Forums of the Megaverse®

I was looking at the supernatural damage conversion chart for martial art hand to hand in Rifter #3. I realized that a supernatural punch for a PS of 00-15 for example does 4d6 SDC (based on d4) but if the same supernatural character is wielding a sword for example they would only do 1d6-2d6 SDC worth of damage. To me it doesn't seem correct that a supernatural strength character would deal less damage with a weapon going by that chart where a normal strength character would end up have a higher chance of dealing more damage 1d4 vs 1d6-2d6 with the same sword. Am I missing something here? Thanks

cbrekkas wrote:I was looking at the supernatural damage conversion chart for martial art hand to hand in Rifter #3. I realized that a supernatural punch for a PS of 00-15 for example does 4d6 SDC (based on d4) but if the same supernatural character is wielding a sword for example they would only do 1d6-2d6 SDC worth of damage. To me it doesn't seem correct that a supernatural strength character would deal less damage with a weapon going by that chart where a normal strength character would end up have a higher chance of dealing more damage 1d4 vs 1d6-2d6 with the same sword. Am I missing something here? Thanks

There's been a few different rules covering this scenario, depending on which game you're playing. They tend to agree that you add the SNPS and weapon damage together (I think there may be one setting that just has you use whichever dice roll is higher). At least two settings state that the weapon takes damage if the total damage done is three ( ? ) times its maximum amount possible.

The Beast wrote:

cbrekkas wrote:I was looking at the supernatural damage conversion chart for martial art hand to hand in Rifter #3. I realized that a supernatural punch for a PS of 00-15 for example does 4d6 SDC (based on d4) but if the same supernatural character is wielding a sword for example they would only do 1d6-2d6 SDC worth of damage. To me it doesn't seem correct that a supernatural strength character would deal less damage with a weapon going by that chart where a normal strength character would end up have a higher chance of dealing more damage 1d4 vs 1d6-2d6 with the same sword. Am I missing something here? Thanks

There's been a few different rules covering this scenario, depending on which game you're playing. They tend to agree that you add the SNPS and weapon damage together (I think there may be one setting that just has you use whichever dice roll is higher). At least two settings state that the weapon takes damage if the total damage done is three ( ? ) times its maximum amount possible.

Thanks

Prysus wrote:

Greetings and Salutations. As stated, it depends on the setting. So, for example, Supernatural punch damage is 4D6 and the character is wielding a 2D6 weapon.

In Rifts and Palladium Fantasy, you inflict whichever is greater. So the character would deal 4D6 damage with the sword. This doesn't do more damage than a punch for the character, but may provide extra combat bonuses if you have the appropriate W.P. (in this example: W.P. Sword).

In Nightbane and HU2, both damages are added together. So the character deals 6D6 damage with the sword. I think there's another setting with the adding together rule, but I can't recall which off the top of my head.

If you mention the setting in question, I'm willing to provide a book and page number if you feel it would help. Farewell and safe journeys.

RUE matches HU2.

Prysus wrote:In Rifts and Palladium Fantasy, you inflict whichever is greater.
In Nightbane and HU2, both damages are added together.

Rifts (and maybe PF, not sure) have some exceptions to the "greater, not sum" policy in certain weapons which say to add, like with Xiticix weapons, further complicating issues

Makes me wonder if NB/HU are linked somehow to share this rule, like how N&S/TMNT might be linked in how chars heal SDC at an hourly instead of daily rate.

Axelmania wrote:

Prysus wrote:In Rifts and Palladium Fantasy, you inflict whichever is greater.
In Nightbane and HU2, both damages are added together.

Rifts (and maybe PF, not sure) have some exceptions to the "greater, not sum" policy in certain weapons which say to add, like with Xiticix weapons, further complicating issues

Not really; it’s just a property of certain weapons.
Some swords are flaming; doesn’t complicate rules for other weapons any.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Not really; it’s just a property of certain weapons.
Some swords are flaming; doesn’t complicate rules for other weapons any.

The complication is that it's never (AFAIK) ever pointed out as a special property of the weapon. Like "unlike most MD melee weapons" or anything like that.

It happens so often that it gives the impression of a general rule.

Especially since there's never (AFAIK) a reminder to "don't add supernatural PS" under weapons which do not.

Just a generic rule about using the higher amount which many could overlook/forget.

Axelmania wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:Not really; it’s just a property of certain weapons.
Some swords are flaming; doesn’t complicate rules for other weapons any.

The complication is that it's never (AFAIK) ever pointed out as a special property of the weapon.

Flaming Swords don't bother pointing out that not every weapon can flame.
The way to judge these thing is simply by looking at whether or not the weapon description describes an ability, then looking at whether other weapons do.
IN this case, we have three (iirc) specific types of weapons that discuss adding supernatural punch damage to those weapons' attacks.
Other weapons describe no such ability, and such ability goes against the general rules for damage, so any weapon that does not describe that ability, lacks that ability.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Flaming Swords don't bother pointing out that not every weapon can flame.

I think that's pretty obviously not the same thing.

A better analogy would be if some flaming swords said "don't add PS damage bonuses, it's an energy weapon!" and other flame swords didn't.

Killer Cyborg wrote:IN this case, we have three (iirc) specific types of weapons that discuss adding supernatural punch damage to those weapons' attacks.
Other weapons describe no such ability, and such ability goes against the general rules for damage, so any weapon that does not describe that ability, lacks that ability.

The problem with considering them "general rules for damage" is how they were squirreled away prior to RUE consolidating the note on pg 285. CB26 had no 'whichever is greater' when it introduced that table, leading to a longstanding (possibly 15 year unless I'm over-looking a pre-RUE amendment) assumption of adding it together like in Nightbane/HU2 would later explicitly say to do based on various Rifts weapons notes. RUE seems to have inherited the damage cap from PF2.

Axelmania wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:Flaming Swords don't bother pointing out that not every weapon can flame.

I think that's pretty obviously not the same thing.

I don't.
In both cases, you're looking at a weapon that specifically describes an ability, and does NOT state that the ability is limited to that weapon.

Killer Cyborg wrote:IN this case, we have three (iirc) specific types of weapons that discuss adding supernatural punch damage to those weapons' attacks.
Other weapons describe no such ability, and such ability goes against the general rules for damage, so any weapon that does not describe that ability, lacks that ability.

The problem with considering them "general rules for damage" is how they were squirreled away prior to RUE consolidating the note on pg 285. CB26 had no 'whichever is greater' when it introduced that table, leading to a longstanding (possibly 15 year unless I'm over-looking a pre-RUE amendment) assumption of adding it together like in Nightbane/HU2 would later explicitly say to do based on various Rifts weapons notes. RUE seems to have inherited the damage cap from PF2.

They weren't squirreled away.
RGMG. Palladium Fantasy. Etc.

I don't know what "CB26" is supposed to be.

Killer Cyborg wrote:They weren't squirreled away.
RGMG. Palladium Fantasy. Etc.

Expecting Rifts players to adapt a PF rule (especially in contradiction to HU/NB stacking instructions) is squirreled to me.

As for the GM's guide, okay, page 26 did introduce SDAHW in 2001, but that still leaves an 11-year period of vagueness.

Plus that's still kinda squirrelly since you wouldn't necessarily expect an average player to get that guide.

Do we have any pre-2001 intros of the WIG (whichever is greater) text for SNPS wielding weapons?

Or perhaps any examples of monsters who ALWAYS add their SNPS damage to weapon damage, rather than relying on weapons which have special notes to do so?

Killer Cyborg wrote:I don't know what "CB26" is supposed to be.

Pg 25 of conversion book. I should've said RCB, forgot this wasn't a Rifts thread.

Axelmania wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:I don't know what "CB26" is supposed to be.

Pg 25 of conversion book. I should've said RCB, forgot this wasn't a Rifts thread.

No, what you should have said was what book you're talking about. There's four conversion books:
CB1 = original conversion book
CB1r = the version of that book post-RUE
CB2 = Pantheons of the Megaverse
CB3 or DC = the Dark Conversions book

Using RCB doesn't quite narrow it down enough. Now we could assume you meant CB1, but most of us here know what happens when people go assuming things.

Axelmania wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:They weren't squirreled away.
RGMG. Palladium Fantasy. Etc.

Expecting Rifts players to adapt a PF rule (especially in contradiction to HU/NB stacking instructions) is squirreled to me.

Write Kevin a letter letting him know your complaint.

As for the GM's guide, okay, page 26 did introduce SDAHW in 2001, but that still leaves an 11-year period of vagueness.

No idea what "SDAHW" is.

Do we have any pre-2001 intros of the WIG (whichever is greater) text for SNPS wielding weapons?

WIG?
Just write stuff out, man.
I'm not going to guess.

The Beast wrote:what you should have said was what book you're talking about

before CB2 came out, CB1 was just CB, so CB with a number like 26 after it is clearly the 26th page of the first one

CB1 is actually just slang, "1" never appears on the cover. Sort of like "Terminator 1"

Axelmania wrote:

The Beast wrote:what you should have said was what book you're talking about

before CB2 came out, CB1 was just CB, so CB with a number like 26 after it is clearly the 26th page of the first one

Not at all, because a number being ATTACHED to the abbreviation is the standard for listing volume, not page number.
"CB 26" would mean "Conversion Book, Page 26."
"CB26" would mean "Conversion Book Volume 26"

CB1 is actually just slang, "1" never appears on the cover. Sort of like "Terminator 1"

You might want to check CB1r, which is the newest edition of that book IIRC.

Killer Cyborg wrote:"CB 26" would mean "Conversion Book, Page 26."
"CB26" would mean "Conversion Book Volume 26"

This would be a problem if I were quoting from the first three pages, but anybody who knows what "CB" is short for knows we don't have a double-digit count of conversion books, so it's a false dilemma.

Axelmania wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:"CB 26" would mean "Conversion Book, Page 26."
"CB26" would mean "Conversion Book Volume 26"

This would be a problem if I were quoting from the first three pages, but anybody who knows what "CB" is short for knows we don't have a double-digit count of conversion books, so it's a false dilemma.

It's not any kind of dilemma; you simply wrote things the wrong way, same as if you'd put an exclamation point in the middle of a sentence instead of a comma.
There's nothing to argue over.
It doesn't matter how or why you think people should decrypt your errors into understanding;
You're just wrong.

We can either argue back and forth about it for 3 pages (in which case you'll be wrong for three pages), or we can all just move on with our days, and you can try to write things properly in the future.

Killer Cyborg wrote:It's not any kind of dilemma; you simply wrote things the wrong way, same as if you'd put an exclamation point in the middle of a sentence instead of a comma.

There's no hard rules on how far you can abbreviate so long as context makes sense.

I can say "back in '99" if it's clear I mean 1999, but not if I might also mean 1899.

Axelmania wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:It's not any kind of dilemma; you simply wrote things the wrong way, same as if you'd put an exclamation point in the middle of a sentence instead of a comma.

There's no hard rules on how far you can abbreviate so long as context makes sense.

And your context made zero sense, since there is no Conversion Book 26.
So now you know, and can do better in the future.

I'm interested in looking up examples of weapons detailed in Rifts which explicitly stack SN PS damage with weapon damage. I know about a couple of cases, but my list is less than exhaustive.
Thanks in advance!

Curbludgeon wrote:I'm interested in looking up examples of weapons detailed in Rifts which explicitly stack SN PS damage with weapon damage. I know about a couple of cases, but my list is less than exhaustive.
Thanks in advance!

Gargoyle weapons
Xiticix weapons
Mutant Bone Weapons from Madhaven.

I think that's about it, although IIRC the mutant insect supernatural strength tables in Mutants In Orbit uses punch damage for thrown boulders sometimes.

Prysus wrote:since there were questions about what you were trying to abbreviate,
things clearly didn't make sense

Only if KC truly did not have a good sense of it's probable meaning.
KC strikes me as a person with great intuitive powers.

Prysus wrote:the first word in the title is "Rifts," but you left out of your acronym

No other system has a Conversion Book, so it's not needed. If I were discussing World Books outside of their game forums RWB/NWB/PWB would of course be needed if I had not established the context of which game's world book.

Unless of course I was counting 20+ because that's obviously Rifts-only, since NB/PF haven't counted that high.

Prysus wrote:you didn't separate page number from the book title

Like "RMB10"? RMBp10 is certainly prettier, but not needed.

Come to think of it, I guess RMB could also mean "Robotech Main Book", should we maybe use "Ri" and "Ro" as shortforms rather than just R?

Prysus wrote:there are three different books that fall into that category.
In current printings and usage, Rifts Conversion Book One does have a number.

I'd be fine referring to the revised edition as CBOR though I usually just call it CBR.

"One" was not part of the title on the original cover (much like "Fantasy" was not part of the title on the original cover of the Palladium RPG) so it feels wrong to include 'one' or "1" when referring to the non-revised edition. CB w/o number should obviously mean the first one. If I meant the series as a whole I'd say "CBs".

Prysus wrote:Since you didn't include a number, we'd be left to guess which of the three.

Not really, if I say "I watched Terminator" it obviously means the first film "The Terminator", despite some people retroactively calling it "Terminator One" after "Terminator Two" came out.

Prysus wrote:So with that acronym I could guess at the following ...

Rifts Chi-Town 'Burbs, page 26.

First-come first-serve for initialisms, I've never seen anyone abbreviate Burbs that way. You'd probably shorten Chi-Town to "CT" so it would be RCTB.

Prysus wrote:Rifts Conversion Book (One, original), page 26.
Rifts Conversion Book One, Revised, page 26.

Your use of parenthesis shows you are aware that the one is retroactive and not properly part of the title.

I might for example, in respect to RUE, describe the 1990 edition of Rifts as "Rifts Original Edition" or ROE but it'd be weird to expect people to do that since it's not the actual title of the game.

Prysus wrote:Rifts Conversion Book Two, page 6.
Rifts Conversion Book Two, page 26.

Neither would be used that way, I don't entertain this as an actual consideration.

You would not omit the Two/2 if specifing the second book, and any time you end a book title with a number you would obviously use some kind of separation before using the number of the page.

Prysus wrote:Rifts Dark Conversions, page 26 (which is generally considered Conversion Book 3).

You would say RDC26/DC26 or RCB3p26/CB3p26

A "p" or "pg" divider before the number isn't needed for the first conversion book except for the niche situation of referring to the 2nd or 3rd page.

Prysus wrote:You made a typo since it doesn't follow the standard usage of acronyms for that book on these forums or in the books (for example, P.P.E. and S.D.C. are used regularly in the books, and generally accepted on these forums without explanation due to them being official book acronyms).
You meant something else entirely.

It occurs to me that there are potentially at least two subsets of typos:
1) intentionally spelling something a certain way, with others disagreeing on that spelling
2) accidentally spelling something a certain way

We're talking about the first situation, whereas hitting keys in the wrong order w/o noticing (ie "tlaking" instead of "talking") would be the 2nd kind.

It also is worth noting that my above using of "tlaking" is not a typo at all, since it is not an error to intentionally spell a word wrong as an example.

Prysus wrote:If you want to act in "good faith," then you should accept that not everyone will make the same assumptions as you.
Instead, proceed with the concept that others may have "difficulty with these concepts," and aim to communicate in a way that will be clear to others.

There is always some amount of speculation involved. I for example usually write PPE instead of P.P.E. despite it being standard format in books to include the periods after each of the three letters. I expect people know what I will mean.

Killer Cyborg wrote:your context made zero sense, since there is no Conversion Book 26.
So now you know, and can do better in the future.

The well-known fact there are not 20+ conversion books is exactly why it DID make sense.

To use a PF analogy, if you wrote "MOM26" I'd know you meant page twenty-six of the first book in the Mysteries of Magic series (The Heart of Magic).

Even after the 2nd book (Dark Magicks) comes out, I'd still know that's what you meant.

MOM w/o MOM2 obviously refers to the first book even after additional ones come out. Even though 'MOM1' is slightly clearer ( and more accurate since the original cover actually DID include a number, unlike the CB/RCB) it isn't mandatory.

You can see this for example in the Amazon listing for Sedition: https://www.amazon.ca/Rifts-Siege-on-To ... 1574570455

They don'e even include "Chapter One" in their writeup despite it appearing on the cover.

Plus if anyone says "Coalition Wars" : at this point it has for such a long time exclusively meant the Siege on Tolkeen hexalogy (septalogy including Aftermath) that even if Palladium does finally make "Coalition Wars Two : Bombing New Lazlo" you'd always assume "CW" on its own to mean the original series despite "CW2" being used to describe the 2nd BNL series.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Gargoyle weapons
Xiticix weapons
Mutant Bone Weapons from Madhaven.

I think that's about it, although IIRC the mutant insect supernatural strength tables in Mutants In Orbit uses punch damage for thrown boulders sometimes.

I'd have to check but I feel like certain NPC weapons (like god's rune weapons) might have occasionally noted it too, but I'd have to dig out my books to double-check that. In terms of mass-produced accessible ones the first two were the only ones I could recall, nice catch with the MBWs from MH tho

Not sure why we're discussing acronyms instead of the topic of the post.

Cut it out


Thank you.

Check Thor’s hammer & gauntlets.
They may have allowed him to add punch damage to weapons.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Check Thor’s hammer & gauntlets.
They may have allowed him to add punch damage to weapons.

You're thinking of his "Belt of Might" (CB2p150) Megingiord. Mortals who wear it only see PS doubled. When Thor wears it he only gets a +10 (60 grows to 70) but his SDC PS damage bonus converts to MD (it "only applies to Thor").

Lord Coake's belt is similar if I recall, plus Dagda (probably his mighty beard) and Galahad (probably his mighty mohawk) seem to enjoy that as some kind of unexplained natural ability.

Just realized... this makes him horrible at avoiding hurting people with restrained punches... it boosts that from 1D6 MD to 1D6+55 MD. I guess there's still "Pull Punch" to save the day (he has a +9 bonus to that)

Mjolnir is probably a good example of a "don't stack" argument, since it actually mentions it doing 4D6x10+55 MD if used with the Belt of Might. If his usual full strength punch damage of 1D6x10 stacked you'd probably expect that to be 5D6x10.

Plus Mjolnir explicitly does "same damage whether thrown or used as a blunt weapon" and in cases where you add SNPS punch dmg to weapons, it's probably implied (if not explicitly stated) that this would just be for HTH use and not throwing use...

I should probably double-check Xiticix Invasion to be sure though...

WB23p79 mentions the Xiticix Spear is "1D6+3 MD as a stabbing, slashing or thrown weapon, + Supernatural PS punching damage" which sounds like you add the punching damage to thrown too...

I wonder where I'm getting this idea you don't add punch damage to thrown weapons... can't find support for the assumption... maybe it was bow/arrow I'm thinking of?

Offhand Northen Gun melee weapons (NG-B10 Bangstick, NG-B20 Bangstick Hammer, NG-B30 Bangstick Staff, NG-B40 Big Bangstick, NG-B50 ‘Thunderer’ BigBore Combat Hammer), Xiticix weapons, mutant bone weapons, kesentite weapons, some cybernetic/bionic weapons (Hydraulic Hammer Hand, Retractable Knuckle Blades) and Crystal Combat Gauntlet deal weapon damage + punch damage.

* phase sword deals weapon + strength bonus so it gets a special mention.

elecgraystone wrote:Offhand Northen Gun melee weapons (NG-B10 Bangstick, NG-B20 Bangstick Hammer, NG-B30 Bangstick Staff, NG-B40 Big Bangstick, NG-B50 ‘Thunderer’ BigBore Combat Hammer)
some cybernetic/bionic weapons (Hydraulic Hammer Hand, Retractable Knuckle Blades)
and Crystal Combat Gauntlet

anyone recall books these are in?

Phase Sword: DB2 pg 124
Gargoyle weapons: WB5 pp 210-213
Xiticix melee weapons: WB23 pp 77-81
Mutant bone weapons: WB29 pp 81-82
NG melee weapons: WB33 pp 206-208
Crystal Combat Gauntlet: DB15 pg 142
Bionics: Sourcebook 5 et al: Hydraulic Hammer Hand pg 106, Retractable Knuckle Blades pg 93, Pneumatic Punching Jackhammer Arm pg 91 (additional damage on last entry scales differently than punch damage)
Kisentite weapons: AUr pg 175 (but I don't see anything stating the addition of SN punch damage, so perhaps it's in another reference?)

Soul Weapons: WB35 pg 110 do 4d6 or add 1d6 to punch damage, whichever is higher.

Curbludgeon wrote:NG melee weapons: WB33 pp 206-208

"1D4 M.D. +P.S. M.D. punch damage if the user has a P.S. capable of inflicting M.D."

Nice, never noticed this. You've established an impressive pattern which really seems to consistently conflict with RUE's writeup...

Kind of like if there were a bunch of supernatural beings who could die of old age or who didn't respawn after their death.

If you've ever watched Forged in Fire, and seen the damage the not well crafted knives and swords take during the strength test. Then you can immagom the damage that using a sword with SN SP can do to even well crafted weapons.

My opinion is that for a melee weapon to stand up to SNPS used at full str. they have to be MDC or indestructible.
Now when I say MDC it is as in MDC. Not as MD.
Even then if the damage score of a strike is over the MDC of the melee weapon I would give it a % for breaking (probity made up on the spot relative to how much over the MDC the MD score is), and if the weapon didn't break then roll another % vs another % (made up on the spot like the last) to see if it takes damage.

Axelmania wrote:

Curbludgeon wrote:NG melee weapons: WB33 pp 206-208

"1D4 M.D. +P.S. M.D. punch damage if the user has a P.S. capable of inflicting M.D."

Nice, never noticed this. You've established an impressive pattern which really seems to consistently conflict with RUE's writeup...

Kind of like if there were a bunch of supernatural beings who could die of old age or who didn't respawn after their death.

Like finding holes in a colander.

Something tangentially similar to the above is how Chi M.D. Death Blows in WB8 inflict double normal damage plus PS bonus in mega-damage. Even with it taking 2 APM it keeps pace with average SN PS punch damage up to 50. I'm not sure how best to resolve the damage of a Chi Death Blow inflicted by someone with supernatural strength. I could see arguments for either handling it as if the character didn't have SN PS or replacing the SDC PS bonus that the Chi Death Blow changes to MD with normal SN PS punch damage. The latter would mean that if a such a character had access to one of the weapons in the above list that Chi Death Blows become generally counterproductive. (edit:typo)

It the '"mystical" Death Blows' are typically only used by SDC/HP being so there are no specific rules concerning beings with SNPS using them.

There are multiple methods by which characters capable of mega damage death blows may acquire or possess supernatural strength, and may inflict them with weapons otherwise capable of either S.D.C. or M.D.C. damage. A sounding out of the room regarding an edge case is wholly within the thread's purview, and to claim otherwise is willfully myopic. (edit: this post was in response to the above poster being nasty, which they have since passive-aggressively edited)

Curbludgeon wrote:Something tangentially similar to the above is how Chi M.D. Death Blows in WB8 inflict double normal damage plus PS bonus in mega-damage.
Even with it taking 2 APM it keeps pace with average SN PS punch damage up to 50.
I'm not sure how best to resolve the damage of a Chi Death Blow inflicted by someone with supernatural strength.
I could see arguments for either handling it as if the character didn't have SN PS
or replacing the SDC PS bonus that the Chi Death Blow changes to MD with normal SN PS punch damage

I'd just add them together, be 2x"normal" (SDC)+PS+supernaturalPS'sMD

Axelmania wrote:
I'd just add them together, be 2x"normal" (SDC)+PS+supernaturalPS'sMD

Do mean double the normal Structural Damage of the weapon, with the Str. Bonus added to it, and then adding the SNPS Damage Table Damage?

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:

Axelmania wrote:
I'd just add them together, be 2x"normal" (SDC)+PS+supernaturalPS'sMD

Do mean double the normal Structural Damage of the weapon, with the Str. Bonus added to it, and then adding the SNPS Damage Table Damage?

yes

maybe something similar if a Larhold Human Renegade somehow gained SNPS too

Axelmania wrote:

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:

Axelmania wrote:
I'd just add them together, be 2x"normal" (SDC)+PS+supernaturalPS'sMD

Do mean double the normal Structural Damage of the weapon, with the Str. Bonus added to it, and then adding the SNPS Damage Table Damage?

yes

maybe something similar if a Larhold Human Renegade somehow gained SNPS too

Then you pulled the equation you are using out of the munchkin handbag. I wish you would stop posting ideas that have be debunked already.

Found another one: the Combat Gauntlet in Rifts WB10: Juicer Uprising adds 4 to SN hand to hand damage.

Edit: Oh, and the spell Demon Talons in DB12pg182 gives talons capable of 3d4+3+SN PS.

Maybe the different "stack" vs "replace if higher" could reflect some weapons being more able to synergize with brute force than others?

But if that were the case you'd expect to see that with SDC weapons too in stead of the sort of -add it or do nothing- policy they seem to have (ie melee vs guns/bows and whatever the policy is on thrown)