Crazy thoughts from the Dog O War

[Dog_O_War]

Okay, I like dice. I like using the different types. And I like that there are different types to use. But the trend in palladium is d20, d100, d6, and d4. Rarely will you roll a single d10 or d8, and palladium has seemingly never heard of a d12. This makes me sad.

Also, there is no ryhme nor reason on why some guns do the damage that they do; there is no "quality" in the weapons. While I'm all for a random range, I find that for certain weapon types it just makes no sense. Plasma weapons for example are supposed to be incredibly destructive, yet when you roll a d6x10 for a plasma mini-missile, there is a decent chance you get a 10. Yay, you just did the average damage of a 3d6 weapon. Well boo that.

So here is my preposition; damage types are dice-types. Guns with a certain type of damage will always use the same dice. This gets us players using a wider range of polyhedrons, and shakes things up abit. Gives people that, "I can rely on this gun, but this other one has so much potential!" feeling. Same with melee weapons.

Here's what I've got;

D4 - Dependable. A d4 offers the most predictable numbers a person could want. A d4 always gives a good average (relatively speaking), and can be counted on for the average to show up and play. Plasma weapons do d4 type damage. So do blunt weapons.

Examples of how this would work go as follows; C-29 currently does 1d6x10; change this to 1d4x10+10. While the damage has been reduced, you will always do atleast 20 points. Do the same with plasma mini-missiles. A blunt weapon, such as a mace might do 2d4 damage. This is also the dice I'd associate with "cold" attacks.

D6 - Reliable. A d6 is what most games use, and should be common for this one as well. The d6 is "the old stand-by", always offering a decent hit without the super highs and lows of the other dice-types. A laser does d6 damage. So do spear and most polearm type weapons. This is the dice I'd throw fire damage under.

Examples of how this would work go as follows; Laser weapons basically do not change, Though you might want to give the old Wilks a 1d6+1 damage boost so as not to conflict (or seem weaker) when you upgrade guns like the pepperbox to 1d6 per barrel. Others, like the new CS sidearm would do 2d6-1 instead of 2d4. A regular spear would do 1d6 for a smaller, one-handed type, while larger ones do 2d6 or more.

D8 - Potential. The d8 has such potential over the other two weapons, offering that on average it will equal the maximum of the d4, and will do a third more than the d6 for its maximum. Unfortunately it also has that low, where it does the same as a plain old d6 or d4 for its minimum damage, or potential. The d8 is a gamble. I associate ion weaponry with this die-type, as well as the sword. I'd lump in lightning-type attacks with this dice as well.

Examples include that NG ion rifle; it does like 2d4x10; offer a straight conversion of 1d8x10, or the Free Quebec Q102; it does 4d6+4, so change that to 4d8 or 3d8+4 (the former does have a sightly higher potencial than normal, but it also has a lower minimum). A small sword would do 1d8, where as a broad sword would do 2d8, and a giant sword 3d8.

D10 - Dangerous. Nothing is more scary than seeing a weapon that does double digits on a single dice! Well this die offers that possibility. The D10 is the weapon of uncertainty though, as it can bring ruin as well as often as it brings boon with it's large number range. Particle Beam weapons, with there relatively new and experimental damage type do d10. So do axes. I'd lump sound-based attacks in with the d10 as well.

Examples of this would be That crap PB shoulder cannon that the Jager can mount; change it to 1d10x10 and now you've got a weapon that is scary (or, if you want a relatively close range to the original, offer 6d10 instead). Axes can do incredible amounts of destruction - if the blade bites in properly, and the angle is good. That's why I give it this high range.

D12 - Explosive. Exactly as advertised, explosives should have a crazy-high potential. Hand-grenades, like that one that does 5d6 to a 20ft area (or maybe that was a missile?) would do 2d12+4 or 3d12; high maximum, but due to the nature of explosives, there is a chance a person comes out practically unscathed. While this wouldn't cover plasma missiles (which are technically "explosive"), you can certainly use it for home-made bombs and other grenades.

All that being said, where does this leave conventional guns and railguns? Weapons such as these are far more customizable and difficult to lump into any single category; you can have a shotgun shell with solid slugs, or a lead-load so fine it's like you're shooting sand (hell, it could very well be sand!). This one I suggest you mull over and work out differently than the listed weapons. A .357 doesn't need to shoot the same grain bullet all the time, let alone a magnum round; and yet as the book states it will forever do 4d6. change them up; maybe offer a 9mm does 2d8+2 instead of plain old 3d6. Maybe that SAMAS railgun is doing 5d8 instead of 1d4x10.


All this is just an idea I've been turning over in my head for a while now. Will it "break" the game? No. No amount of dice changes to weapons will ever do that (heh, even if the basic Wilks pistol did 1d6x10 instead of 1d6, the world would go on as people will still take the most advantageous weapons for the given situation).

Thoughts?

[LostOne]

Okay, I like dice. I like using the different types. And I like that there are different types to use. But the trend in palladium is d20, d100, d6, and d4. Rarely will you roll a single d10 or d8, and palladium has seemingly never heard of a d12. This makes me sad.

Pick up Splicers, quite a few d8 and d12 damages in that book, including 1d8x10 to a single target and 1d12x10 to a radius, IIRC. IMO, the 1d12x10 has such a wide range of damage to reflect how much cover there is between myself and the victims, how many needles hit them.

Also, there is no ryhme nor reason on why some guns do the damage that they do; there is no "quality" in the weapons. While I'm all for a random range, I find that for certain weapon types it just makes no sense. Plasma weapons for example are supposed to be incredibly destructive, yet when you roll a d6x10 for a plasma mini-missile, there is a decent chance you get a 10. Yay, you just did the average damage of a 3d6 weapon. Well boo that.

Rolling 10 on a 1d6x10 weapon shows that you barely hit/nicked your target, whereas 60 would be a direct square-on hit.

Your proposition has merit, but not in my game. It would be great to base a new game system around, but I have enough house rules and official rules to keep track of without adding a custom damage system to it.

[Natasha]

The Wilks should never do that much damage. You're almost doubling its max damage. My vagabond scrounger just got a lot more badass. And, I'd say, got broken, too.

If you're into ballistics, then changing damages for different loads is probably something you're going to enjoy.

You only need a D10 to play RECON (and 3 attributes )

[Dog_O_War]

The Wilks should never do that much damage. You're almost doubling its max damage. My vagabond scrounger just got a lot more badass. And, I'd say, got broken, too.

1d6+1 is double?

If you're into ballistics, then changing damages for different loads is probably something you're going to enjoy.

You only need a D10 to play RECON (and 3 attributes )

Needs more dice types.

[Natasha]

The Wilks should never do that much damage. You're almost doubling its max damage. My vagabond scrounger just got a lot more badass. And, I'd say, got broken, too.

1d6+1 is double?

I was responding to this:

(heh, even if the basic Wilks pistol did 1d6x10 instead of 1d6, the world would go on as people will still take the most advantageous weapons for the given situation)

If you're into ballistics, then changing damages for different loads is probably something you're going to enjoy.

You only need a D10 to play RECON (and 3 attributes )

Needs more dice types.

If you're speaking about personal preference that's one thing.

It's another thing if you're saying RECON is broken because it uses only 10-sided dice. And if you're saying RECON's broken, then I'm going to have to disagree.

[Dog_O_War]

Okay, I like dice. I like using the different types. And I like that there are different types to use. But the trend in palladium is d20, d100, d6, and d4. Rarely will you roll a single d10 or d8, and palladium has seemingly never heard of a d12. This makes me sad.

Pick up Splicers, quite a few d8 and d12 damages in that book, including 1d8x10 to a single target and 1d12x10 to a radius, IIRC. IMO, the 1d12x10 has such a wide range of damage to reflect how much cover there is between myself and the victims, how many needles hit them.

Doesn't help me use alot of different dice for my headhunter or Dogboy though.

Also, there is no ryhme nor reason on why some guns do the damage that they do; there is no "quality" in the weapons. While I'm all for a random range, I find that for certain weapon types it just makes no sense. Plasma weapons for example are supposed to be incredibly destructive, yet when you roll a d6x10 for a plasma mini-missile, there is a decent chance you get a 10. Yay, you just did the average damage of a 3d6 weapon. Well boo that.

Rolling 10 on a 1d6x10 weapon shows that you barely hit/nicked your target, whereas 60 would be a direct square-on hit.

That only explains so much. How do you "nick" someone with a armour-piercing missile, where it states that only a direct hit is doubling the damage it deals?


The point of the thread a type of thought exercise; thinking outside the confines of the d6, the d4, the d100, and the d20 (well, maybe not the d20). Where as one weapon might do 3d4, it feels weak just looking at those small dice. Now pick up 1d12 and you feel more confident just looking at it. Accociating the higher range of numbers with superior capability as opposed to just 1d4 (three times). It is more rewarding to roll one die and get double digits, than three dice to achieve the same thing.

It also helps to show that there is a difference between a giant vibro-sword and a giant vibro-axe (they can't seriously both be doing 3d6).

[Natasha]

The point of the thread a type of thought exercise; thinking outside the confines of the d6, the d4, the d100, and the d20 (well, maybe not the d20). Where as one weapon might do 3d4, it feels weak just looking at those small dice. Now pick up 1d12 and you feel more confident just looking at it. Accociating the higher range of numbers with superior capability as opposed to just 1d4 (three times). It is more rewarding to roll one die and get double digits, than three dice to achieve the same thing.

It's a personal preference thing.
I prefer 3D4. At least I am getting 3 points of damage or whatever. When I roll a 1D12 and get a 1, I'm kinda bummed out.

It also helps to show that there is a difference between a giant vibro-sword and a giant vibro-axe (they can't seriously both be doing 3d6).

I think that's a valid point. But it depends on how vibro-weapons work. If they are energy weapons rather than kinetic then perhaps this makes sense. Maybe. Maybe not.

[Dog_O_War]

The Wilks should never do that much damage. You're almost doubling its max damage. My vagabond scrounger just got a lot more badass. And, I'd say, got broken, too.

1d6+1 is double?

I was responding to this:

(heh, even if the basic Wilks pistol did 1d6x10 instead of 1d6, the world would go on as people will still take the most advantageous weapons for the given situation)

Ah. Let me put it to you this way. Everyone else would be using that gun as well, and now you're back where you started; At the bottom of the "who's the most skilled at combat?" pile. Except now people will begin to lose that "I'm Superman" mentality when they see a gun they know the "stats" of.
Besides, what I put forth was a "will not break the game" even though it seemed powerful. Rifts already has guns that do that much damage, or there are combos that are capable of doing that much damage - paired pistols using NG-45 LP's for example do that much.

If you're into ballistics, then changing damages for different loads is probably something you're going to enjoy.

You only need a D10 to play RECON (and 3 attributes )

Needs more dice types.

If you're speaking about personal preference that's one thing.

It's another thing if you're saying RECON is broken because it uses only 10-sided dice. And if you're saying RECON's broken, then I'm going to have to disagree.

no no, I've never played it. I doubt it's broken as it has a system that works on a d10, which allows the finest of measurements - the percentage as reduced to any amount. I'm just saying that I've got all these dice I'll never use in that system. Makes me sad.

[Dog_O_War]

The point of the thread a type of thought exercise; thinking outside the confines of the d6, the d4, the d100, and the d20 (well, maybe not the d20). Where as one weapon might do 3d4, it feels weak just looking at those small dice. Now pick up 1d12 and you feel more confident just looking at it. Accociating the higher range of numbers with superior capability as opposed to just 1d4 (three times). It is more rewarding to roll one die and get double digits, than three dice to achieve the same thing.

It's a personal preference thing.
I prefer 3D4. At least I am getting 3 points of damage or whatever. When I roll a 1D12 and get a 1, I'm kinda bummed out.

It also helps to show that there is a difference between a giant vibro-sword and a giant vibro-axe (they can't seriously both be doing 3d6).

I think that's a valid point. But it depends on how vibro-weapons work. If they are energy weapons rather than kinetic then perhaps this makes sense. Maybe. Maybe not.

They resonate a high-frequiency kinetic field, turning SDC weapons into MDC weapons.

[Natasha]

The Wilks should never do that much damage. You're almost doubling its max damage. My vagabond scrounger just got a lot more badass. And, I'd say, got broken, too.

1d6+1 is double?

I was responding to this:

(heh, even if the basic Wilks pistol did 1d6x10 instead of 1d6, the world would go on as people will still take the most advantageous weapons for the given situation)

Ah. Let me put it to you this way. Everyone else would be using that gun as well, and now you're back where you started; At the bottom of the "who's the most skilled at combat?" pile. Except now people will begin to lose that "I'm Superman" mentality when they see a gun they know the "stats" of.

Power creep benefits the bottom, I guess. If you don't dial up the defense of Huntsman armour then your Wilks is still more badass than it was, even if you're at the bottom of the pile.

I'm fine with knowing the stats of a weapon, especially one that would probably be as commonly recognised as a Wilks. I'm also fine with changing stats without notice if they make sense. I roll the damage for the player and describe it in words rather than numbers; I describe for the character, not the player. It's different for online play but hey I still not bothered by it.

Besides, what I put forth was a "will not break the game" even though it seemed powerful. Rifts already has guns that do that much damage, or there are combos that are capable of doing that much damage - paired pistols using NG-45 LP's for example do that much.

I don't see that as justifying power creep.

I'm just saying that I've got all these dice I'll never use in that system. Makes me sad.

Like I said before, the number of dice I have to roll doesn't measure the fun of the game. Personally speaking, of course.

[Natasha]

They resonate a high-frequiency kinetic field, turning SDC weapons into MDC weapons.

Then I don't see how an vibro-axe would do more damage than a vibro-sword. The damage is coming from a wave field.
But this all make believe anyway, so we get to choose what's what.

[Dog_O_War]

Why would explosives have such a flat curve? I was under the impression that explosives, while a tad unpredictable in their effect (that is where the Demolitions and Engineering skills come in, I suppose), reliably destroyed things. I'd've assumed a 3d4, as mentioned above, would be the better idea.
Not so much?

They still do reliably destroy things - for demo'd explosives (C400 - the megadamage version of C4). But grenades do a number of dice, like 5d6, or 5-30; quite the range. The average on 5d6 is 17, while on 2d12+4 it's 17 as well, just the minimum is now 6 and the maximum is now 28. Or you can go with 3d12, changing the average to 19 and the min/max to 3/36. The numbers are still reliable, you just have to eye-ball it for certain ranges (like 3d12+4 or 4d12 replacing 1d4x10).

Then I don't see how an vibro-axe would do more damage than a vibro-sword. The damage is coming from a wave field.
But this all make believe anyway, so we get to choose what's what.

The field is just an upgrade to the damage the weapon already deals. For instance, a big knife does 1d6 SD, while its vibro version does 1d6 MD; same numbers, just tacking on the MD in place of the SD. The difference though is somewhere along the line, Palladium went from their wide array of variable melee weapon damages to all weapons doing a uniform d6 in Rifts (the sabre and some of the claws being the exception).

Basically what they are saying to me is that a sword = an axe = a spear = a club = etc... and that the only thing to say "these are actually different" is that I require proficiency X to use it. If that's the case, then the axe should die out, as should other melee weapons because the sword has both superior WP bonuses, and can accept the fencing skill (for that extra d6 damage). Just doesn't sit right with me.

[Natasha]

Then I don't see how an vibro-axe would do more damage than a vibro-sword. The damage is coming from a wave field.
But this all make believe anyway, so we get to choose what's what.

The field is just an upgrade to the damage the weapon already deals. For instance, a big knife does 1d6 SD, while its vibro version does 1d6 MD; same numbers, just tacking on the MD in place of the SD. The difference though is somewhere along the line, Palladium went from their wide array of variable melee weapon damages to all weapons doing a uniform d6 in Rifts (the sabre and some of the claws being the exception).

It appears that we're just switching from normal damage to mega-damage, but is that what's actually happening? What I'm getting at is that these weapons by themselfs won't do anything against mega-damage structures; it's the wave field that's doing the actual mega-damage, not the blade. The underlying weapon is just style. As a result, you get uniform damage across vibro-weapons. That there are vibro-weapons doing different damage might be different tech. Might be lack of thought, too. I'm willing to accept that. All I'm saying is that I don't really have a problem with it, since I can explain it (for myself anyway).

Basically what they are saying to me is that a sword = an axe = a spear = a club = etc... and that the only thing to say "these are actually different" is that I require proficiency X to use it. If that's the case, then the axe should die out, as should other melee weapons because the sword has both superior WP bonuses, and can accept the fencing skill (for that extra d6 damage). Just doesn't sit right with me.

Well in the case above for purposes of damage a sword is equal to an axe and spear and club. It makes sense that you would need a sword proficiency to use a sword still since for the purposes of proficiency they're wholly different things.

Fencing wouldn't increase mega-damage of a vibro-weapon. Rationale: again, it's not the weapon doing the damage.

Axes would die out, except they're cool and have style. And style is sometimes more important than +'s for some people.

[Dog_O_War]

Then I don't see how an vibro-axe would do more damage than a vibro-sword. The damage is coming from a wave field.
But this all make believe anyway, so we get to choose what's what.

The field is just an upgrade to the damage the weapon already deals. For instance, a big knife does 1d6 SD, while its vibro version does 1d6 MD; same numbers, just tacking on the MD in place of the SD. The difference though is somewhere along the line, Palladium went from their wide array of variable melee weapon damages to all weapons doing a uniform d6 in Rifts (the sabre and some of the claws being the exception).

It appears that we're just switching from normal damage to mega-damage, but is that what's actually happening? What I'm getting at is that these weapons by themselfs won't do anything against mega-damage structures; it's the wave field that's doing the actual mega-damage, not the blade. The underlying weapon is just style. As a result, you get uniform damage across vibro-weapons. That there are vibro-weapons doing different damage might be different tech. Might be lack of thought, too. I'm willing to accept that. All I'm saying is that I don't really have a problem with it, since I can explain it (for myself anyway).

It's not the wave though; otherwise there would be vibro-clubs, and vibro-enhancers for other objects (vibro-cuff links anyone?). It is the blade and the field; the field amplifies the blade itself, causing the blade to do MD.

Basically what they are saying to me is that a sword = an axe = a spear = a club = etc... and that the only thing to say "these are actually different" is that I require proficiency X to use it. If that's the case, then the axe should die out, as should other melee weapons because the sword has both superior WP bonuses, and can accept the fencing skill (for that extra d6 damage). Just doesn't sit right with me.

Well in the case above for purposes of damage a sword is equal to an axe and spear and club. It makes sense that you would need a sword proficiency to use a sword still since for the purposes of proficiency they're wholly different things.

Fencing wouldn't increase mega-damage of a vibro-weapon. Rationale: again, it's not the weapon doing the damage.

Axes would die out, except they're cool and have style. And style is sometimes more important than +'s for some people.

Fencing does increase the damage of the weapon though; it is the style in which the weapon is used that is the enhancer - it just so happens that if you use a vibro-sword, it will do mega-damage. If we were to follow that additions to weapon damage were not added because of that field, supernatural strength would not add to it either.

As for axes having style, well when it comes down to it - in real life (which is the mind-set these characters should have) it is the numbers that keeps them alive. Your average soldier doesn't care if his gear looks stupid, all he cares about is making it another day - something the stylish people won't be able to do. Function over form wins battles; if a person is choosing the opposite, then they are choosing to lose - which is something (both PC and characters alike) rarely see as an option.

[Natasha]

Then I don't see how an vibro-axe would do more damage than a vibro-sword. The damage is coming from a wave field.
But this all make believe anyway, so we get to choose what's what.

The field is just an upgrade to the damage the weapon already deals. For instance, a big knife does 1d6 SD, while its vibro version does 1d6 MD; same numbers, just tacking on the MD in place of the SD. The difference though is somewhere along the line, Palladium went from their wide array of variable melee weapon damages to all weapons doing a uniform d6 in Rifts (the sabre and some of the claws being the exception).

It appears that we're just switching from normal damage to mega-damage, but is that what's actually happening? What I'm getting at is that these weapons by themselfs won't do anything against mega-damage structures; it's the wave field that's doing the actual mega-damage, not the blade. The underlying weapon is just style. As a result, you get uniform damage across vibro-weapons. That there are vibro-weapons doing different damage might be different tech. Might be lack of thought, too. I'm willing to accept that. All I'm saying is that I don't really have a problem with it, since I can explain it (for myself anyway).

It's not the wave though; otherwise there would be vibro-clubs, and vibro-enhancers for other objects (vibro-cuff links anyone?). It is the blade and the field; the field amplifies the blade itself, causing the blade to do MD.

Maybe there should be vibro-cuffs. Maybe.

Like I said, you have valid point here. I was putting forth an explanation for the otherwise.

Fencing does increase the damage of the weapon though; it is the style in which the weapon is used that is the enhancer - it just so happens that if you use a vibro-sword, it will do mega-damage. If we were to follow that additions to weapon damage were not added because of that field, supernatural strength would not add to it either.

In your way, yes, fencing would. I was speaking about my way.

Well, supernatural strength is supernatural.

As for axes having style, well when it comes down to it - in real life (which is the mind-set these characters should have) it is the numbers that keeps them alive. Your average soldier doesn't care if his gear looks stupid, all he cares about is making it another day - something the stylish people won't be able to do. Function over form wins battles; if a person is choosing the opposite, then they are choosing to lose - which is something (both PC and characters alike) rarely see as an option.

We've bumped up against playstyle differences again.

[Dog_O_War]

Then I don't see how an vibro-axe would do more damage than a vibro-sword. The damage is coming from a wave field.
But this all make believe anyway, so we get to choose what's what.

The field is just an upgrade to the damage the weapon already deals. For instance, a big knife does 1d6 SD, while its vibro version does 1d6 MD; same numbers, just tacking on the MD in place of the SD. The difference though is somewhere along the line, Palladium went from their wide array of variable melee weapon damages to all weapons doing a uniform d6 in Rifts (the sabre and some of the claws being the exception).

It appears that we're just switching from normal damage to mega-damage, but is that what's actually happening? What I'm getting at is that these weapons by themselfs won't do anything against mega-damage structures; it's the wave field that's doing the actual mega-damage, not the blade. The underlying weapon is just style. As a result, you get uniform damage across vibro-weapons. That there are vibro-weapons doing different damage might be different tech. Might be lack of thought, too. I'm willing to accept that. All I'm saying is that I don't really have a problem with it, since I can explain it (for myself anyway).

It's not the wave though; otherwise there would be vibro-clubs, and vibro-enhancers for other objects (vibro-cuff links anyone?). It is the blade and the field; the field amplifies the blade itself, causing the blade to do MD.

Maybe there should be vibro-cuffs. Maybe.

Like I said, you have valid point here. I was putting forth an explanation for the otherwise.

Fencing does increase the damage of the weapon though; it is the style in which the weapon is used that is the enhancer - it just so happens that if you use a vibro-sword, it will do mega-damage. If we were to follow that additions to weapon damage were not added because of that field, supernatural strength would not add to it either.

In your way, yes, fencing would. I was speaking about my way.

Well, supernatural strength is supernatural.

As for axes having style, well when it comes down to it - in real life (which is the mind-set these characters should have) it is the numbers that keeps them alive. Your average soldier doesn't care if his gear looks stupid, all he cares about is making it another day - something the stylish people won't be able to do. Function over form wins battles; if a person is choosing the opposite, then they are choosing to lose - which is something (both PC and characters alike) rarely see as an option.

We've bumped up against playstyle differences again.

I don't think our play-styles are so different, I'm just perplexed at the game in how there is practically nothing that has form match function (which is human nature - seeking astetics). That and the sword = axe, etc... makes only one choice a clearly advantageous one. I mean, if swords were really the "best" and that there were no difference between them and axes, we'd use swords to cut down trees, and axes would be long-gone.

But you know, and I know that this is not the case; we use an axe because it has the best design for that task - all the weapons' weight is behind the blow. Form = function here, but there is no in-game representation of it. I want there to be one; thus me subjecting the forum-public to the insights of my mind (or insanities, whichever the case may be).

[Natasha]

We've bumped up against playstyle differences again.

I don't think our play-styles are so different, I'm just perplexed at the game in how there is practically nothing that has form match function (which is human nature - seeking astetics). That and the sword = axe, etc... makes only one choice a clearly advantageous one. I mean, if swords were really the "best" and that there were no difference between them and axes, we'd use swords to cut down trees, and axes would be long-gone.

I think it's a matter of style still (and playstyle).

I can imagine a Crazy for example liking the fact that he's carrying around an axe in all his badassery because nobody else is, even if it's not the superior weapon. The Crazy is going for style.

But you know, and I know that this is not the case; we use an axe because it has the best design for that task - all the weapons' weight is behind the blow. Form = function here, but there is no in-game representation of it. I want there to be one; thus me subjecting the forum-public to the insights of my mind (or insanities, whichever the case may be).

Depends on the game. That's definitely a problem.

[Dog_O_War]

A topic of another thread reminded me of something that has always bothered me; strength mechanics in Rifts.

We all know how it works (and doesn't work), but the real question is, why does it not make sense? Why can a guy with normal PS lift almost the same amount as a guy with supernatural PS, yet their damages have magnitudes of difference?

Also, something that has bothered me; why is strength almost always disclude the weight of a character? A bigger person should be able to lift more weight than a guy with an equal strength, but smaller. It's just how it is.

So, another crazy thought; changing how strength works.
How it currently goes; PS 1-16 normal. PS 17+ exceptional. Then the categories of Augmented, Robotic, and Supernatural.

My proposed changes; PS 1-16; lift 10 x PS + 1/2 your weight (average guy of 165Lbs, with a strength of 10 could lift 182Lbs). Carry weight is about half this, and optimal carry weight is half that. As far as I can tell, there is no penalty for having too much crap, except for ad-hoc penalties you add. Maybe I'll add some..... Later though.

At 17+ you can lift your weight + 10 x PS. This would put that 165Lbs 17 PS guy at a lift of 335Lbs - that's alot!

At augmented you are lifting 20 times instead of 10. you still only lift 1/2 weight for having an augmented PS of 16 or lower. At 17+ though, it's 1.5 x weight.

At robotic you are lifting 40 times your strength score with no accounting weight. Robots tend to be finely tuned devices where one thing, such as a strength of 10 will be the same all the way down the line. There is an ammendment though; the larger the robot, the more it can lift (not a weight category thing). Robots 10ft - 15ft can lift an additional 200Lbs, and this number doubles for each additional 5ft range of height (16-20ft 400Lbs, 21-25ft 800Lbs, etc...).

At supernatural you are capable of lifting 50 times your PS, plus your weight if you have a score of 1-16. 2 x your weight for 17-30, and 3 x your weight for 31+. This puts a Titan Juicer of 40 PS (and 800Lbs) capable of lifting 4,400Lbs! That's 2 and 1/4 tons, or a cadillac (because this is proper unit of measurement - how many cadillacs can a person lift?).


As for damage; well this is more complicated, and for now I'll stick to what the book has.

Thoughts?

[glitterboy2098]

in regard to axes vs. swords...

you ever try to cut down a tree with a sword? or throw a sword as a weapon?

the fact an axe doubles as a tool, and not just a weapon is why axes were so prevelant in ancient times as a weapon of war. swords tended to be rarer and signs of rank, because only those peoplewith the rank/power/money to burn could afford to have a single use item like a sword. an axe usualy showed up in many armies because the soldiers brought them with them from home. it was generally only the "professional armies" like the romans that could afford to equip all their troops with swords.


vibro weapons fall under the same kinds of deals. a vibro-axe is an ideal tree felling weapon. a vibro-sword not so much. you might be able to use that vibrosword as a machete in dense underbrush, but the axe is going ot get more general use.
prior to the rifts, vibro-axes would be very common for fire departments, allowing them to chop through the denser building materials to get to the sources of fires and rescue people, or to effortlessly chop through SDC buildings.

[Dog_O_War]

in regard to axes vs. swords...

you ever try to cut down a tree with a sword? or throw a sword as a weapon?

the fact an axe doubles as a tool, and not just a weapon is why axes were so prevelant in ancient times as a weapon of war. swords tended to be rarer and signs of rank, because only those peoplewith the rank/power/money to burn could afford to have a single use item like a sword. an axe usualy showed up in many armies because the soldiers brought them with them from home. it was generally only the "professional armies" like the romans that could afford to equip all their troops with swords.


vibro weapons fall under the same kinds of deals. a vibro-axe is an ideal tree felling weapon. a vibro-sword not so much. you might be able to use that vibrosword as a machete in dense underbrush, but the axe is going ot get more general use.
prior to the rifts, vibro-axes would be very common for fire departments, allowing them to chop through the denser building materials to get to the sources of fires and rescue people, or to effortlessly chop through SDC buildings.

My thoughts exactly - yet there are no rules to govern this, or at the very least a price difference. It just grinds my gears...

[SkyeFyre]

I agree, however I really don't feel like giving the whole system an overhaul. I think I'll just play it by ear and whenever something like that comes up I'll just be like "Oh yeah, due to the fact that you're taking that huge freaking axe to the guy... roll an additional D6 for damage" or something like that.

I really like your weight lifting house rule. I think I'll tweak it a bit and use it. Now robot vehicles will be able to flip over tanks!

[Dog_O_War]

I agree, however I really don't feel like giving the whole system an overhaul. I think I'll just play it by ear and whenever something like that comes up I'll just be like "Oh yeah, due to the fact that you're taking that huge freaking axe to the guy... roll an additional D6 for damage" or something like that.

I really like your weight lifting house rule. I think I'll tweak it a bit and use it. Now robot vehicles will be able to flip over tanks!

As it should be.

And your right; most people won't be bothered to give the system an overhaul - it's too much work for the average GM, who is busy with work/school/friends/life to accomplish anything in a short amount of time.

Fortunately I lack a weekday social life and find this type of conversion and tedious work enthralling, especially when others are interested in the final product. May take me a month or two to churn out a basic model (given that I am working on a variant vehicular combat ruleset currently), but I now feel the need to post a listing of guns re-worked.