Forums of the Megaverse®

The Physical skill Fencing says it adds 1d6 damage for swords; should this count for Mega-Damage swords? I believe it should, due to technique, rather than pure brute strength. What do y'all think?

I allow it.

It's generally contested here, and there are reasons to allow it and not to, but technique is the best non-rules explanation in my opinion. It's 1d6, it won't break the world and makes melee cooler. Go for it.

Swift-13 wrote:The Physical skill Fencing says it adds 1d6 damage for swords; should this count for Mega-Damage swords? I believe it should, due to technique, rather than pure brute strength. What do y'all think?

Some people say yes...some people say no. The books are unclear about this particular subject.

There is a Fencing h2h in one of the rifters. However, it says it's only for dueling or one on combat.

I'd allow it.

I think of it this way: If having WP Sword is the result of practicing a hour week (arbitrary figure), then a dude who practices 2 hours a week (WP & Fencing) is going to be a better swordsman and able to get more out of his weapon.

And as others said, it's not like +1D6 is game changing. Just a nice little boost.

Swift-13 wrote:The Physical skill Fencing says it adds 1d6 damage for swords; should this count for Mega-Damage swords? I believe it should, due to technique, rather than pure brute strength. What do y'all think?

IIRC, Splicers specifies that it applies as MD when a MD sword is used.

The answer is "it depends"
If your a Megaversalist then the example from the Splicers game says that it does, since in that game book it explicitly does

If your a Lineist though then you would have to decide based on only the Rifts rules. This leaves Lineist GMs with making a call one way or the other (is damage always SDC unless otherwise specified or is it damage of the appropriate type). Both have support for their stance (there have been many long threads on this very topic)

eliakon wrote:The answer is "it depends"
If your a Megaversalist then the example from the Splicers game says that it does, since in that game book it explicitly does

If your a Lineist though then you would have to decide based on only the Rifts rules. This leaves Lineist GMs with making a call one way or the other (is damage always SDC unless otherwise specified or is it damage of the appropriate type). Both have support for their stance (there have been many long threads on this very topic)

Lineism is silly.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

eliakon wrote:The answer is "it depends"
If your a Megaversalist then the example from the Splicers game says that it does, since in that game book it explicitly does

If your a Lineist though then you would have to decide based on only the Rifts rules. This leaves Lineist GMs with making a call one way or the other (is damage always SDC unless otherwise specified or is it damage of the appropriate type). Both have support for their stance (there have been many long threads on this very topic)

Lineism is silly.

Sure its silly.....if your a Megaversalist. *shrugs* I myself would not be so bold as to claim that other peoples play style is wrong, or that their ideas are silly.

Full Disclosure here I am a Lineist with importationist leanings. If I like something from another game I will happily bring it into another game. But I don't worry about the places where the rules are different....because I simply accept that each game has its own rules. This allows me to avoid stuff like mutually contradictory versions of rules and the like.

Everyone has their own flavor of rules abuses, it's true.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Swift-13 wrote:The Physical skill Fencing says it adds 1d6 damage for swords; should this count for Mega-Damage swords? I believe it should, due to technique, rather than pure brute strength. What do y'all think?

IIRC, Splicers specifies that it applies as MD when a MD sword is used.

I recall the same thing being mentioned here. However I don't like Splicers and have no way to verify.

The Beast wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Swift-13 wrote:The Physical skill Fencing says it adds 1d6 damage for swords; should this count for Mega-Damage swords? I believe it should, due to technique, rather than pure brute strength. What do y'all think?

IIRC, Splicers specifies that it applies as MD when a MD sword is used.

I recall the same thing being mentioned here. However I don't like Splicers and have no way to verify.

when you've got a large number of people with no potential to gain from it telling you something is true, it's probably true.

speaking of, i'll add my own voice to those who have access and can tell you that splicers does in fact have such a rule.

(and frankly, it makes more sense than any horsemanship skill adding damage anyways).

I have to admit, I forgot that Splicers had Fencing as a skill, too. (I've got the book, but haven't played the game yet, unfortunately!)

If we look at RIFTs alone. While fencing does not specify the additional damage can be applied to either SDC or MD, I believe the horsemanship: Cyberknight does say the additional damage can be in either SDC oR MD as per the weapon in RUE.

masslegion wrote:If we look at RIFTs alone. While fencing does not specify the additional damage can be applied to either SDC or MD, I believe the horsemanship: Cyberknight does say the additional damage can be in either SDC oR MD as per the weapon in RUE.

BTW i think it is silly to do more MD, but I had a player state that was his understanding and despotemy opinion of it doing extra MD I allowed it.

I go up on both. I don't need all the realism in my games, just enough to die easily.

eliakon wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

eliakon wrote:The answer is "it depends"
If your a Megaversalist then the example from the Splicers game says that it does, since in that game book it explicitly does

If your a Lineist though then you would have to decide based on only the Rifts rules. This leaves Lineist GMs with making a call one way or the other (is damage always SDC unless otherwise specified or is it damage of the appropriate type). Both have support for their stance (there have been many long threads on this very topic)

Lineism is silly.

Sure its silly.....if your a Megaversalist. *shrugs* I myself would not be so bold as to claim that other peoples play style is wrong, or that their ideas are silly.

Fortunately, I am bold.

Full Disclosure here I am a Lineist with importationist leanings. If I like something from another game I will happily bring it into another game. But I don't worry about the places where the rules are different....because I simply accept that each game has its own rules. This allows me to avoid stuff like mutually contradictory versions of rules and the like.

There are far too many places where Palladium refers to their "one megaversal system," and where they make changes in one setting that apply to other settings, for me to behave as if each game is its own separate entity that never affects the others.
If the rules conflict, then local rules apply.
The rules here don't conflict; it's the same skill, and it does the same thing, only one version goes into more detail than the other.

I take the opposite view. I look at the huge number of conflicting rules as evidence that each lines rule set is subtlety different, and thus I only use the rules from the other games as guides. I only consider the rules from the line in question to be fully binding on that line.

Is a personal play style issue since there has been nothing formal and official on the matter one way or the other.

eliakon wrote:I take the opposite view. I look at the huge number of conflicting rules as evidence that each lines rule set is subtlety different, and thus I only use the rules from the other games as guides.

If you go to that extreme, then even Rifts doesn't match Rifts, because different times a rule is described, it's often described differently.

Even before splicers, I allowed it. I fall in the technique camp. Splicers only verified it for me when looking at ti from a Megaversal perspective.

I think you could look at it as what category the skill has been chosen. If it's a secondary skill, them maybe not add the extra damage. If it's chosen as a OCC or OCC related skill, then add it.

I did fencing for a while. I'd say that while I was good, I treated it as just a hobby. I wouldn't award myself the extra d6 damage. Whilst I had promise and a natural skill with the blade, I didn't progress with it (something that my tutor wasn't totally happy with. Back in 1996, told me if I focused and concentrated on fencing, I'd represent Australia in the 2000 Olympics. Something I still regret). However, if I did progress on with it and maybe even competed in the Olympics, then sure, add the extra d6 damage. At this level, it's more than just 2 hours practice. More like 4 or more hours a day, with a couple hours of physical training per day as well. I wasn't looking forward to running up and down sand dunes for hours a day.... Maybe even house rule it further, in 'normal combat' with multiple allies & enemies fighting all around you, add just 1d6 damage. But if it's a proper one on one fight, then up it to 2d6 damage, as you can completely focus on just your opponent, and not the chaos of a total melee.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

eliakon wrote:I take the opposite view. I look at the huge number of conflicting rules as evidence that each lines rule set is subtlety different, and thus I only use the rules from the other games as guides.

If you go to that extreme, then even Rifts doesn't match Rifts, because different times a rule is described, it's often described differently.

Then the most recent rule is in effect.
*shrugs* You can run your games how you like. I wont stop you. My point is that there is plenty of support for running my games this way too.
That's why my answer was "it depends on how you interpret things"....because the official state of the matter has never been settled.

THAT said I don't think that this is the proper forum to argue the Megaversalist vs. Lineist theology. Perhaps a new topic?

eliakon wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

eliakon wrote:The answer is "it depends"
If your a Megaversalist then the example from the Splicers game says that it does, since in that game book it explicitly does

If your a Lineist though then you would have to decide based on only the Rifts rules. This leaves Lineist GMs with making a call one way or the other (is damage always SDC unless otherwise specified or is it damage of the appropriate type). Both have support for their stance (there have been many long threads on this very topic)

Lineism is silly.

Sure its silly.....if your a Megaversalist. *shrugs* I myself would not be so bold as to claim that other peoples play style is wrong, or that their ideas are silly.

Full Disclosure here I am a Lineist with importationist leanings. If I like something from another game I will happily bring it into another game. But I don't worry about the places where the rules are different....because I simply accept that each game has its own rules. This allows me to avoid stuff like mutually contradictory versions of rules and the like.

I'm anti-baptismal because getting your books wet either by sprinkling or immersion must be a gaming sin.

eliakon wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

eliakon wrote:I take the opposite view. I look at the huge number of conflicting rules as evidence that each lines rule set is subtlety different, and thus I only use the rules from the other games as guides.

If you go to that extreme, then even Rifts doesn't match Rifts, because different times a rule is described, it's often described differently.

Then the most recent rule is in effect.

If it's in the same book, which one is more recent?

THAT said I don't think that this is the proper forum to argue the Megaversalist vs. Lineist theology. Perhaps a new topic?

If you like.

As it is, this question about Fencing regularly comes up, and the answer hinges on whether or not the Splicers phrasing of the skill is intended to--for some unknown reasons--actually function differently from the Rifts skill, or if it's a clarification of the Rifts skill.
So this is about as good of a place to discuss it as any, I think.
Unless the OP objects.

Alrik Vas wrote:It's generally contested here, and there are reasons to allow it and not to, but technique is the best non-rules explanation in my opinion. It's 1d6, it won't break the world and makes melee cooler. Go for it.

Exactly this.

CyCo wrote:I think you could look at it as what category the skill has been chosen. If it's a secondary skill, them maybe not add the extra damage. If it's chosen as a OCC or OCC related skill, then add it.

I did fencing for a while. I'd say that while I was good, I treated it as just a hobby. I wouldn't award myself the extra d6 damage. Whilst I had promise and a natural skill with the blade, I didn't progress with it (something that my tutor wasn't totally happy with. Back in 1996, told me if I focused and concentrated on fencing, I'd represent Australia in the 2000 Olympics. Something I still regret). However, if I did progress on with it and maybe even competed in the Olympics, then sure, add the extra d6 damage. At this level, it's more than just 2 hours practice. More like 4 or more hours a day, with a couple hours of physical training per day as well. I wasn't looking forward to running up and down sand dunes for hours a day.... Maybe even house rule it further, in 'normal combat' with multiple allies & enemies fighting all around you, add just 1d6 damage. But if it's a proper one on one fight, then up it to 2d6 damage, as you can completely focus on just your opponent, and not the chaos of a total melee.

Not trying to be nit picky or anything, but why would you take a skill if you didn't get the bonus of the skill? I.E. In your example taking it as a secondary wouldn't award the bonus to damage, so what's the point of taking it as a secondary skill with no benefit? "I'm using a skill on fencing" "what's it do?" "Oh. Nothing. I just like the look of it on the paper" "So it gives no mechanical benifit?" "No, but my char knows how to fence" "Better than someone with WP Sword?" "No." "so.... You could just call WP Sword fencing and have the same?" "Well yeah" "Or you know two kids with sticks making clanging noises?" "Well... yeah"

You're not exactly skill starved in most Palladium games but... a skill slot is still a skill slot. Sure you get the +1 to strike. There's 'some' mechanical benefit, I'm being a touch hyperbolic above but still.

The fact that the skill has a prerequisite (WP Sword) Implies that it's a more advanced skill usage. More over when you check the secondary skill list you can't actually take fencing as a secondary skill anyway. So it's kinda moot. I mean you could allow it if you wanted to house rule it and just give the +1 to Strike and Parry. That's not 'NOTHING' but it's not much.

As for the added damage, I fenced in college. I Competed on the collegic level and came in 2nd at state finals. I'm not even going to remotely claim I was Olympic level. lol but I was pretty good. I can say that with training, yes, you do learn how to better use your weapon. You learn to put more power behind it. (even though dexterity and finesse is often much more useful) When people start they're mostly swatting at one another but with training and effort, you can do alot more. I've gotten an S Curve off an epee before in competition. Not something everyone's going to be able to do. The +1D6 is justified, and as pointed out previously, in Palladium, isn't going to break the game.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

eliakon wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

eliakon wrote:I take the opposite view. I look at the huge number of conflicting rules as evidence that each lines rule set is subtlety different, and thus I only use the rules from the other games as guides.

If you go to that extreme, then even Rifts doesn't match Rifts, because different times a rule is described, it's often described differently.

Then the most recent rule is in effect.

If it's in the same book, which one is more recent?

THAT said I don't think that this is the proper forum to argue the Megaversalist vs. Lineist theology. Perhaps a new topic?

If you like.

As it is, this question about Fencing regularly comes up, and the answer hinges on whether or not the Splicers phrasing of the skill is intended to--for some unknown reasons--actually function differently from the Rifts skill, or if it's a clarification of the Rifts skill.
So this is about as good of a place to discuss it as any, I think.
Unless the OP objects.

I don't object at all! A spirited debate is at the heart of the discussion! Already it reminded me of the Splicers version of the skill and I'm still curious to hear what others' opinions are.

Autumn 2014 thread on Fencing/Cyber-Knights is related: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=144874

This can of worms does risk resulting in a stalemate, seeing how that got locked.

Swift-13 wrote:The Physical skill Fencing says it adds 1d6 damage for swords; should this count for Mega-Damage swords? I believe it should, due to technique, rather than pure brute strength. What do y'all think?

This is the case in Splicers, but not explicitly the case in Rifts.

If GMs opt to house-rule that the damage bonus is converted to MD for MD weapons then I would say you should also convert the damage bonuses gained from HtH skills to MD as well, since those are also skill-based damage additions.

It would not make sense to me to damage>MD for fencing but not damage>MD for HtH.

By this I refer to in RUEp347 a 7th/14th level basic, 10th level expert (LOL inferior), 11th MA (delayed superiority), 4th/14th Assassin, 7th/12th Commando. A "level for damage bonuses" breakdown from N&SS/MC or other variants like Japan/RC would also be interesting for later.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Lineism is silly.

In which case the later RUE/Robotech would override the MDification.

Sometimes line-ism is unavoidable, like with action-free roll-with-impacts, 1-roll-for-all dodges and 1-to-activate autododges in N&SS.

masslegion wrote:I believe the horsemanship: Cyberknight does say the additional damage can be in either SDC oR MD as per the weapon in RUE.

Considering that the damage bonus from horsemanship supposedly comes from using the added speed/mass/height of the horse (all force-amplification) it would suggest that we should simply add the damage bonus from PS as MD to me, since that is also force-ampliciation.

I don't see how damage bonuses from horsemanship can be explained away as added precision the way HtH or Fencing can. Horsemanship doesn't seem like it can increase your accuracy. Wouldn't attacking from a moving vehicle make you less accurate? Doesn't that usually add penalties to strike for most poeple?

Tor wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:Lineism is silly.

In which case the later RUE/Robotech would override the MDification.

Not at all.
A more succinct version of a rule does not over-rule a more fully explained version of the rule.

Sometimes line-ism is unavoidable, like with action-free roll-with-impacts, 1-roll-for-all dodges and 1-to-activate autododges in N&SS.

Feel free to start new topics on those issues.

I think we've had the succinctness vs unique-mod debate before. I forget if we were able to find other examples of ways some statements could be viewed as A/B and how to favor one perspective over the other.

Like for example, the 'spend an attack to activate your auto-dodge' in N&SS, perhaps all other systems are succinct and leave that out? Same reasoning.

Tor wrote:I think we've had the succinctness vs unique-mod debate before. I forget if we were able to find other examples of ways some statements could be viewed as A/B and how to favor one perspective over the other.

Like for example, the 'spend an attack to activate your auto-dodge' in N&SS, perhaps all other systems are succinct and leave that out? Same reasoning.

As I said, feel free to start new topics to specifically address this kind of specific subject.
If we focus a topic on it, get a number of people trading decent citations/quotes, and we might reach a conclusion or consensus about it.

The problem with splitting is that I'm bringing it up because of discussion of a broader principle. These do not exist in voids. You can't rightly view a difference as an addition for topic A and an abbreviation for topic B if they are both contradictions...

I think that you can in Palladium, so long as your view is equal to the contradictions. Unless they are merely misinterpreted and not real contradictions.

Tor wrote:The problem with splitting is that I'm bringing it up because of discussion of a broader principle. These do not exist in voids. You can't rightly view a difference as an addition for topic A and an abbreviation for topic B if they are both contradictions...

The problem with discussing it here is that it dominates the thread, and that people who might be interested in the specific topic won't know to check out this thread anyway.

Accessories are discussed to benefit this topic, and considering this is a very simple issue, I don't see what there is to dominate. There's yes/no and then 'why' which deals into analyzing word patterns elsewhere to compare.

It's essentially pointless to state a viewpoint on these threads, because the rules are incredibly fuzzy on many things. However, if a skill does't specifically state it's only sdc or mdc, I've always taken it as applying to both. If they wanted to limit it, they would have said sdc only. Because there is not a * or sidenote stating it only applies to sdc weapons, then it would apply to both. Anyone wanting to limit it to sdc only, is simply wanting to limit their game for no real reason.

Damage has always traditionally meant SDC or HP, it was the 'mega' that had to be specified, RMB did that pretty obviously in a lot of places, even if it did bother to say 'SDC damage' in some other places.

In other places we've seen specific wording telling us to add as MD if MD, which would never be necessary if it did that anyway.

Strong bump =/ Anyone linked that locked cyber-knight psi-sword thread from before this?

Depends on your mood, and here's why:

Sport fencing uses the foil, epee or saber. The foil and epee are glorified knitting needles (but really really fun cool knitting needles) that are all about dexterity and speed. Putting force on these blades only makes them bend like the wires they are. And you cant cut; they have no edge, just a point. They are called needles for a reason. (and yes, battle epee are as sharp, or sharper than most needles)
Use a saber or a historical rapier (a shlager in German) and you wont cut through bone, but you will take chunks off a body.

The key difference I see between n00bs, recruits and trained users is simple:
n00bs aim for each other's blades; they are more worried about stopping you from hitting them than hitting you. His swings are from the shoulder, and easy to predict, dodge and/or block.
A recruit knows to focus on hitting the enemy (you live longer that way) He just has no idea of where to hit the enemy. His shots tend to be thrown from the elbow. They can be seen, though are harder to predict than the noob; still rather easy to block.
A trained bladesman can successfully pick organs, veins or arteries; hitting carotid, brachial or femoral arteries, or the Inferior Vena Cava, or any organ by choice. And thats not a "called shot"; the sword-tip in comparison to the target is a similar ratio to "center mass" for a gun shot. His shots are thrown from the wrist; he will have feinted to make you dodge into the actual blow.

So, if you think that extra D6 is because you can "hit harder", then it depends on what blade they are using. If you figure that extra D6 is because you know exactly where the "sweet spot" between the 5th and 6th rib is, to stab and have his heart fill his lungs with his own blood so that he drowns in it, then any blade works (and surprisingly, much of the blade training will work across blade sizes and styles)

Can say the same about damage bonus from HTH or various OCCs, any GM who lets non-Splicers fencing do MD should also let the dmg bonuses from HtH or whatev do the same. There's a Powers Unlimited 'Living Anatomy' damage bonus which should act similarly.

Tor wrote:Can say the same about damage bonus from HTH or various OCCs, any GM who lets non-Splicers fencing do MD should also let the dmg bonuses from HtH or whatev do the same. There's a Powers Unlimited 'Living Anatomy' damage bonus which should act similarly.

You could, and I certainly do.