picking a class with lower than the required attributes

[Daeglan]

I cant actually find a ruling on this, but is it possible to play a class you dont have the attribute requirements for, but then use skills to boost them to the minimum?

One of the flaws of the system. You should be picking class then rolling. As for example True Atlanteans used different numbers of dice.

This is one of those it is up to your GM what happens. Not like Kevin is going to beat you with a ruler for doing something different.

[flatline]

Just raise the required attribute to the minimum required by the class. I'm not aware of any class that required attributes high enough to get bonuses, so raising, for instance, PE from 9 to 12 in order to be a Temporal Wizard is a non-issue in my opinion. The 3 extra HP and 3 PPE isn't going to unbalance the game in the least.

--flatline

[Alrik Vas]

...Temporal Wizard...
--flatline

I see your posts and just look for where you say Temporal Wizard now.

[flatline]

...Temporal Wizard...
--flatline

I see your posts and just look for where you say Temporal Wizard now.

It's the only class that I know an attribute requirement for off the top of my head.

But your point still stands.

--flatline

[Pepsi Jedi]

While I wouldn't touch a temporal wizard with a 20 foot cattle prod.

I actually fully agree with Flatline on this one. Just raise the attribute to the required minimum. Easiest all around, and as he pointed out. It's not going to make much if any difference long run, and you get to play what you want to play.


That being said, if you're like a butter troll or something, don't choose the prostitute class and up your app to that minimum. Use some common sense.

[Kagashi]

Just raise the required attribute to the minimum required by the class. I'm not aware of any class that required attributes high enough to get bonuses, so raising, for instance, PE from 9 to 12 in order to be a Temporal Wizard is a non-issue in my opinion. The 3 extra HP and 3 PPE isn't going to unbalance the game in the least.

--flatline

I allow this as well. If the guy had his heart set on playing a Temporal Wizard and rolled a 9, Id allow him to just raise to the minimum.

Its not like Palladium thought through any attribute under 15 anyway, so raising to 12 is irrelevant to the overall impact of the game.

[Alrik Vas]

Its not like Palladium thought through any attribute under 15 anyway.

I still cry about this.

[Nekira Sudacne]

I cant actually find a ruling on this, but is it possible to play a class you dont have the attribute requirements for, but then use skills to boost them to the minimum?

No, it isn't unless the GM decided to let you anyway. the minimum attribute requirements are just that. if you don't meet the minimum you have to play something else.

This is precicely why juicer-crazy-cyborg modifications are a huge deal-in setting. There are a lot of people who want to be powerful and special and don't qualify for any of the cool classes that are because they just arn't good enough. so they take the shortcut. I imagine juicer ranks are full of people who wanted to be robot pilots or gunslingers or battle magus's and just didn't make the cut.

[Mack]

I'd allow one of two things (or both if it's really needed):
1) Swap the attribute score with another one.
2) Plus up the low score, but subtract the same amount from one or more others.

Players get to choose practically everything about their characters, I see no reason for them not to be able to influence the attributes as well. (Notice I said 'influence' not 'pick all 30s across the board.')

[flatline]

I'd allow one of two things (or both if it's really needed):
1) Swap the attribute score with another one.
2) Plus up the low score, but subtract the same amount from one or more others.

Players get to choose practically everything about their characters, I see no reason for them not to be able to influence the attributes as well. (Notice I said 'influence' not 'pick all 30s across the board.')

I knew a group where all the PCs had improbably high stats even though the players swore up and down that they were rolled legit. The players were good players and everyone had a great time, but it still bothered the GM. I told him not to worry about it because except for PP (and PS, if supernatural), stats impact a Rifts game very little.

To prove my point, when I had a chance to play with them, I brought in a character with straight 10's for attributes (except where the OCC minimums required a higher value) and things went just fine.

--flatline

[Alrik Vas]

I knew a group where all the PCs had improbably high stats even though the players swore up and down that they were rolled legit. The players were good players and everyone had a great time, but it still bothered the GM. I told him not to worry about it because except for PP (and PS, if supernatural), stats impact a Rifts game very little.

To prove my point, when I had a chance to play with them, I brought in a character with straight 10's for attributes (except where the OCC minimums required a higher value) and things went just fine.

--flatline

I think you'd have to admit, sir, that it has a great deal to do with your play style and class choices over the mechanics that pertain to other classes and play styles. I only say so because i assume you played a spell caster or one sort or another. They especially don't really benefit from obscene stats (though they do gain the same benefits as everyone else from them, they just don't impact their specialty because using magic isn't based off stats for the most part).

[Grell]

I let the player bump them up, but only if they rolled for each attribute as opposed to placing them where they want. With the penalties and compensation for attributes less than 7, I would naturally wait to see which attributes (if any) get a bump. In my experience, play style always makes up for low numbers and then some.

[flatline]

I knew a group where all the PCs had improbably high stats even though the players swore up and down that they were rolled legit. The players were good players and everyone had a great time, but it still bothered the GM. I told him not to worry about it because except for PP (and PS, if supernatural), stats impact a Rifts game very little.

To prove my point, when I had a chance to play with them, I brought in a character with straight 10's for attributes (except where the OCC minimums required a higher value) and things went just fine.

--flatline

I think you'd have to admit, sir, that it has a great deal to do with your play style and class choices over the mechanics that pertain to other classes and play styles. I only say so because i assume you played a spell caster or one sort or another. They especially don't really benefit from obscene stats (though they do gain the same benefits as everyone else from them, they just don't impact their specialty because using magic isn't based off stats for the most part).

I don't disagree with anything you've said here, but I would like to point out that it's poor form to bring in a game changing OCC (one that dramatically changes the abilities of the party) when you're a guest in another group's game. In this case, I asked the GM what kind of OCCs were appropriate to the campaign and he suggested that a Wilderness Scout would be easy to bring into the group for a night and then easy to remove or make an NPC.

Besides, magic users are campaign characters, not one-off characters.

I once tried the same trick in the Westend Starwars game. Made every stat 3d6...went horribly.

I would never even dream of doing something like that in a WhiteWolf or GURPS game. Characters are built around their stats in those systems.

--flatline

[drewkitty ~..~]

I cant actually find a ruling on this, but is it possible to play a class you don't have the attribute requirements for, but then use skills to boost them to the minimum?

As per canon the answer is simple.

No, the char can not have a class that they do not meet the minimum requirements.

As for example True Atlanteans used different numbers of dice.

TA's are a race not a class. So it is a bad idea using as an example of a class.

Just raise the required attribute to the minimum required by the class. I'm not aware of any class that required attributes high enough to get bonuses, so raising, for instance, PE from 9 to 12 in order to be a Temporal Wizard is a non-issue in my opinion. The 3 extra HP and 3 PPE isn't going to unbalance the game in the least.

--flatline

Speaking non-canon.
What flatline suggested and assigning attribute roll to which attribute are practical ways to mod the rolls to fit the minimum requirements of a class.

[Giant2005]

I cant actually find a ruling on this, but is it possible to play a class you don't have the attribute requirements for, but then use skills to boost them to the minimum?

As per canon the answer is simple.

No, the char can not have a class that they do not meet the minimum requirements.

This is very true, although there are always exceptions to the rule. Such as the Greot Hunter that can be Cyberknights as per their description, even though it is impossible for them to meet the minimum Mental Endurance requirement of 11 with a score of 1D6+3.

[drewkitty ~..~]

I cant actually find a ruling on this, but is it possible to play a class you don't have the attribute requirements for, but then use skills to boost them to the minimum?

As per canon the answer is simple.

No, the char can not have a class that they do not meet the minimum requirements.

This is very true, although there are always exceptions to the rule. Such as the Greot Hunter that can be Cyberknights as per their description, even though it is impossible for them to meet the minimum Mental Endurance requirement of 11 with a score of 1D6+3.

And that is a specific exception that does not change the rules.

I do hate it when people take the text that are "About a Specific Item" or "an Exception to the Rules" to try to make that text say/imply that the the rest of canon is wrong.

The Greot Hunter would be one of those "Exceptions that prove the Rule.", because they had to specifically state that there is that exception.

[Giant2005]

I cant actually find a ruling on this, but is it possible to play a class you don't have the attribute requirements for, but then use skills to boost them to the minimum?

As per canon the answer is simple.

No, the char can not have a class that they do not meet the minimum requirements.

This is very true, although there are always exceptions to the rule. Such as the Greot Hunter that can be Cyberknights as per their description, even though it is impossible for them to meet the minimum Mental Endurance requirement of 11 with a score of 1D6+3.

And that is a specific exception that does not change the rules.

I do hate it when people take the text that are "About a Specific Item" or "an Exception to the Rules" to try to make that text say/imply that the the rest of canon is wrong.

The Greot Hunter would be one of those "Exceptions that prove the Rule.", because they had to specifically state that there is that exception.

Not sure why you felt the need to use a "roll your eyes" emote and speak in such a condescending manner considering I agreed with your answer.

[ShadowLogan]

I cant actually find a ruling on this, but is it possible to play a class you don't have the attribute requirements for, but then use skills to boost them to the minimum?

As per canon the answer is simple.

No, the char can not have a class that they do not meet the minimum requirements.

This is very true, although there are always exceptions to the rule. Such as the Greot Hunter that can be Cyberknights as per their description, even though it is impossible for them to meet the minimum Mental Endurance requirement of 11 with a score of 1D6+3.

Not necessarily about the Greot Hunter. The Cyber-Knight OCC does receive +1d4 bonus to several attributes (ME included). Which depending on how the bonuses/min. requirements work (or interpreted to), may be factored into determining if one can be a Cyber-Knight.

A case could be made based on the Juicer/Crazy OCCs that give attribute bonuses and require a certain minimum result AFTER the OCC bonuses as a model for other OCCs as they say if the requirement AFTER bonuses are not meet to raise them to the minimum score (RUE pg55 for Crazy PS and PP "if lower, adjust up to...". Neither Crazy/Juicer have attribute requirements to be in the OCC, but once in the OCC they have to meet minimum results. Which may be how the other OCC Class bonuses to attributes work in relation to attribute requirements.

I cant actually find a ruling on this, but is it possible to play a class you dont have the attribute requirements for, but then use skills to boost them to the minimum?

Rifts Ultimate Edition pg299. "Note: G.M.s may allow a player who is close to meeting the minimum physical attribute requirements (one or two points off) to take the OCC on the condition that the character selects a Physical skill that will boost his attribute to meet or exceed the minimum requirement."-Second Column, in paragraph that starts out in bold "O.C.C. Attribute Requirements".

Though as the Juicer and Crazy OCC show, one could count the Minimum AFTER OCC and/or Raise it if it is still short.

[Giant2005]

A case could be made based on the Juicer/Crazy OCCs that give attribute bonuses and require a certain minimum result AFTER the OCC bonuses as a model for other OCCs as they say if the requirement AFTER bonuses are not meet to raise them to the minimum score (RUE pg55 for Crazy PS and PP "if lower, adjust up to...". Neither Crazy/Juicer have attribute requirements to be in the OCC, but once in the OCC they have to meet minimum results. Which may be how the other OCC Class bonuses to attributes work in relation to attribute requirements.

A case could be made that way but I don't think I personally could agree with it. That M.E. bonus from the CK is part of their training, if the minimum requirements for the OCC didn't have to be met until after the training had been completed, it just wouldn't make sense to me. If that Greot still didn't roll high enough on his ME but had finished his training, I can't imagine the Cyber-Knights saying "Sorry Mr Greot, you trained hard but you aren't quite up to the Cyber-Knight standard... At least we taught you how to do the whole Psi-Sword thing though right? Go out and have some fun with that thing and make your time here worth something."

[Nightmask]

A case could be made based on the Juicer/Crazy OCCs that give attribute bonuses and require a certain minimum result AFTER the OCC bonuses as a model for other OCCs as they say if the requirement AFTER bonuses are not meet to raise them to the minimum score (RUE pg55 for Crazy PS and PP "if lower, adjust up to...". Neither Crazy/Juicer have attribute requirements to be in the OCC, but once in the OCC they have to meet minimum results. Which may be how the other OCC Class bonuses to attributes work in relation to attribute requirements.

A case could be made that way but I don't think I personally could agree with it. That M.E. bonus from the CK is part of their training, if the minimum requirements for the OCC didn't have to be met until after the training had been completed, it just wouldn't make sense to me. If that Greot still didn't roll high enough on his ME but had finished his training, I can't imagine the Cyber-Knights saying "Sorry Mr Greot, you trained hard but you aren't quite up to the Cyber-Knight standard... At least we taught you how to do the whole Psi-Sword thing though right? Go out and have some fun with that thing and make your time here worth something."

Except the argument can be made that while he completed the training he failed to manifest the appropriate abilities (including the Psi-Sword), as he failed even with training to meet the minimum requirements and washed out. So he got some nice skills and the cyber-armor but didn't become an actual Cyber-Knight as he didn't even with the training push his ME to where he could qualify.

[Shark_Force]

I knew a group where all the PCs had improbably high stats even though the players swore up and down that they were rolled legit. The players were good players and everyone had a great time, but it still bothered the GM. I told him not to worry about it because except for PP (and PS, if supernatural), stats impact a Rifts game very little.

To prove my point, when I had a chance to play with them, I brought in a character with straight 10's for attributes (except where the OCC minimums required a higher value) and things went just fine.

--flatline

I think you'd have to admit, sir, that it has a great deal to do with your play style and class choices over the mechanics that pertain to other classes and play styles. I only say so because i assume you played a spell caster or one sort or another. They especially don't really benefit from obscene stats (though they do gain the same benefits as everyone else from them, they just don't impact their specialty because using magic isn't based off stats for the most part).

eh, not really. as a rule, most of the attributes really don't make a huge difference. oh, high stats can be handy, from time to time, but the difference between a guy with PE 30 and a guy with PE 9 is generally not a very significant one.

most of the time i wouldn't even say supernatural PS is a big deal; the simple fact is, unless you have something up in the 50s or thereabouts, you can get similar amounts of damage from using various reasonably common weapons. i mean, sure, the supernatural PS guy gets unlimited ammo (but also has to use melee), but that's pretty much the only benefit he's getting from it.

for PP, it usually only matters for defence as well (bearing in mind that it only helps melee strike bonus, not your bonus with ranged weapons). and even that can be worked around, since spending all your actions on defence is not a desirable situation (though sometimes necessary, unless you like getting your armour and yourself turned into swiss cheese).

most of the time, there really isn't a huge difference. that has it's upsides (in that you don't need good rolls to make an effective character), but it also has it's downsides (in that exceptionally gifted characters often don't have stats that reflect just how exceptional they are).

[Tor]

Its not like Palladium thought through any attribute under 15 anyway, so raising to 12 is irrelevant to the overall impact of the game.

Is this taking into account the new penalties (and some odd benefits) for attributes 7 and lower (or 8 for IQ, 6 for Spd) introduced in RUE on page 281?

It would be nice if it mattered whether you had an attribute of 9 or 15 though, since they function the same. A system of scaling benefits where every point made a different would be the best.

TA's are a race not a class. So it is a bad idea using as an example of a class.

TAs are listed as an RCC so... they're a class

[drewkitty ~..~]

Not sure why you felt the need to use a "roll your eyes" emote and speak in such a condescending manner considering I agreed with your answer.

Because there are people here who try to stand "The Exception" up as "The Rule". It trends that I end up trying to dissuade their munchkin thinking. And they open up like you did, to get that foot in the door trying to open it up
-----------------
The char needs to meet the min. req. of the class before receiving bonuses/abilities from the class.

[Pepsi Jedi]

Because there are people here who try to stand "The Exception" up as "The Rule". It trends that I end up trying to dissuade their munchkin thinking. Which is 'the why'.
-----------------
The char needs to meet the min. req. of the class before receiving bonuses/abilities from the class.

So if they don't have the proper attributes, they throw that sheet of paper away and roll till they get the right combo.

Or you just let them bump a stat or two up.

You're not locked into one roll, done for life. This is a hobby.

*Shrugs* I've never had a GM that's like 'YOU GET ONE ROLL AT ATTRIBUTES!! IF THEY SUCK, YOU'RE SOL!! DEAL WITH IT AND PLAY A CRAPPY CLASS!!'.
I'm sure Gm's like that exist. I just have never played with jerks like that.

[drewkitty ~..~]

Why is there even a quote, PJ? Since it does not appear to me that you are responding to what was quoted.

[eliakon]

Why is there even a quote, PJ? Since it does not appear to me that you are responding to what was quoted.

Because he is saying 'if you don't have the stats on THIS roll set to meet the class requirements, your not locked into those numbers, just set them aside, and roll up ANOTHER set of stats, if those work great your in business, if not, then roll AGAIN, keep rolling up new sets of stats, till one of the sets is able to meet your perquisites. Great, now make the character you desire.

[Nightmask]

Because there are people here who try to stand "The Exception" up as "The Rule". It trends that I end up trying to dissuade their munchkin thinking. And they open up like you did, to get that foot in the door trying to open it up
-----------------
The char needs to meet the min. req. of the class before receiving bonuses/abilities from the class.

Yes cause i really look forward to playing a vagabond for the 13th time cause even a cowboy requires a 10 and a roll with a 12. Nope wait im just gonna power game and not play a human and pick something that either gets massive stat bonuses like an atlantean or an rcc like a dragon.

I might want to play a gunslinger once in my life but the less than 2% chance makes that seem unlikely.

So much for your theory, i prefer not to punish my players for wanting to play humans.

Unfortunately some think everything's munchkin to the point that they can't even recognize that there's nothing munchkin, twinkish, or power-gaming about wanting to play a character they want to play and just wanting to be able to meet the minimums required to play it when straight 3d6 gives very poor odds of pulling that off.

No one should have to settle for a character they don't want because they're rigidly held to the dice rolls when the class is acceptable otherwise. As others have noted it's not like the stats matter in general since you don't even start seeing benefits from them until at least 16 from a mechanics perspective. 5 or 15 it does nothing in game.

[flatline]

Out of curiosity, what class has the highest attribute requirements?

--flatline

[Alrik Vas]

PF Palladin's need a lot of stats at certain numbers IIRC, but none of the numbers are significantly high.

I'd guess that Paratroopers need silly stats (considering how silly i hear they are), but I've never actually looked at the class before.

[drewkitty ~..~]

Why is there even a quote, PJ? Since it does not appear to me that you are responding to what was quoted.

Because he is saying 'if you don't have the stats on THIS roll set to meet the class requirements, your not locked into those numbers, just set them aside, and roll up ANOTHER set of stats, if those work great your in business, if not, then roll AGAIN, keep rolling up new sets of stats, till one of the sets is able to meet your perquisites. Great, now make the character you desire.

You just stated what he said...not making a suggestion why he quoted me to say something that was not the subject of what he quoted, even if the posted text was on topic for the topic as a whole.

[drewkitty ~..~]

Because there are people here who try to stand "The Exception" up as "The Rule". It trends that I end up trying to dissuade their munchkin thinking. And they open up like you did, to get that foot in the door trying to open it up
-----------------
The char needs to meet the min. req. of the class before receiving bonuses/abilities from the class.

Yes cause i really look forward to playing a vagabond for the 13th time cause even a cowboy requires a 10 and a roll with a 12. Nope wait im just gonna power game and not play a human and pick something that either gets massive stat bonuses like an atlantean or an rcc like a dragon.

I might want to play a gunslinger once in my life but the less than 2% chance makes that seem unlikely.

So much for your theory, i prefer not to punish my players for wanting to play humans.

Again, someone quotes me and does not post anything related to what they quoted.

[Pepsi Jedi]

Why is there even a quote, PJ? Since it does not appear to me that you are responding to what was quoted.

Because he is saying 'if you don't have the stats on THIS roll set to meet the class requirements, your not locked into those numbers, just set them aside, and roll up ANOTHER set of stats, if those work great your in business, if not, then roll AGAIN, keep rolling up new sets of stats, till one of the sets is able to meet your perquisites. Great, now make the character you desire.

You just stated what he said...not making a suggestion why he quoted me to say something that was not the subject of what he quoted, even if the posted text was on topic for the topic as a whole.

Your post indicated a hardline about attribute requirements and "The char needs to meet the min. req. of the class before receiving bonuses/abilities from the class."

My point was we're playing the game to have fun, and if you're going to be so 'hardline as to say "hey your stats are fine except your too low on PE, and no I'm not going to let you up it. Pick something else"

Most people will just go "Ok. Then, I'm trashing these attributes and rolling again" and if they're low on one attribute requirement, they'll go again and again.

If I sit down and want to play a Cyberknight in the game, and the 'GM' is so hardline that he won't let me adjust an attribute up to minimum, or ignore the requirements, then I can just re-roll till I get it. Might take a while but It'll happen.

Only a jerk would go "You get one roll, period, You're stuck 100% with what you roll. I don't care if you end up with an IQ of 30"

So the point of being hardline about Attribute requirements is more or less useless as the player will just reroll till they have what they need. So if they're going to reroll till they get what they need, why not save everyone time and just up the attribute to the minimum and continue with the 20 minutes to an hour needed to make a character?

[Tor]

the Greot Hunter that can be Cyberknights as per their description, even though it is impossible for them to meet the minimum Mental Endurance requirement of 11 with a score of 1D6+3.

And that is a specific exception that does not change the rules.

Since no exception is mentioned, we shouldn't assume there is one.

We need only find a means by which it can occur. This could require some looking. I was about to argue 'perhaps they're from Psyscape' but those guys have boosted MA. It's the CS' Psi-Division training that does ME, and even then only 1 point.

http://www.palladium-megaverse.com/ques ... ombat.html only applies bonuses to 2d6 or 3d6 so that's no help...

I guess there's always the chance that Greots might have random super-abilities ala CB1, but then they can't have psionics. Of course, not having psionics never stopped a cyber-knight...

Could someone tell me where we're getting this 'Greots can be CKs' thing? I'm looking at Rifts Canada Pg 135 and it's not among their OCC, nor are Greots mentioned in the racial breakdown of CKs on SoT4pg23. Is this something added in D-bees of North America, or maybe some kinda Greot CK NPC? I don't want to go to too extreme a brainstorm without knowing the limitations I'm working within here.

I do hate it when people take the text that are "About a Specific Item" or "an Exception to the Rules" to try to make that text say/imply that the the rest of canon is wrong.

Exceptions to rules simply mean that a certain rule formerly thought to be absolute can have exceptions to it, not that it doesn't apply to those lacking exceptions.

The Greot Hunter would be one of those "Exceptions that prove the Rule.", because they had to specifically state that there is that exception.

I do hate it when people use that phrase. Exceptions don't prove rules, that's nonsense. Especially if we're talking about a situation that may not even be an exception. There are ways out there besides OCCs to boost ME. Not to mention someone could've used a previous OCC to boost it before becoming a Cyber-Knight. Greots had a limited OCC list in Canada but if CKs got added now I'm not sure what else might've been added.

people here who try to stand "The Exception" up as "The Rule". It trends that I end up trying to dissuade their munchkin thinking.

Munchkin thinking is an entirely different topic, let's not derail the thread here.

Could you link to a post that tries to present an exception to trends as an absolute deconstruction of a rule?

[Giant2005]

Could someone tell me where we're getting this 'Greots can be CKs' thing? I'm looking at Rifts Canada Pg 135 and it's not among their OCC, nor are Greots mentioned in the racial breakdown of CKs on SoT4pg23. Is this something added in D-bees of North America, or maybe some kinda Greot CK NPC? I don't want to go to too extreme a brainstorm without knowing the limitations I'm working within here.

It is in their O.C.C. list in DBoNA.

[Mack]

I cant actually find a ruling on this, but is it possible to play a class you dont have the attribute requirements for, but then use skills to boost them to the minimum?

Assuming the character is just a few points shy, another solution would be to allow the character to proceed and the player uses it as part of the backstory.

I was never as strong as the other recruits and had trouble pulling my weight sometimes, but Instructor Bob said I had heart and that was enough in his eyes...

[taalismn]

It all comes down to GM tolerance and style, but in game-reality where the players are learning their OCC from a mentor or school, it would come down to the mentor dismissing a sub-par student as 'not having what it takes' for a particular discipline, or the student/cadet flunking out because they keep tripping over their own feet or failing to pass the physical..."Listen up...a career in the CS military might not be suitable for you, Wimpass, but there's always begging on the streets!"

[Eashamahel]

I have many times played games where everyone rolls their stats, then chooses an OCC appropriate to their rolls. It's a good system, works better with people who are used to the system and just want to play a random game. It is NOT a good system for people who are just starting out, to hand them a game of 'infinite possibilities' with dozens of books of possible choices for characters, and say 'but you won't be able to be +/-80% of these because you won't roll FAR ENOUGH above average...'

Roll your stats, choose your OCC, bump up any required minimums, have fun. The attribute system in Palladium is ridiculous to start with.

[ShadowLogan]

A case could be made based on the Juicer/Crazy OCCs that give attribute bonuses and require a certain minimum result AFTER the OCC bonuses as a model for other OCCs as they say if the requirement AFTER bonuses are not meet to raise them to the minimum score (RUE pg55 for Crazy PS and PP "if lower, adjust up to...". Neither Crazy/Juicer have attribute requirements to be in the OCC, but once in the OCC they have to meet minimum results. Which may be how the other OCC Class bonuses to attributes work in relation to attribute requirements.

A case could be made that way but I don't think I personally could agree with it. That M.E. bonus from the CK is part of their training, if the minimum requirements for the OCC didn't have to be met until after the training had been completed, it just wouldn't make sense to me. If that Greot still didn't roll high enough on his ME but had finished his training, I can't imagine the Cyber-Knights saying "Sorry Mr Greot, you trained hard but you aren't quite up to the Cyber-Knight standard... At least we taught you how to do the whole Psi-Sword thing though right? Go out and have some fun with that thing and make your time here worth something."

I guess there are a few ways to explain how the Greot can become a CK:
1. Bonus dice rolls exist on any attribute, regardless of the base # of dice to roll
2. As the rules state, you can allow the player to spend skills to increase an attribute if w/n 1 or 2 points to meet the requirement. Since MA/ME don't have any real official skills (off-hand), this rolls into #3 &/or #4, or have them spend skill slot(s) to raise it with specially crafted skills that don't matter otherwise (so don't need to be listed).
3. the attribute requirements are the minimum needed to graduate from the Classes training program, so their bonuses to attributes still apply, and not the minimum entry requirements to the class. (w/CK the ME and MA bonuses may be part of the result of forming the Psi-Sword in the first place)
4. The Greots have bio-wizard/genetic tweaking (possibly a few more options in this scope) of their stats granted to them to achieve the same result as #2 and done as part of their back-story.

[Damian Magecraft]

Because there are people here who try to stand "The Exception" up as "The Rule". It trends that I end up trying to dissuade their munchkin thinking. Which is 'the why'.
-----------------
The char needs to meet the min. req. of the class before receiving bonuses/abilities from the class.

So if they don't have the proper attributes, they throw that sheet of paper away and roll till they get the right combo.

Or you just let them bump a stat or two up.

You're not locked into one roll, done for life. This is a hobby.

*Shrugs* I've never had a GM that's like 'YOU GET ONE ROLL AT ATTRIBUTES!! IF THEY SUCK, YOU'RE SOL!! DEAL WITH IT AND PLAY A CRAPPY CLASS!!'.
I'm sure Gm's like that exist. I just have never played with jerks like that.

we are not jerks; we just have alternatives in place that do not require re-rolling the dice.

[kaid]

Ever since D&D I have always gone with the roll one set of attribute dice for each attribute and then put the numbers where you want them. Baring some EPICALLY bad rolling in which case a GM mulligan will likely be called it should be fine to play just about any class a person wants. The only ones this does not work for are RCC with differing attribute dice rolls and for those typically you won't have a minimum stat level necessary because it is racial based.


The great thing about the palladium system at least for physical skills if your player feels they are lacking in some area physically there are skills they can take that bolster those abilities. I usually look at the minimums only after all the skills are picked basically if you were a 90 pound weakling before trying to become a head hunter your butt got put through bootcamp to toughen you up to see if after training you could make the grade.

[kaid]

Out of curiosity, what class has the highest attribute requirements?

--flatline

Hehe this thread is making me wonder the same thing. Most OCC that I have been glancing at lately seem to need like 9-12 max for required stats and that is pretty darn reasonable. Hehe one option in rifts also if you don't match the physical levels needed potentially cybernetics/bionics could be used to boost it. Frankly I don't recall this ever being much of an issue in rifts its not like the old D&D 17 charisma for paladin deal if some player came up and asked me if he could bump his roll of a 6 or 7 to an 9-12 to meet the class requirements I don't think I would blink an eye at that. Its still not high enough to get any actual bonuses so game wise its impact is negligible.

[Nekira Sudacne]

So if they don't have the proper attributes, they throw that sheet of paper away and roll till they get the right combo.

That is what the rules say to do.

It's just a rarely followed rule.

That dosn't make bumping up attributes to minimum not a houserule.

[Nightmask]

So if they don't have the proper attributes, they throw that sheet of paper away and roll till they get the right combo.

That is what the rules say to do.

It's just a rarely followed rule.

That dosn't make bumping up attributes to minimum not a houserule.

That would be pretty aggravating considering how long it could take to reroll until you got numbers that would let you meet the requirements for a particular class you wanted, instead of simply raising your first set of rolls to the minimum where needed to get the class right then and there.

[Whiplash4731]

I normally house rule it, and bump the stats up to the minimum. The one time that I won't allow that is if the stats are low enough to fall under the "below average" category in RUE, 6 and under. At that point it's either re-roll or pick a different class.

[ShadowLogan]

Ever since D&D I have always gone with the roll one set of attribute dice for each attribute and then put the numbers where you want them.

Now the majority of the time for humans, there won't be an issue, but what do you do in the Palladium system when you are playing a race that has attributes that are not all the same dice to roll? Ex. Troglodytes get 2d6, 3d6, 4d6, and 6d6 dice rolls depending on the attribute.

[flatline]

I'm trying to remember if I've ever had a problem getting the minimum attributes required for something. Most GMs had house rules for attribute rolling that were more generous than canon, so it wasn't a common problem. I think at one point I wanted to make a Changeling Temporal Wizard and rather than trying to roll a 12 for PE, I'm pretty sure I just set the PE attribute to 12 (with the GM's blessing, of course).

--flatline

[Pepsi Jedi]

Because there are people here who try to stand "The Exception" up as "The Rule". It trends that I end up trying to dissuade their munchkin thinking. Which is 'the why'.
-----------------
The char needs to meet the min. req. of the class before receiving bonuses/abilities from the class.

So if they don't have the proper attributes, they throw that sheet of paper away and roll till they get the right combo.

Or you just let them bump a stat or two up.

You're not locked into one roll, done for life. This is a hobby.

*Shrugs* I've never had a GM that's like 'YOU GET ONE ROLL AT ATTRIBUTES!! IF THEY SUCK, YOU'RE SOL!! DEAL WITH IT AND PLAY A CRAPPY CLASS!!'.
I'm sure Gm's like that exist. I just have never played with jerks like that.

we are not jerks; we just have alternatives in place that do not require re-rolling the dice.

I'm not saying you are. I was pointing out I've never had a GM that was so strict that they'd lock you in to ---one attribute roll--- and outlaw all classes if you happened to get one bad roll. Or stick you with someone with an IQ of 30 and thus, legally considered a severe case of retardation, if you happened to roll 3 '1's' on That stat or something.

[Damian Magecraft]

Because there are people here who try to stand "The Exception" up as "The Rule". It trends that I end up trying to dissuade their munchkin thinking. Which is 'the why'.
-----------------
The char needs to meet the min. req. of the class before receiving bonuses/abilities from the class.

So if they don't have the proper attributes, they throw that sheet of paper away and roll till they get the right combo.

Or you just let them bump a stat or two up.

You're not locked into one roll, done for life. This is a hobby.

*Shrugs* I've never had a GM that's like 'YOU GET ONE ROLL AT ATTRIBUTES!! IF THEY SUCK, YOU'RE SOL!! DEAL WITH IT AND PLAY A CRAPPY CLASS!!'.
I'm sure Gm's like that exist. I just have never played with jerks like that.

we are not jerks; we just have alternatives in place that do not require re-rolling the dice.

I'm not saying you are. I was pointing out I've never had a GM that was so strict that they'd lock you in to ---one attribute roll--- and outlaw all classes if you happened to get one bad roll. Or stick you with someone with an IQ of 30 and thus, legally considered a severe case of retardation, if you happened to roll 3 '1's' on That stat or something.

now the 3 stat I am pretty lenient on those most times but we have played "iron man" style where you take what you rolled and work with what you get.
I ended up with a fighter who had a IQ 3, MA 20, PS 30 (pre-skills)...
The stories of BOB the Barbarian are legendary.

[Eashamahel]

Really anyone playing a character who has the equivalent of a elementary school education should have a requirement of an IQ of at least 5. The fact that the system even allows characters to be 'played' at the IQ 3 level is ridiculous, considering that (it's been awhile so I might be off on this) special education teachers will tell you that below 5(0), a person is capable of very little ('trainable' might have been the term? Though I think it was generally replaced with 'severely handicapped'), mostly they should be capable of looking after cleaning themselves provided they are in a sheltered environment.

The idea that a character could have an IQ of 3 and an MA of 20.. yeesh.

Palladium's skill system is pretty wacky to start with. It works fairly well for defining the average person in a game where you are constantly told you are playing the 'extraordinary' individual, and even classes rarely taken as they are seen as to run-of-the-mill have requirements. I always come back to PS as the perfect example. The average person rolls a 10 for PS, which defines the 'average' person well, I guess? Capable of lifting 200lbs. Except that's the 'average' strength of both a 5'3" woman and a 6'4" man... Speed goes this way as well.

Considering that MOST class restrictions for attributes require a certain number that has NO BEARING on the mechanics of the game (must have an ME of 14, or a PP of 12), using whatever system you want to change this will have predictably little (or no) impact on the game.

[Eclipse]

Yeah, the attributes are wonky compared to real life and most relaxed GMs wouldn't have a problem overriding the rules so you can bump up scores to the minimum.