and chance of hitting a bystander. Macnineguns have a much greater ammunition capacity, so it does not have to use the same percentage of its entire clip." (Rifts rulebook, page 34, Bursts and sprays from Machinegun)

Killer Cyborg wrote:3. I was always somewhat dissatisfied with bursts/sprays that took multiple attacks, because that lead to some odd questions, like when is the damage dealt? We always dealt it initially, when the decision to attack was made, but I don't believe that it was ever officially specified. Later, with other multiple-attack attacks, it's been specified that the damage is dealt at the end, not the initial round of attacks.
Which I don't like.
Also, there's the question of what happens if your attack gets interrupted.
In some ways, I think it's better to just go with one-attack bursts, and if you make them multiple times in a row to just assume that it's continuous fire.

I've never really had the problem with multiple attack-attacks, since the core of the Palladium system seems designed around thematics as opposed to by the second combat, the classic example of hand to hand being how, in the description, whoever has attacks left uses them all at the end of the round. I've always thought it was a limitation of the game mechanics, like how characters with more attacks can fire the same number of bullets in less time than characters with fewer attacks, and just gone with the classic 'boom, two attacks gone in one' system.

Edit - Sorry, I meant to add, thankyou for the reply. Do you think this system would be better described as closer to a 'slight' modification of the original rules, a streamlining of the original concept, or a total overhaul?

Ninjabunny wrote:Aren't there rules like that in the CoCW?

There may indeed be, but it has been awhile since I have read it (years, actually), and I do not have mine on hand!

I like the old rules as well, but I dislike that they do not take clip size into account. ie. a weapon will inflict x10 damage with a full clip fired regardless of whether that clip was 20 or 40 rounds.

I've experimented with it a little, and currently rule that for every 5 rounds fired in a burst, the damage multiple increases by one. ie. A burst of 2-5 rounds is x2 damage, 6-10 rounds is x3, 11-15 rounds is x4, etc. Once it reaches x10, the multipliers stop, and a flat +5 damage is applied for every 10 additional rounds.

It's not a perfect solution, but it works alright in most cases with small arms.

why not just a simple solution like:

short burst: 6 rounds (ie we're assuming a 30-round clip/cartridge/whatever as the standard), x2 damage
long burst: 15 rounds (ie still using 30-rounds as the standard), x3 damage
full burst (sustained burst? whatever): 30 rounds, (again, using 30 round clip as standard), x10 damage

and so forth.

heck, you don't even have to use the exact same %. i would think a 3-round burst would be a fairly standard one, you could use that as short(x2), 6 rounds as long (x3) and 10 rounds as full/sustained burst, for the sake of argument. x4 damage or something like that. all of them use 1 action.

but yeah, that makes it a *heck* of a lot simpler, gives something a bit more standard as to how many shots you're firing, and actually makes having more ammunition result in having more ammunition.

sharkforce, that is exactly how the current burst rules work.
assault rifles and SMG's are 3rd burt x2 damage, 5 rd burst x3 damage
MG's are roughly 10rd burst 5x damage, 20rd burst x10 damage, and 30rd burst x15 damage.

you lose the ability to take an assault rifle and autokill things with a full clip in one attack, but you gain a huge amount of verismilitude..

Mercdog wrote:I like the old rules as well, but I dislike that they do not take clip size into account. ie. a weapon will inflict x10 damage with a full clip fired regardless of whether that clip was 20 or 40 rounds.

I've experimented with it a little, and currently rule that for every 5 rounds fired in a burst, the damage multiple increases by one. ie. A burst of 2-5 rounds is x2 damage, 6-10 rounds is x3, 11-15 rounds is x4, etc. Once it reaches x10, the multipliers stop, and a flat +5 damage is applied for every 10 additional rounds.

It's not a perfect solution, but it works alright in most cases with small arms.

actually this sounds more reasonable and is easily adapted to other House Rules I have recently adopted.
I will have to let you know how it plays out after I finagle it and do a full run.

Killer Cyborg wrote:I also like the original burst/spray rules, and I have similarly held up the JA-11 as a prime example of how some weapons got ruined by the rule changes.

While your solution does improve things, there are a few things that I find some level of dissatisfaction with.

1. I would prefer one simple table or rule to use, that could apply to everything.
2. Some ammunition capacities exceed 30 rounds. What happens in this case? Just assume a 30 round magazine for the percentage purposes, and use the second (original) table?
3. I was always somewhat dissatisfied with bursts/sprays that took multiple attacks, because that lead to some odd questions, like when is the damage dealt? We always dealt it initially, when the decision to attack was made, but I don't believe that it was ever officially specified. Later, with other multiple-attack attacks, it's been specified that the damage is dealt at the end, not the initial round of attacks.
Which I don't like.
Also, there's the question of what happens if your attack gets interrupted.
In some ways, I think it's better to just go with one-attack bursts, and if you make them multiple times in a row to just assume that it's continuous fire.

(My solution to the JA-11 issue, btw, is to use the double-tap rules from the RGMG, so the ion-beam can fire a two-shot burst for double damage, a fairly respectable (though not aswesome as the original) 6d6 MD per attack.)
All said and done, though, I appreciate the work you've put into this system, and would be perfectly willing to play under your rules.

I want to explore the Highlighted portion of your text further...
I can see to a point what your gripe with multiple action costs is and where it stems from.
However bursts and sprays can (in certain situations) last for a good deal of time relatively speaking.. Multi-action costs do represent this time cost quite well.
Your quickie suggestion is one possible solution; but what are the pros and cons of this method?
(I ask as I am currently exploring a variant on how combat is handled and need input to find the best method of re-introducing the burst/spray rules).

Damian Magecraft wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:I also like the original burst/spray rules, and I have similarly held up the JA-11 as a prime example of how some weapons got ruined by the rule changes.

While your solution does improve things, there are a few things that I find some level of dissatisfaction with.

1. I would prefer one simple table or rule to use, that could apply to everything.
2. Some ammunition capacities exceed 30 rounds. What happens in this case? Just assume a 30 round magazine for the percentage purposes, and use the second (original) table?
3. I was always somewhat dissatisfied with bursts/sprays that took multiple attacks, because that lead to some odd questions, like when is the damage dealt? We always dealt it initially, when the decision to attack was made, but I don't believe that it was ever officially specified. Later, with other multiple-attack attacks, it's been specified that the damage is dealt at the end, not the initial round of attacks.
Which I don't like.
Also, there's the question of what happens if your attack gets interrupted.
In some ways, I think it's better to just go with one-attack bursts, and if you make them multiple times in a row to just assume that it's continuous fire.

(My solution to the JA-11 issue, btw, is to use the double-tap rules from the RGMG, so the ion-beam can fire a two-shot burst for double damage, a fairly respectable (though not aswesome as the original) 6d6 MD per attack.)
All said and done, though, I appreciate the work you've put into this system, and would be perfectly willing to play under your rules.

I want to explore the Highlighted portion of your text further...
I can see to a point what your gripe with multiple action costs is and where it stems from.
However bursts and sprays can (in certain situations) last for a good deal of time relatively speaking.. Multi-action costs do represent this time cost quite well.
Your quickie suggestion is one possible solution; but what are the pros and cons of this method?
(I ask as I am currently exploring a variant on how combat is handled and need input to find the best method of re-introducing the burst/spray rules).

The pros are that it allows for more simplicity and realism.
Picture any movie scene in which one character is unloading a fully automatic weapon at another character. The other character responds by running, leaping, and dodging out of the way.
In the regular rules, this would be represented by the attacker making a multiple-action attack (using as many as ALL of their attacks), and the defender responding by using ONE attack to dodge.
Which doesn't quite work out, time-wise; it doesn't replicate the movie scene, in which the defender uses ALL of their actions to defend.
And my solution solves the issues with the "when does damage take place" issue. Realistically, damage would be occurring throughout the event, a lot of the time at least. If you spend 4 attacks unloading an entire clip at somebody, the total damage should probably be roughly evenly distributed over the course of 4 melee attacks. Instead of either the target getting shot up (often obliterated) during the first melee attack, then the shooter continuing to fire uselessly into the remains for another 3 melee attacks, or instead of the target taking no damage for three melee attacks, THEN getting shot up all at once.

The cons... Well, it's kind of aesthetically displeasing somehow. Probably because it still FEELS like you're making multiple short bursts, instead of ripping off an entire clip.

Another possible solution is to simply use the old "all extra attacks for an action are taken off of the back-end, but multi-action attacks are resolved instantly" routine.
So if you have 5 attacks per melee, and you Power Punch somebody, the damage is done immediately, and you get to act normally on your next attack... but you run out of attacks on the 4th round of attacks instead of the 5th round of attacks.
Or if you make a 3-attack burst for your first attack, it resolves instantly, and you get to attack as normal on your next attack, but you only get one more attack after that, then you're out.

Damian Magecraft wrote:

Mercdog wrote:I like the old rules as well, but I dislike that they do not take clip size into account. ie. a weapon will inflict x10 damage with a full clip fired regardless of whether that clip was 20 or 40 rounds.

I've experimented with it a little, and currently rule that for every 5 rounds fired in a burst, the damage multiple increases by one. ie. A burst of 2-5 rounds is x2 damage, 6-10 rounds is x3, 11-15 rounds is x4, etc. Once it reaches x10, the multipliers stop, and a flat +5 damage is applied for every 10 additional rounds.

It's not a perfect solution, but it works alright in most cases with small arms.

actually this sounds more reasonable and is easily adapted to other House Rules I have recently adopted.
I will have to let you know how it plays out after I finagle it and do a full run.

Please do.

Shark_Force wrote:why not just a simple solution like:

short burst: 6 rounds (ie we're assuming a 30-round clip/cartridge/whatever as the standard), x2 damage
long burst: 15 rounds (ie still using 30-rounds as the standard), x3 damage
full burst (sustained burst? whatever): 30 rounds, (again, using 30 round clip as standard), x10 damage

and so forth.

heck, you don't even have to use the exact same %. i would think a 3-round burst would be a fairly standard one, you could use that as short(x2), 6 rounds as long (x3) and 10 rounds as full/sustained burst, for the sake of argument. x4 damage or something like that. all of them use 1 action.

but yeah, that makes it a *heck* of a lot simpler, gives something a bit more standard as to how many shots you're firing, and actually makes having more ammunition result in having more ammunition.

Something like this also addresses outlier weapons like the L-20 and the New Navy M-160, both of which can get 50-55 shots form a long e-clip. It also helps address weapon mods that didn't exist when the rule was initially written, such as the NG energy packs which provide a weapon with 6-7 e-clips worth of shots.

Faceless Dude wrote:Something like this also addresses outlier weapons like the L-20 and the New Navy M-160, both of which can get 50-55 shots form a long e-clip. It also helps address weapon mods that didn't exist when the rule was initially written, such as the NG energy packs which provide a weapon with 6-7 e-clips worth of shots.

honestly, i'm kinda surprised this didn't occur to the folks at palladium long ago. the multi-action attacks situation is kinda screwy, but just making a burst based on how many rounds are fired rather than what percentage of the clip is fired makes so much more sense to me. ah well =S

edit: in fact, i bet if we watched a game where kevin was GMing 20 years ago, and someone had (for the sake of argument) a machinegun with a 100-round belt, we'd see him adjusting his rules on the fly to look an awful lot like what i did... possibly using a different clip size as a basis or something.

I always used the smallest sized clip for the weapon with the rules. Of course it really doesn't work with the new gallant H90 or Valiant Laser Rifle in Robotech. Why it has around 400 shots to a PE-Clip

Tiree wrote:I always used the smallest sized clip for the weapon with the rules. Of course it really doesn't work with the new gallant H90 or Valiant Laser Rifle in Robotech. Why it has around 400 shots to a PE-Clip

Yeah; had to fudge that with the Valliant & G-H90; used the machinegun rules with SDC setting (and only short controlled bursts). Also, the tables for most semi-auto weapons were written on assumption that smallest ammo-mag / clip would be used. *shrug* Generally I just use the John-Woo rule; The weapon can continue to fire in semi or full auto until dramatically correct time for reloading occurs in the scene.

glitterboy2098 wrote:sharkforce, that is exactly how the current burst rules work.
assault rifles and SMG's are 3rd burt x2 damage, 5 rd burst x3 damage
MG's are roughly 10rd burst 5x damage, 20rd burst x10 damage, and 30rd burst x15 damage.

you lose the ability to take an assault rifle and autokill things with a full clip in one attack, but you gain a huge amount of verismilitude..

Well, the current rules for machine-guns seem pretty messed up.
With assault rifles that inflict 5d6 SDC per round, a short burst (3 rounds) inflicts double damage (1d6x10), and a long burst (6 rounds, 2 attacks) inflicts triple damage (15d6 SDC, which would come out as something like 2d4x10+10).
With machine guns that inflict 5d6 per round, a short burst (12 rounds) inflicts double damage (1d6x10), and a long burst (36 rounds fired, 3 attacks) inflicts 2d6x10+20.

So with a short burst, the machine-gun inflicts the same damage with 12 rounds as the assault rifle inflicts with only 3 rounds.
Since machine-guns are more likely to be mounted or stable, the shot inefficiency doesn't make a lot of sense to me; it's wasting 9 bullets over the assault rifle.
Also, short bursts are the most likely to be used, I think, because they only take one attack.
The assault rifle is the better weapon.

With a long burst, the assault rifle inflicts 2d4x10+10 damage with two attacks, averaging 1d4x10+5 per attack if one were to split it up, and uses 6 rounds.
The machine-gun inflicts 2d6x10+20 damage using three attacks, averaging 1d4x10+6 per attack if one were to split it up, and uses 36 rounds.

In the three attacks that the machine gun uses to fire that long burst of 36 shots, inflicting 2d6x10+10 SDC, a guy with an assault rifle could fire three short burst for a total of 9 bullets, inflicting 3d6x10 damage.
And the machine gun puts all its eggs in one basket; you roll bad once, or the enemy makes one good dodge, you're not doing any damage at all.
The assault rifle comes out as a significantly better weapon.
And I don't think that's right.

Meanwhile, if the rules were changes so that the machine-gun was as accurate per-shot as the assault rifle, the picture would change significantly in favor of the machine-gun.
The new damages would be something like:
Single shot = 5d6
Short burst (12 rounds) = 2d6x10
Long burst (24 rounds, 2 attacks) = 2d6x10+15

With heavier assault rifles and machine-guns, it would come out similarly.
Right now, if they each inflict 7d6 per shot, here's how it works
Assault Rifle inflicts 14d6 per short burst (3 rounds), 21d6 per long burst (6 rounds, 2 attacks)
Machine-Gun inflicts 1d8x10 per short burst, 2d8x10+20 per long burst (30 rounds, 3 attacks)

The short burst from the assault rifle has a damage range of 14-84, with an average damage of 49.
The short burst from the machine-gun has a damage range of 10-80, with an average damage of 45.
The long burst from the assault rifle has a damage range of 21-126, with an average damage of 74, or 37 damage per attack.
The long burst from the machine-gun has a damage range of 40-180, with an average damage of 110, or about 37 damage per attack.

The assault rifle again does more damage with a short burst.
The machine-gun does more damage with a long burst, but again it takes up one more attack, and uses 5x more ammunition than the assault rifle.
The long-burst damage-per-attack turns out the same... but you're still chewing through a lot more ammo, and you still have the issue about one bad strike roll (or one good dodge roll) negating your entire attack.

Moreover, the damage for large caliber rifles is listed as "7d6 to 1d6x10+3 SDC per single round," so if you pick the most damaging assault rifle, you're going to be doing more damage than the machine-gun across the board: heavy machine-guns only list 7d6 per round as the damage, with no option to increase.
Which is odd, because a .50 caliber assault rifle should probably do more damage than any hand-held rifle would be capable of.

Personally, I've been considering stealing a rule from Mekton if I ever ran a Rift (or Robotech or Macross) game again. The rule from Mekton is that on a successful hit is that for every pointabove the defence roll the attack roll is, it does the damage of a single shot up to the maximun number of shots fired (I think that could be worded better^_^).

For example, if you need a 6 to hit and you roll a 9 then roll damage for a single round then multiply by 3 (this applies to missile volleys as well, instead of using the all or nothing approachused now). Of course, this makes burst fire alot more dangerous.

Eashamahel wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:1. I would prefer one simple table or rule to use, that could apply to everything.

Any examples of such a table you can think of, or ideas for how it would go? Currently, using the above system, there is one table for almost all weapons (around 20 shots/clip), and some weapons can only use part of it (10 shot and under clips). The second table is only used for larger clip weapons.

Well, you could just assume a 20-shot magazine for all weapons.
So a weapon with a 10-shot magazine, could only fire a half-clip burst at best, and a weapon with a 30-shot magazine could fire a full-clip burst, AND a half-clip burst before running out of ammunition.
That seems the simplest way to knock things down to one table.
That way, a laser rifle with a Standard E-Clip (20 shots) would not suddenly change accuracy when using a Long E-Clip (30 shots), by moving to a different table.

Beyond that, trying to make one table to encompass everything gets pretty complicated.

Killer Cyborg wrote:2. Some ammunition capacities exceed 30 rounds. What happens in this case? Just assume a 30 round magazine for the percentage purposes, and use the second (original) table?

Can you think of any examples of such a weapon? So far the only examples I have been able to come up with have been old style assault rifles with box magazines, and weapons made to run on power packs in Rifts (though most, like the new Coalition gear in Coalition War Campaign, are Pulse weapons anyways). For both, I've always felt that simply applying the Burst or Sprays from Machinegun rules from the rulebook worked perfectly, after all:
"Bursts and Sprays from a machinegun is different only in the number of rounds fired, targets struck, and chance of hitting a bystander. Macnineguns have a much greater ammunition capacity, so it does not have to use the same percentage of its entire clip." (Rifts rulebook, page 34, Bursts and sprays from Machinegun)

They're kind of mingling "ammunition capacity" with "rate of fire" in concept, but I can see why you'd go with that option.
Again, IF I'm following you correctly, it changes the relative accuracy of the weapon depending on what kind of magazine you have loaded into it.
A Wilk's 447 loaded with a standard E-Clip would fire a short burst of 4 rounds, inflicting 6d6 MD, or an average of 21 MD per attack.
Or a Long Burst of 10 rounds, inflicting 8d6 MD, for an average of 28 MD per attack.
Or a Full-Magazine Burst of 20 rounds, inflicting 21d6 MD, for an average of about 37 MD per attack.

The same rifle loaded with a Long E-Clip would fire a short burst of 2 rounds, inflicting 6d6 MD, for an average of 21 MD per attack... while using half the ammunition required for the same damage from a standard E-Clip.
Or a Long Burst of 9 rounds, inflicting 15d6 MD, for an average of about 53 MD per attack, approaching twice the damage as above, while requiring one less round.
Or a Full-Magazine Burst of 30 rounds, inflicting 60d6 MD, for an average of 210 MD total. If you go with the original rules for attacks per melee, where an average starting character had 2-3 attacks, this works out to about 70-105 MD per attack. If you use the newer rules, where an average starting character has 4-5 attacks, this works out to about 42-53 MD per attack.
Either way, you're using 50% more ammunition to inflict around 2-3x more damage.

Another example would be the Wilk's 320 laser piste (SB1r). Going with the original ROF of "Standard," it should be burst/spray capable.
A short clip provides this weapon with 20 shots, and a long clip provides it with 40 shots.
So with a short E-Clip, the damage would be:
1d6 per single shot.
2d6 per burst of 4 shots.
3d6 per burst of 10 shots.
7d6 per burst of 20.

With a long E-Clip, going with the machine-gun rules from p. 34 of the original Rifts book, the damage would be:
1d6 per single shot.
2d6 per burst of 4 shots.
5d6 per burst of 12 shots.
2d6x10 MD per burst of 40 shots.

Killer Cyborg wrote:3. I was always somewhat dissatisfied with bursts/sprays that took multiple attacks, because that lead to some odd questions, like when is the damage dealt? We always dealt it initially, when the decision to attack was made, but I don't believe that it was ever officially specified. Later, with other multiple-attack attacks, it's been specified that the damage is dealt at the end, not the initial round of attacks.
Which I don't like.
Also, there's the question of what happens if your attack gets interrupted.
In some ways, I think it's better to just go with one-attack bursts, and if you make them multiple times in a row to just assume that it's continuous fire.

I've never really had the problem with multiple attack-attacks, since the core of the Palladium system seems designed around thematics as opposed to by the second combat, the classic example of hand to hand being how, in the description, whoever has attacks left uses them all at the end of the round. I've always thought it was a limitation of the game mechanics, like how characters with more attacks can fire the same number of bullets in less time than characters with fewer attacks, and just gone with the classic 'boom, two attacks gone in one' system.

I agree that with bursts/sprays, it works best to just play it where all the attacks are used in one attack-phase.
As long as you're playing it that way, there shouldn't be a real problem.

Edit - Sorry, I meant to add, thankyou for the reply. Do you think this system would be better described as closer to a 'slight' modification of the original rules, a streamlining of the original concept, or a total overhaul?

As with a lot of Palladium's rules, I think to get it done REALLY right, in order to make rules that would be applicable for most or all groups of Rifts players, you'd need a major overhaul... but a slight modification is good enough to make it perfectly playable for any one group's standards.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

glitterboy2098 wrote:sharkforce, that is exactly how the current burst rules work.
assault rifles and SMG's are 3rd burt x2 damage, 5 rd burst x3 damage
MG's are roughly 10rd burst 5x damage, 20rd burst x10 damage, and 30rd burst x15 damage.

you lose the ability to take an assault rifle and autokill things with a full clip in one attack, but you gain a huge amount of verismilitude..

Well, the current rules for machine-guns seem pretty messed up.
With assault rifles that inflict 5d6 SDC per round, a short burst (3 rounds) inflicts double damage (1d6x10), and a long burst (6 rounds, 2 attacks) inflicts triple damage (15d6 SDC, which would come out as something like 2d4x10+10).
With machine guns that inflict 5d6 per round, a short burst (12 rounds) inflicts double damage (1d6x10), and a long burst (36 rounds fired, 3 attacks) inflicts 2d6x10+20.

So with a short burst, the machine-gun inflicts the same damage with 12 rounds as the assault rifle inflicts with only 3 rounds.
Since machine-guns are more likely to be mounted or stable, the shot inefficiency doesn't make a lot of sense to me; it's wasting 9 bullets over the assault rifle.
Also, short bursts are the most likely to be used, I think, because they only take one attack.
The assault rifle is the better weapon.

With a long burst, the assault rifle inflicts 2d4x10+10 damage with two attacks, averaging 1d4x10+5 per attack if one were to split it up, and uses 6 rounds.
The machine-gun inflicts 2d6x10+20 damage using three attacks, averaging 1d4x10+6 per attack if one were to split it up, and uses 36 rounds.

the stats in the WP listing and the stats in the wider game system don't match. the version i list is based on the wider game system stats. the WP listings abandoned a per bullet modifiers in favor of grossly underpowered specific damage listings.. which don't match any of the other stats in any of the games. probably in a misguided and absurd attempt to make SDC machineguns less lethal for some reason. in the SDC settings liek dead reign, where heavy machineguns don't have seperate stats, it's less notable. but regular SDC machineguns have been stated out before in RIFTS (even after the RUE change to the burst rules), both with SDC and ramjet ammo, making reverse engineering of the stats possible.

in the wider system, machineguns do a bit less damage per round in bursts (50% hitting rather than 66% hitting, basically). though there are odd weapons (rifts railguns for example tend to do damage as if only 25% of the rounds are hitting, which might just be more an issue with the single round damage stats, and there is a very odd MG in mercops that has 90% of the rounds in a burst hitting.. )


sadly, this isn't the first time the stated rules and the actual stats don't match up..

I've always been a fan of the gun rules in The Rifter 11. These rules involve using standardized, fixed numbers of rounds for each burst (i.e. Short Burst is 5 rounds; Medium Burst is 10 rounds: Long Burst is 20 rounds, etc.) rather than percentages. This allows more bursts to be fired when using clips with greater ammo capacities. Also, many automatic weapons have burst limiters which forces the weapon to fire a predetermined number of rounds with each depression of the trigger, so percentages don't make a great deal of sense in that regard (since the number of rounds per burst changes based simply on ammo capacity). While many guns also obviously have full auto capability, most trained soldiers will tell you that going "rock n' roll" with a weapon isn't generally considered a judicious use of ammo or accuracy.

However this approach is also highly simplistic.

Ideally, each gun in Rifts should have its own burst modes indicated, since some guns have burst modes of 2 rounds, others 3, others 5, etc. Granted, some guns in Rifts DO have specific burst sizes listed, but a vast majority do not. Rather than everything be homogenized by a general rule, there should be specific burst sizes for each gun.

I wish actual "rate of fire" was taken into account (not the Rifts use of the term, but the real world firearm definition, which refers to the frequency at which a gun fires or launches its projectiles). In that case, you could base the size of a burst on how many rounds the gun fires per second (its "cyclic rate of fire") rather than payload. Still, you have issues because of the ambiguity of melee action duration (2 or 3 seconds). Consequently, does a gun that fires 10 rounds per second get off 20 rounds per action, or 30? I've tried to incorporate this in my games and it works decently well, but it requires assigning RoF values to each individual gun so it's a lot of work.

Sorry, I know I'm not offering solutions here; just venting

All these rules are in the R:GMG, 6th Printing which references the R:UE and is entirely compatible with it.

Akashic Soldier wrote:All these rules are in the R:GMG, 6th Printing which references the R:UE and is entirely compatible with it.

Wow, really? How did I miss that? It must be because my copy of RGMG is a first printing. I'll have to order myself a new one then. If what you say is true, then I'll be a very happy gamer.

Akashic Soldier wrote:All these rules are in the R:GMG, 6th Printing which references the R:UE and is entirely compatible with it.

All which rules?

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Akashic Soldier wrote:All these rules are in the R:GMG, 6th Printing which references the R:UE and is entirely compatible with it.

All which rules?

Shooting Wild, Sprays and Bursts.

Akashic Soldier wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Akashic Soldier wrote:All these rules are in the R:GMG, 6th Printing which references the R:UE and is entirely compatible with it.

All which rules?

Shooting Wild, Sprays and Bursts.

Huh.
That's pretty messed up.

I really miss the "entire magazine rule" from RIFTS 1990! It was my first RIFTS game; I played a Juicer and we got in trouble with the CS in the Burbs...then, I yelled CONTACT (PREDATOR style) and all hell break loose! I only remember that we spent ALL the AMMO we had by using the ENTIRE MAGAZINE option...and the SAMAS's did the same...it was fun, we leveled the Burbs and we barely escaped alive thanks to our Mind Melter force field! Super FUN but it needed some fixing.

One thing to note is that Kevin Siembieda once indicated to me in a conversation that Heavy Energy Weapons were not intended to be burst/spray capable.
Whether or not you want to play things that way is up to you, of course, that's just what I got from the conversation.

enhancer wrote:I've always had a problem with Rifts S.D.C heavy machine guns. A .50 caliber gun is 7D6 in RMB/RUE, 1D6x10 for machine guns and 2D6x10 for gatlings(?) in Merc Ops(also suggests to reference Compendium of Contemporary Weapons), and 1D6x10+10 or 2D6x10+10 for gatling(?) in the Compendium of Contemporary Weapons. Their range is 5000ft on GMG pg 40, 3000ft on GMG pg 129, 6000ft and 8000ft gatling(?) on pg 121 Merc Ops, and 22310ft or 19685ft gatling(?) on pg 108 in the Compendium. Personally I think the Compendium is right in most cases, as it is the book they designed to most closely replicate real weapons, aside from the fact Gatling guns have different single shot damage from the same bullet. For One Hand Clapping, if you want traditional rate of fire, that is the book to get, for S.D.C weapons anyway.

The Compendium's damage stats are generally NOT the stats for Palladiums normal system, which sucks. It requires conversion in order to use properly.
I still go with the range and other stats from that book, though.

Regardless I think the new W.P specific rules don't help and in fact hinder, for instance a M-16 or AK-47 not being able to fire single shots because they can fire automatic(?). Or Sub-Machineguns not being able to fire single shots at all.

Not sure what you're talking about here. Care to elaborate?

Or how you can burst a pistol (double-action) but not a double action revolver.

Yeah, that's messed up. Double-action is double-action.
They should have a "fan-firing" skill for single action revolvers as well.
Try telling Bob Munden that he can't get off more than one attack per 2-3 seconds.

Also they seemed to have changed long bursts to two attacks. I don't like it one bit.

Agreed. There's no longer any real point to doing that attack over two short bursts.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Akashic Soldier wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Akashic Soldier wrote:All these rules are in the R:GMG, 6th Printing which references the R:UE and is entirely compatible with it.

All which rules?

Shooting Wild, Sprays and Bursts.

Huh.
That's pretty messed up.

???

I don't know why. I've always used them (assuming that the weapons are compatible) and I've never had a problem. I didn't even know that they were "removed" because I've always used the R:UE and the R:GMG to run combat. The way I kind of felt after getting my GMG was that the R:UE was all the stuff players needed to know to function and the GMG was all the finicky stuff that the GM knows for when the player wants to do something outside of the box like Parry an Energy Attack or empty an e-clip filling a room with hot-plasma death.

To this day, I've only read half of the Rifts: Main Book. I've never REALLY needed it beyond injuries and the price of precious metals.

enhancer wrote:Does your version of the GMG list the Sprays and Bursts? My 4th printing only lists bursts under the respective W.P and says nothing about the sprays, or anything about rate of fire "Standard." My 1st edition RUE says nothing either.

It lists Sprays somewhere away from Bursts (if I recall correctly). I'll find it tomorrow its 2:21am right now. To tell you the truth I am kind of surprised that there would be such big changes between printings, are you sure you just haven't overlooked it in yours?

It might (and I'm not positive I will have to check) be near the rules for area of effect attacks.

Akashic Soldier wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Akashic Soldier wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Akashic Soldier wrote:All these rules are in the R:GMG, 6th Printing which references the R:UE and is entirely compatible with it.

All which rules?

Shooting Wild, Sprays and Bursts.

Huh.
That's pretty messed up.

???

I don't know why.

Because the RGMG is the book where Kevin originally scrapped the Burst/Spray rules, and implemented the "double-tap" rule.
Also, because none of the weapons in RUE list a ROF of "standard" or "Aimed, Burst or Wild," and even SDC weapons like old-school assault rifles have their own specific rules for bursts and sprays now
so the original burst/spray rules aren't really applicable anymore.

enhancer wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Because the RGMG is the book where Kevin originally scrapped the Burst/Spray rules, and implemented the "double-tap" rule.
Also, because none of the weapons in RUE list a ROF of "standard" or "Aimed, Burst or Wild," and even SDC weapons like old-school assault rifles have their own specific rules for bursts and sprays now
so the original burst/spray rules aren't really applicable anymore.

Well the original GMG used the RMB rules, and the traditional W.Ps.

The original RGMG, First Printing, has a section titled Ranged Combat Revisited, which runs from page 38 to page 43.
The text on pages 38-39 explain Kevin's reasons for moving on from the old burst/spray rules, concluding with:
If you like [the original rules], use 'em, but I've moved away from them myself and even in subtle ways in the game itself. You'll notice, for example, that later books state Attacks Per Melee: as "Each Blast counts as one melee attack" or "equal to the combined number of the shooter's hand to hand"- instead of the old: "Standard, aimed, burst or wild." Meanwhile, weapons that fire bursts will have a specific burst damage listing such as, fires three rapid-fire pulses or a burst of 10 rounds doing "x" damage. It's just simpler and less confusing.

He then describes his new rules for combat, including passages such as:
Unless a weapon states it can fire a burst of two or more simultaneous or rapid-fire shots, it is best to assume it can not. Most energy pistols can not fire a burst. Many rifles, and most assault rifles, can perform burst fire. If the weapon stat block lists "burst" as an option but does not list burst damage, the weapon can fire a double pulse burst. Two simultaneous blasts inflicting twice the damage of a single shot.
and
One might notice that over the years, many of the new weapons introduced in Rifts are, in one way or another, pulse weapons. This has largely rendered any confusion over how to handle automatic fire moot, since so few weapons can do it (comparatively) and the chances of a character having such a weapon are also getting smaller. But what about the old weapons that have damage for single blasts but not a burst, but list Attacks Per Melee: Standard, or Aimed, Burst, or Wild Shot. It is fair to assume that the weapon can fire a short, two pulse shot that does double the damage of a single shot. Each double pulse counts as one attack, but uses up two shots from the payload.

What he's referring to is cases like where the C-14 Firebreather (and the C-27, for that matter) went from ROF: Standard (Rifts) to ROF: Equal to the combined number of hand to hand attacks of the user (CWC), turning them from burst/spray-capable weapons, into single-shot weapons.
The RGMG continued this trend, turning a number of formerly burst-capable weapons into single-shot weapons.
The JA-11, for example, originally (Rifts, 225) had ROF: Aimed, Burst, Wild, but the first printing RGMG version (RGMG, 145)has the ion beam with ROF of "Each shot counts as one melee action."

RUE completed this trend, with a possible exception or two presumably to oversight (if they exist at all), replacing any ROF Standard or Aimed, Burst, Wild with the "each shot is one attack" ROF.
As you point out.
But it started creeping in as early as CWC, and was also present in the 1st printing RGMG.

How official Kevin's new ROF rules were was something that was heavily debated at the time, since he includes the word "optional" in the title of his new rules section, but at the same time, treats the old rules as if they were being downgraded to "optional" status.
Either way, it became a moot point as of RUE, which is why it would be an odd move for Palladium to reprint the original Burst/Spray rules (or the CB1 update) in new editions of the RGMG.

Later versions used the new W.Ps and the RUE/Splicers combat. RUE looks like it replaced the words "Standard" with "each blast counts as one melee attack", even where it doesn't make sense like the L-20, the JA-11 Ion Blaster or the NG-202(the 101 says burst).

A "blast" doesn't have to be a single shot, simply a "forceful attack or assault."
So it works for weapons that have both bursts and single-shot settings, as well as working for weapons that have only one or the other.
But I agree that it could be better worded.

The JA-11 nerfing is particularly stupid especially considering this: "Sniper rifles, like the JA-11 & JA-9, are multipurpose weapons for use in combat and assassination, thus they have the capability to fire
one single blast or automatic fire."-Kev's Optional Quick & Dirty rules for modern combat, written by Kevin Siembieda . The original burst/spray rules are still applicable, they have to be, most of the books are written for them. Most of the weapons in the GMG are still Standard. Unless they plan on going through the books one by one and and rewriting the equipment and O.C.Cs it's going to stay that way. I also think it was a bad move to get rid of the S.D.C weapon section in RUE, now all that's left is a handful of examples under the W.Ps, which as we've seen don't really make sense.

I haven't seen the newest editions of the RGMG, so I can't say what they have or have not updated.
Any of the weapons reprinted in RUE, though, have been officially changed.

enhancer wrote:I've noticed RUE seemed to change most of the weapons ROF, but some weapons are actually the RMB versions(NG-P7 8 shot)and not the ones in the GMG(NG-P7 6 or 10 shot), which is interesting. My GMG is a 4th from 2004. Many of the weapons in it have Standard RoF, so I don't know if that's something that they changed in later printings or not, but I certainly can't find the logic in getting a newer version of it to play with all my books, most made before RUE came out. Nor can I find the logic in the RoF and W.P change so late in the game for Palladium, but that's KS call. Funny how he should say RoF: Standard weapons are getting smaller, on a quick count I found 141 in the GMG. It's interesting to note the effort towards one shot per action in CWC, however what's weird in that book is that they change some of the old weapons, and most of the new ones, but the C-5, C-18 and the new C-20 are Standard, which just leads you to believe that they were going okay we fixed these ones, but THESE over here are definitely Standard.

I think that it more indicates that they just overlooked them, having written those weapons up before the change in ROF took place. It often takes Palladium quite a while to get books out.
But you may be right.

More interesting, I think, is the Wilk's 320 laser pistol, which originally had "ROF: Standard," but was changed in the RGMG 1st printing to "ROF: Standard, Aimed, Burst, Wild."
THAT one is almost like they're highlighting the fact that it's burst-capable... under the rules that Kevin says that he's abandoned.

As for the logic, I think part of it is explained in the RGMG: Kevin felt that they were too simulationist to be truly playable. As in, they were meant to describe the kind of wild spraying that goes into cover fire and
other such combat events, but in the context of the game, they just didn't seem to work out.

Possibly more importantly, I believe, is that there was one heck of a lot of controversy over the original Burst/Spray rules.
Part of that is Palladium's fault; they never actually defined what the different ROFs meant. "Standard" seems to mean the same thing as "Aimed, Burst, Wild" for some weapons, but meant something different for other weapons. In case where they mean the same thing, there was the question of why two different terms were used to describe the same rate of fire.
At one point, I came up with the theory that "Aimed, Burst, Wild" might have been intended to indicate that the weapon used the Machine Gun burst/spray tables instead of the standard tables, but I never found out if that was probable.
Anyway, there was a LOT of argument and discussion over it, and the majority of the posters on the forums seemed to be under the impression that the burst/spray rules were only intended for SDC weapons like assault rifles, NOT for MD energy weapons.
Or that it applied to MD energy rifles, but not to MD energy pistols.
Or that it applied to ROF: Aimed, Burst, Wild, but not to ROF: Standard.

And they believed this even though Kevin spent page after page clarifying things to an unprecedented degree in CB1, including a sample combat where a CS Grunt fires a short burst from his C-18 Laser Pistol.
Really, the only thing that Kevin didn't do to elaborate was to actually define the different ROF terms... but it was pretty darned clear how things worked after that point. People just didn't read it, or didn't listen, or something.
SO I think that a lot of the reason for the change was simply because Kevin got tired of trying to explain to fans how the rules worked.

In fact, over the life of Palladium Books' different game lines, there has been a long trend of simplifying things and dumbing them down compared to how they used to be.
Their initial games were pretty simple and sparse. Then they got more complex and detailed, with TMNT, N&S, HU, etc.
But since then, they've been simplifying things.
TMNT, for example, originally had rules (iirc) where your ROF with a firearm increased as you leveled up, but that got dropped in favor of the "you get to shoot once for each melee action" rules and the burst/spray rules.
Which then got toned down in CB1, then toned down more in the RGMG, then apparently eliminated in favor of the "each weapon will tell you what to do" rules that we had as of RUE.

Likewise, many skills, combat rules, and other game elements have been simplified over time, made less complicated, probably due to customer complaint.
Of course, at the same time, Palladium keeps introducing NEW rules that make things more complicated.
So the left hand and the right hand seem to be arm-wrestling.

Old Style ROF rules needed an overhaul anyway, honestly. They were absurdly fatal in the 'infantry scale' Rifts game, and allowed people playing 'infantry scale' characters to believe they had some reason to be engaged in combat with power armor troops and should expect to win.

Unfortunately, ill agree with most of you that the overhaul that was made was.. counter-intuitive and didn't come with a statement of how to properly adapt the old gun stats.

Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:Old Style ROF rules needed an overhaul anyway, honestly. They were absurdly fatal in the 'infantry scale' Rifts game, and allowed people playing 'infantry scale' characters to believe they had some reason to be engaged in combat with power armor troops and should expect to win.

The line between "infantry" and "power armor" is a little blurry in Rifts. Even though my Temporal Wizards are reluctant to enter combat with anyone, they can usually handle a single power armor unit one on one without much trouble.

--flatline

flatline wrote:

Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:Old Style ROF rules needed an overhaul anyway, honestly. They were absurdly fatal in the 'infantry scale' Rifts game, and allowed people playing 'infantry scale' characters to believe they had some reason to be engaged in combat with power armor troops and should expect to win.

The line between "infantry" and "power armor" is a little blurry in Rifts. Even though my Temporal Wizards are reluctant to enter combat with anyone, they can usually handle a single power armor unit one on one without much trouble.

--flatline

THe magic users are the only thing blurring it. They start out decidedly sub-par compared to other infantry scale OCCs, but by about 5th level are on par with Power Armor (provided they want to spend the PPE to do so for the 3-5 minutes at a time they can pull it off) in terms of survivability at the very least and potentially offensively as well.

I'd love to see a lighter version of the rules that makes the game go a lot faster. I appreciate the idea of an active defense (thanks a frickin' lot KC! ) and that makes superfast combat harder, but I think it can still be done.

/Sub

Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:

flatline wrote:

Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:Old Style ROF rules needed an overhaul anyway, honestly. They were absurdly fatal in the 'infantry scale' Rifts game, and allowed people playing 'infantry scale' characters to believe they had some reason to be engaged in combat with power armor troops and should expect to win.

The line between "infantry" and "power armor" is a little blurry in Rifts. Even though my Temporal Wizards are reluctant to enter combat with anyone, they can usually handle a single power armor unit one on one without much trouble.

--flatline

THe magic users are the only thing blurring it. They start out decidedly sub-par compared to other infantry scale OCCs, but by about 5th level are on par with Power Armor (provided they want to spend the PPE to do so for the 3-5 minutes at a time they can pull it off) in terms of survivability at the very least and potentially offensively as well.

Only the magic users. And the psychics. And the super powered. And the mystic martial artists. And the creatures with unusual natural abilities.

I'm quite certain there are power categories that I missed...

--flatline

flatline wrote:

Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:

flatline wrote:

Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:Old Style ROF rules needed an overhaul anyway, honestly. They were absurdly fatal in the 'infantry scale' Rifts game, and allowed people playing 'infantry scale' characters to believe they had some reason to be engaged in combat with power armor troops and should expect to win.

The line between "infantry" and "power armor" is a little blurry in Rifts. Even though my Temporal Wizards are reluctant to enter combat with anyone, they can usually handle a single power armor unit one on one without much trouble.

--flatline

THe magic users are the only thing blurring it. They start out decidedly sub-par compared to other infantry scale OCCs, but by about 5th level are on par with Power Armor (provided they want to spend the PPE to do so for the 3-5 minutes at a time they can pull it off) in terms of survivability at the very least and potentially offensively as well.

Only the magic users. And the psychics. And the super powered. And the mystic martial artists. And the creatures with unusual natural abilities.

I'm quite certain there are power categories that I missed...

--flatline

Unless Super Powers have been officially added to Rifts as a default OCC/RCC choice, i'd never include them, because they screw up everything, and all of the Psychic OCCs i have available are nowhere near as powerful as the magic users.

That being said, the scale (infantry, PA, Robot/Tank) isn't determined by size, but rather by where your inherent capability tops out. (Infantry-scale campaigns, the best you're ever going to do is infantry stuff - armor, maybe a Naruni shield; "doods on foot" basically. If your OCC starts with you being as tough and capable as a suit of power armor, you're in a bigger scale to start.

Yes, i know its rather an abstract concept, but If you start the game with as much MDC capacity as a medium power armor and comparable damage-dealing avenues, you're a PA-scale character. There are exceptions in every category, especially given the latent power creep (early Robots probably didnt deserve being in a separate scale, given that they barely had any more MDC or damage dealing capacity than decent PA) - a Dragon, for instance, is to me a strictly infantry-scale character. While they certainly have more MDC than almost any other infantry-scale character, they pay for that with a direct tradeoff in damage-dealing capability (they dont hit very hard); while a full conversion Borg is firmly in the PA-scale given that he has as much more MDC as a good PA suit and can carry PA-scale weapons.

Maybe there are some psychic classes im not aware of (ive been away from Palladium for some time and dont own a lot of the very recent books) but none of them blur the scale like mages - their power scales up quite a bit more spiky than psychics and the top out is quite a bit higher.

Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:

flatline wrote:Only the magic users. And the psychics. And the super powered. And the mystic martial artists. And the creatures with unusual natural abilities.

I'm quite certain there are power categories that I missed...

--flatline

Unless Super Powers have been officially added to Rifts as a default OCC/RCC choice, i'd never include them, because they screw up everything, and all of the Psychic OCCs i have available are nowhere near as powerful as the magic users.

Super-powers already exist in the campaign, the various natural abilities and powers of a number of species constitute super-powers. Like the super-regeneration of many supernatural creatures, or their Supernatural PS. There aren't going to be many if any super-powers as shown in the HU powers list that aren't already exhibited to a similar or superior degree by something in the Rifts collection of beings.

Nightmask wrote:

Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:

flatline wrote:Only the magic users. And the psychics. And the super powered. And the mystic martial artists. And the creatures with unusual natural abilities.

I'm quite certain there are power categories that I missed...

--flatline

Unless Super Powers have been officially added to Rifts as a default OCC/RCC choice, i'd never include them, because they screw up everything, and all of the Psychic OCCs i have available are nowhere near as powerful as the magic users.

Super-powers already exist in the campaign, the various natural abilities and powers of a number of species constitute super-powers. Like the super-regeneration of many supernatural creatures, or their Supernatural PS. There aren't going to be many if any super-powers as shown in the HU powers list that aren't already exhibited to a similar or superior degree by something in the Rifts collection of beings.

Ive never seen anything on Rifts Earth that flies at Mach 1+, has 1200+MDC, and punches for 2d6x10, 'just cause, that isnt something so powerful that im not even sure why Stats were included (Adult Dragons, for instance).

They certainly aren't playable as PCs, that's for sure. Some Rifts Earth stuff might have one of those things and still be playable (though nothing springs immediately to mind), but not all three.

Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:

Nightmask wrote:

Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:

flatline wrote:Only the magic users. And the psychics. And the super powered. And the mystic martial artists. And the creatures with unusual natural abilities.

I'm quite certain there are power categories that I missed...

--flatline

Unless Super Powers have been officially added to Rifts as a default OCC/RCC choice, i'd never include them, because they screw up everything, and all of the Psychic OCCs i have available are nowhere near as powerful as the magic users.

Super-powers already exist in the campaign, the various natural abilities and powers of a number of species constitute super-powers. Like the super-regeneration of many supernatural creatures, or their Supernatural PS. There aren't going to be many if any super-powers as shown in the HU powers list that aren't already exhibited to a similar or superior degree by something in the Rifts collection of beings.

Ive never seen anything on Rifts Earth that flies at Mach 1+, has 1200+MDC, and punches for 2d6x10, 'just cause, that isnt something so powerful that im not even sure why Stats were included (Adult Dragons, for instance).

They certainly aren't playable as PCs, that's for sure. Some Rifts Earth stuff might have one of those things and still be playable (though nothing springs immediately to mind), but not all three.

That's not a certainty, that's a feeling. What can and cannot fit within a game as a PC (or NPC for that matter) depends purely upon the campaign, the GM's skill, and whether or not the player plays it in a fashion where it proves problematic.

Nightmask wrote:What can and cannot fit within a game as a PC (or NPC for that matter) depends purely upon the campaign, the GM's skill, and whether or not the player plays it in a fashion where it proves problematic.

Yup.

Ninjabunny wrote:Technically speak cosmo-knights and The guardsmen are from the 3 galaxies not Rifts Earth.

A person from Rifts Earth can become either.

/Sub

heres the thing I had a porblem with.. I think we should rember with burists is not all the rounds are going to hit.... in fact your only likely to score one or 2 heats on the target.. lasers of course beeing an exption becouse they dont have a recoile and some assulte irfles can put a hole burst in a grouping the size of my hand.. so I tend to hand it on a basices by bases case...... so yeah fireing a 12 rounds form an mg and scoreing two hits.... thats resable.... mabye a little generise..... but with an AR type assult rifle in burst fire which fires 3 rounds.... I might go with damage X 3.... where as an ak that has a 4 round burst is less accurate and has more recoile then the AR, she to burst (4 yourds) I would go with Damage X 2...


Lasers I would porbly handled the same way as the AR becouse as kevan has sead no recoile. so the barel only moves with your breath and heart beat

tmikesecrist3 wrote:Lasers I would porbly handled the same way as the AR becouse as kevan has sead no recoile. so the barel only moves with your breath and heart beat

Rifts lasers are just dumb rifles, but a real laser could totally cancel out your heartbeat or breathing by adjusting the objective lens.

--flatline

real military grade lasers aren't silent, either, but in Rifts they are, so....

there not? I mean I know lasers would more think lickly be invisable....... in the x or gama range........ but PB lasers are not invisable eather

tmikesecrist3 wrote:there not? I mean I know lasers would more think lickly be invisable....... in the x or gama range........ but PB lasers are not invisable eather

They are noted in RUE and the GMG as being both invisible and silent.

And no, modern military grade lasers aren't silent - they actually atomize the air as they travel through it. In the aftermath of the beam, the air rushing in to fill the vacuum produces a very audible "crack!" sound, almost like a tiny thunderclap.

I didn't realize that, either, till i caught an episode of Futureweapons on the Military channel where they were demonstrating a US Army air defense laser prototype. It wasnt unbearably loud - probably no louder than a gunshot - but it was definitely NOT silent. It did, however, shoot down a nuclear-warhead armed missile. (The tests were being conducted to see if using the laser to shoot them down would cause the warhead material to break up and scatter - it didn't)

Military grade lasers dont magically cut and cauterize, either. They heat most solids instantly to gas, causing minor explosions and ruptures in the structure of an item. Against flesh, they'd flash-cook you and you'd explode, to put it plainly. It wold be almost like getting hit with an explosive bullet. Against steel, it actually causes ruptures and deformation in the structure as it sublimates the outer layers directly to gas.

for an example of what im talking about, (though not performed with a laser in this case) watch the clip from Mythbusters where they use thermite to make ice blocks literally explode. It's the same process.

oh I know the heat of a combat laser is to high you learn that reading Honor Harrington where they talk about how in there day most laymen think in terms of med lasers that cut and cauterize. the Energy transfer is much to high... Talk about stopping power....... and you more then likely would not have to worry about over penetration of a target. like you do with many fire arms... where the bullet goes throw the target to strike some one or something else on the other side of the target... you still have to worry about stay shots though