Do SDC silver weapons do triple damage to Splurgoth?

[dreicunan]

Fair enough, Axel, you caught a change that I missed. Yet another Palladium editing mystery that we will likely never get answered.

If you really think that Kevin S intended to make a few creatures have a strange vulnerability that doesn't switch between MD and SDC by setting the way it nearly always does, and that these aren't just errata that is unlikely to be corrected, you run with that. It is a position entirely consistent with you past approach of claiming that any editing error on the part of Palladium is intentional when it supports your position and just an error when it doesn't.

The poll makes it clear what everyone else thinks.

[Nekira Sudacne]

And again, you claim to simply be using the rules as they are written is still not credible to any reasonable degree, as simply reading the rule in question in a natural manner leads to a different conclusion.

[Axelmania]

If you really think that Kevin S intended to make a few creatures have a strange vulnerability that doesn't switch between MD and SDC by setting the way it nearly always does,

There are a lot of examples of vulnerabilities only being listed as multipliers. It might even outnumber the ones where there's an explicit guideline to do MD equivalents.

It is a position entirely consistent with you past approach of claiming that any editing error on the part of Palladium is intentional when it supports your position and just an error when it doesn't.

You of course, being the ultimate authority on what is an error and what is not.

The poll makes it clear what everyone else thinks.

The poll wasn't worded to imply that SDC damage became MD prior to being tripled.

I can't see the results because I abstained from voting in it, knowing it would be taken out of context.

you claim to simply be using the rules as they are written is still not credible to any reasonable degree,
as simply reading the rule in question in a natural manner leads to a different conclusion.

*your

Nekira it seems like you are essentially calling me unreasonable for disagreeing with the implementation of your house rule of floating over operating parameters from randomly generated lesser supernatural beings to these alien intelligences.

I find the assumption that such a equivalence exists between these radically different categories to be unreasonable.

You are reading the Splugorth Vulnerabilities UNnaturally, because you are reading something which simply is not present.

[dreicunan]

If you really think that Kevin S intended to make a few creatures have a strange vulnerability that doesn't switch between MD and SDC by setting the way it nearly always does,

There are a lot of examples of vulnerabilities only being listed as multipliers. It might even outnumber the ones where there's an explicit guideline to do MD equivalents.

It is a position entirely consistent with you past approach of claiming that any editing error on the part of Palladium is intentional when it supports your position and just an error when it doesn't.

You of course, being the ultimate authority on what is an error and what is not.

I accept. Henceforth, I am the ultimate authority on what is an error. This was an error, and you are wrong in your interpretation.

[Axelmania]

Defeated by my own sarcasm!

[torjones]

I would also like to point out that, as has been mentioned before...
The vulnerability rules date back originally from the RMB. And thus if we want to see what the intent was it would seem logical to check the RMB. Especially since the Splugorth were written with RMB not RUE.
And in RMB things with a Vulnerability *always* took MDC from their vulnerability.
Full Stop.

There are no examples of *anything* in RMB not taking MDC from their vulnerability.
Thus the idea that the description of what a vulnerability is in the core book, a description that is repeated in WB1... suddenly is ignored in WB 2 is beyond absurd.

Patently not true.

11-20 Energy. All types of energy including fire, lasers, plasma, ion blasts, electricity, and nuclear energy inflicts double damage. However, kinetic energy/attacks, including mega-damage punches from robots and power armor, vibro-blades, explosives/missiles, rail guns, and bullets, do absolutely NO damage!

Please not the distinct lack of any mention of fires dealing MDC damage to creatures with this weakness as it does with Water. While almost all energy weapons on Rifts Earth deal MD, so I could understand if the few that didn't were over looked, but as with the entry for Fire a few inches further down the page, it specifically calls out that even normal fires deal MD and double damage. This is the exact pattern exhibited everywhere. When they mean normally SD sources of damage to deal MD it is ALWAYS called out as such.

Light. All forms of light blind and frighten the creature (-9 to strike, parry, and dodge when blinded). Lives in a dark cave or dwelling during the day. Hunts only at night. exception night vision equal to a human's day vision. Laser weapons inflict double damage.

Again, please note the distinct lack of any mention of SD weapons dealing MD, only that they deal double damage. This is back when there were so few laser items in the game, things like laser scalpels and welders/cutters that normally deal SD were not such a minority as they are today. Again, I could understand overlooking so few items, if it weren't for all the other entries being so specific in calling out when SD became MD due to the vulnerability/weakness.

Of course, this is only the way it works with randomly generated monsters. Every other monster I've ever read in all the books, though by no means have I read them all, when they had a vulnerability to something, it specifically and explicitly defined how the vulnerability worked for that type of creature. Every single time they meant for SD weapons to deal MD, they call it out. If you're aware of some statement somewhere that changes that, I'd be happy to read it, but until then, I must continue to conclude that RAW is that SDC weapons do not automatically deal MDC, unless that is specifically and explicitly called out in the vulnerability section of the creatures stat block or otherwise mentioned in the creatures entry.

[Nekira Sudacne]

If you really think that Kevin S intended to make a few creatures have a strange vulnerability that doesn't switch between MD and SDC by setting the way it nearly always does,

There are a lot of examples of vulnerabilities only being listed as multipliers. It might even outnumber the ones where there's an explicit guideline to do MD equivalents.

It is a position entirely consistent with you past approach of claiming that any editing error on the part of Palladium is intentional when it supports your position and just an error when it doesn't.

You of course, being the ultimate authority on what is an error and what is not.

The poll makes it clear what everyone else thinks.

The poll wasn't worded to imply that SDC damage became MD prior to being tripled.

I can't see the results because I abstained from voting in it, knowing it would be taken out of context.

you claim to simply be using the rules as they are written is still not credible to any reasonable degree,
as simply reading the rule in question in a natural manner leads to a different conclusion.

*your

Nekira it seems like you are essentially calling me unreasonable for disagreeing with the implementation of your house rule of floating over operating parameters from randomly generated lesser supernatural beings to these alien intelligences.

I find the assumption that such a equivalence exists between these radically different categories to be unreasonable.

You are reading the Splugorth Vulnerabilities UNnaturally, because you are reading something which simply is not present.

Again, just because you assert it doesn't make it a credible argument. If I tell you "He's vunerable to silver weapons" do you think "only if it also meets a bunch of other criteria", or do you think "I can hit him with this silver bullet and it will work.

Or put more simply, you are not meeting your burden of proof. Your claiming that the obvious and natural reading is wrong. You've basically just asserted it's wrong again and again, providing some arguments, but those arguments are not convincing. Unfortunately for you, the default isn't "Axelmania is correct" and anyone who disagrees is inserting houserules. It's "I made a positive claim, that this is the correct interpretation". As you've consistantly failed to meet the burden of proof, not just for me but for most, I think it's fair to say you've not really gained any kind of conesus following to your view.

I can't prove you wrong, of course, because it's impossible to prove a negative, but I have stated what I feel the correct interpretation is, and seem to have quite a bit more in agreement with me. As trying to convince *you* seems to just be going in circles, and because I don't have time for debates to be decided by who posts last in a 300 post topic anymore, I'm just going to bow out of this topic unless I see a new argument made that hasn't already been made before. I will remind you however that forums are places for debate, and yoru tendancy to declare anyone who disagrees with you as inserting houserules is quite counterproductive--it presumes you are the authority who is always right, but your task is to convince others that you are correct, not that you can simply assert that you are.

[HWalsh]

Can we get a mod to lock this?

This is literally an 18 to 1 argument. It's decided. Silver weapons do 3 times their damage in MDC to Spluggorth.

Cas closed.

[Curbludgeon]

I was under the impression that political allusions were frowned upon here. That is a funny one though, what with the miscounting, misspelling, and misrepresentation of poll results which in addition to not being visible to all parties don't address the matter at hand. If, however, it wasn't meant as such, it instead comes across as an attempt to shout down assertions backed by citations.

Putting a (silver?) pin in goofy edge cases like S.D.C. burst fire, what other situations could either interpretation possibly affect? I think all here would likely agree that, say, an enchanted weapon forged from or perhaps simply plated with silver would triple the M.D.C. of the base weapon's S.D.C. damage. How might that interact in situations where the weapon in question does more damage than its shape would suggest? Would a silvered rune sword do the same or more damage as a silvered rune dagger which to opponents not vulnerable to silver would be otherwise equivalent?

[torjones]

Can we get a mod to lock this?

This is literally an 18 to 1 argument. It's decided. Silver weapons do 3 times their damage in MDC to Spluggorth.

Cas closed.

Except none of that's true. Unless of course nobody is seeing my comments, It's not Vs 1. I also think you're exaggerating the 18, but even if it was 100 to 1 however, that alone does not make the 1 incorrect. YOU may have decided, some others may have decided, and there may well be some that will never be convinced by logical and reasonable arguments because they are so attached to their answer for some unknown reason. There are however others who can be convinced that even if they are going to use that as their house rule, they should know and acknowledge that the rule as written is that SDC Silver weapons deal 3x their damage in SDC to Splugorth.

If you don't want to continue participating in the debate, you can always stop reading it. You don't have to try to ruin it for everyone else. Then again, I suppose for some people that too is good times.

I'm glad you think so highly of yourself that you can make such pronouncements on behalf of others that a debate is closed. I do however hope you don't actually expect others to agree with your edict.

[torjones]

Again, just because you assert it doesn't make it a credible argument. If I tell you "He's vunerable to silver weapons" do you think "only if it also meets a bunch of other criteria", or do you think "I can hit him with this silver bullet and it will work.

If it were me playing at your table, I'd have to ask what "Vulnerable" meant for this monster because it's unique to each monster with such a designation.

Or put more simply, you are not meeting your burden of proof. Your claiming that the obvious and natural reading is wrong. You've basically just asserted it's wrong again and again, providing some arguments, but those arguments are not convincing. Unfortunately for you, the default isn't "Axelmania is correct" and anyone who disagrees is inserting houserules. It's "I made a positive claim, that this is the correct interpretation". As you've consistantly failed to meet the burden of proof, not just for me but for most, I think it's fair to say you've not really gained any kind of conesus following to your view.

Just because you assert that your reading is the One True Reading, or is the "Obvious and natural" reading, doesn't make it so either. Give it to someone who doesn't know the system, doesn't play the game, and ask them what they think it means, without trying to influence their answer. You're basically just asserting that he's wrong, again and again, without even providing any arguments.

I can't prove you wrong, of course, because it's impossible to prove a negative, but I have stated what I feel the correct interpretation is, and seem to have quite a bit more in agreement with me. As trying to convince *you* seems to just be going in circles, and because I don't have time for debates to be decided by who posts last in a 300 post topic anymore, I'm just going to bow out of this topic unless I see a new argument made that hasn't already been made before. I will remind you however that forums are places for debate, and yoru tendancy to declare anyone who disagrees with you as inserting houserules is quite counterproductive--it presumes you are the authority who is always right, but your task is to convince others that you are correct, not that you can simply assert that you are.

Sadly, having lots of people agreeing with you doesn't make you correct, just as not having many people agree with you doesn't make you wrong, but your task in a debate is to convince those who disagree with you that you're correct, not that you can simply assert that you are.

Personally, I think it's interesting how little of your own message you are following yourself.

[HWalsh]

Except none of that's true. Unless of course nobody is seeing my comments, It's not Vs 1.

Look at the poll results. Literally it is 18 to 1.

[Axelmania]

just because you assert it doesn't make it a credible argument.

If credibility is the ability to convince others, and some are resistant to being convinced, then credibility is subjective. Perhaps we could find some other trait to measure?

If I tell you "He's vunerable to silver weapons" do you think "only if it also meets a bunch of other criteria", or do you think "I can hit him with this silver bullet and it will work.

I imagine if I simply threw a silver bullet at a werewolf or a Splugorth that neither would be harmed by it, because there are minimum thresholds you need beyond contact with an item of vulnerability to actually inflict damage to a creature. This is why Zavor can play baseball or climb wooden ladders without having their hands melted off.

That threshold is 1 or more damage for normal creatures, 100 or more damage for MDC creatures.

Your claiming that the obvious and natural reading is wrong.

I think I'm disagreeing with you on what is an "obvious and natural" reading. If it were so obvious/natural then why, when cutting books down for space, would Siembieda flood books like Mystic Russia with monster-by-monster instructions of when to convert dmg>MD if he could simply write "vulnerable to silver" with it being obvious that meant conversion.

those arguments are not convincing. Unfortunately for you, the default isn't "Axelmania is correct" and anyone who disagrees is inserting houserules. It's "I made a positive claim, that this is the correct interpretation". As you've consistantly failed to meet the burden of proof, not just for me but for most, I think it's fair to say you've not really gained any kind of conesus following to your view.

Nekira you are making the positive claim that we should alter a stated amount of damage into mega-damage in a situation where we are not told to do that. Who has the burden here?

yoru tendancy to declare anyone who disagrees with you as inserting houserules is quite counterproductive--it presumes you are the authority who is always right, but your task is to convince others that you are correct, not that you can simply assert that you are.

Nekira, you are simply asserting yourself as an authority of "natural reading" to disagree with torjones and myself that dmg>MD conversion happens anywhere "vulnerability" is used, when we are never told that.

Some creatures are "vulnerable" to psionics, but still get savings throws against it, meaning there is never any guarantee of the power working. I don't understand why you think susceptibility means guaranteed harm. Someone vulnerable to disease doesn't always get sick (they may just have a penalty to save, or be sick for twice as long) and someone vulnerable to damage still has to be hit by a damaging attack.

The only damaging attacks to MDC creatures are those which do at least 1 mega-damage, or 100 damage.

I think all here would likely agree that, say, an enchanted weapon forged from or perhaps simply plated with silver would triple the M.D.C. of the base weapon's S.D.C. damage.

If it is enchanted with a spell that converts damage into mega-damage, such as the 8th level spell "Power Weapon", then a 1d6 dagger enchanted to do 1d6 MD would do 3d6 MD to a Splugorth.

I also think you're exaggerating the 18, but even if it was 100 to 1 however, that alone does not make the 1 incorrect.

You're a window into my mind.

Look at the poll results. Literally it is 18 to 1.

I can't: I didn't vote in it. I think a lot of people can see the poll isn't written correctly to answer the question you think it's asking.

I for example, would technically have to vote "yes" on the poll, because the question is "Do SDC silver weapons do triple damage to Splurgoth?"

They obviously do. However the poll doesn't ask anything about whether or not the damage is converted into mega-damage. It doesn't say "triple damage as MD" or "three hundred times damage".

I could actually argue that this proves 19 people agree with torjones and myself, because it asserts they merely do triple damage instead of 300x, which is what converting to MD after tripling would be.

[The Beast]

Look at the poll results. Literally it is 18 to 1.

I can't: I didn't vote in it. I think a lot of people can see the poll isn't written correctly to answer the question you think it's asking.

Last I checked every poll on the Forums here have an option to view the results without voting in said poll.

[Axelmania]

Ah, so it does. 19/1/1. I stand by it being inconclusive due to bad wording though. The answer to the question of the OP (MLP7029) "Does an MDC creature like a Splugorth take damage from a SDC attack it has a vulnerability to?" is essentially a "yes, but..." the BUT being that the SDC attack still needs to do 100 as normal to deplete 1 MDC, however due to the x3 multiplier it essentially only needs to manage 34 damage.

If you had a natural 20, you'd only need 17.

[torjones]

Except none of that's true. Unless of course nobody is seeing my comments, It's not Vs 1.

Look at the poll results. Literally it is 18 to 1.

That poll does not answer the question you think it does. The poll question does not ask if SD becomes MD in the case of the Splugorth, it asks "Do SDC silver weapons do triple damage to Splurgoth?" Those are different questions.

[HWalsh]

Except none of that's true. Unless of course nobody is seeing my comments, It's not Vs 1.

Look at the poll results. Literally it is 18 to 1.

That poll does not answer the question you think it does. The poll question does not ask if SD becomes MD in the case of the Splugorth, it asks "Do SDC silver weapons do triple damage to Splurgoth?" Those are different questions.

Fine. Ya know what I'll make a different poll to debunk that claim.

[Curbludgeon]

How do polls debunk claims?

[HWalsh]

How do polls debunk claims?

Debunk the claim that, "more people would vote no if it was worded correctly!"

Right now it is having the same results as this poll.

[kaid]

When you have power armor in the latest NG book designed to fight monsters that has 2 SDC machine guns made to fire off silver/wood rounds is a good demonstration that yes SDC wood/silver hurt MDC creatures vulnerable to those items. This has been a long running theme in rifts all these supernatural creatures that are as strong as a tank often suffer from vulnerabilities to really trivial items. It is why preparation is important and having versatile weapons are very handy.

[Axelmania]

There are different kinds of vulnerabilties. Some monsters explicitly state to convert the normal damage to mega-damage. Clearly those weapons are designed to harm them rather than niche cases like the Splugorth which do not convert it to MD.

[eliakon]

It still seems pretty cut and dry.

RMB (1990) sets up the concept of "vulnerability" starting on page 249.

"Note Most supernatural creatures are especially vulnerable to a particular item/element such as fire, water, or iron, and so on; even weapons (of this element) that are normally S.D.C. weapons will inflict mega-damage on the supernatural being. This is the result of some unusual disparity in the physical laws that govern our world and the dimension in which the being normally exists. See Weakness."

Hmmm, lets go to weakness then and see what it says about silver.

66-75 Silver. The paranormal monster is vulnerable to weapons made of silver (including bullets). Basically works the same as Weapons of Iron."

Okay then, lets read what it says about Iron?

"Weapons of Iron (Must be 88% pure iron) inflicts the mega-damage equivalent of the normal, ancient, S.D.C. weapon, i.e., a pure iron short sword that normally inflicts 1d6 S.D.C. damage inflicts 1d6 mega-damage (M.D.) against this creature. A 1d8 S.D.C. mace does 1d8 M.D. but only against this creature. Against normal humans the weapons are simple S.D.C. items."

But wait! There's more!
That was just the animalistic predators. What about intelligent beings?

RMB 1 on page 251 also has this to say about "Intelligent supernatural monsters"

"Note: The intelligent supernatural creatures are also vulnerable to a particular item/element such as fire, water, or iron and so on; even weapons that are normally S.D.C. weapons will inflict mega- damage on the supernatural being. See Weakness."

From this we see that substances you have a weakness to do MDC is the general default rule supernatural beings, since this is before we have official beings, this table is officially how all monsters are created!

But what about Intelligences you ask?

Then in Conversion Book 1 (1991) we have the Intigence Random Table on page 206.
they first show up sets up the ground rules on Intelligences.

"01-40% Vulnerable to weapons made of silver: Inflicts M.D. equal to its usual M.D. in damage."

What do you know... the normal rule is still the normal rule

World Book 1 (1991) introduces a new Intelligence, the VI. This intelligence does NOT follow the normal rules. And that deviation is spelled out to us as one of its powers as found on page 11

"Wood, silver, running water and holy water inflict damage direct to hit points!"

World Book 2 (1992) Introduces the second Intelligence Race... the Splugorth. This race though follows the rules in CB1 to a "t" with the minor exception that the damage multipliers of the weaknesses are changed. Again, only the multiplier is called out as being different from the template in CB1. Other than that they are almost exactly like the template as found in the book. Their stats are either the same or nearly so, their MDC is pretty close and their powers? Identical down to their summoning in of minions being identical to the CB1 demon summoning powers!

We see this format followed in WB 2 where the multiplier of some things is changed and a new vulnerability (Millennium) is added.

More over in all my searching I have not been able to find a *single* example of any creature that has a note that has a vulnerability to something but that it does NOT take MDC from that vulnerability... which would lead one to suspect that such a state of affairs does not even exist with in the official rules as a possibility which would be why it is not addressed in every write up any more than humans have to have a note that they are SDC creatures and thus take 100x rolled damage from MDC attacks.

Thus the idea that every other part of the format was followed except for this one, single part seems... unrealistic.
Especially since there is not, to my knowledge, any canonical support for the existence of the claimed state of affairs to even be possible.

[HWalsh]

As always Eliakon, I suspect there is a bias at play.

Some people like the CS and will argue into the ground that the CS isn't evil because some people in the CS aren't evil. The leadership is all evil, the laws are undoubtedly evil, but because not every single rank and file soldier is evil that is all the justification needed to say they aren't evil.

I think that's going on here as well. Some people really want the Spluggorth to be virtually unbeatable. Which the Empire may be, but an individual one can be killed by a normal being with a really good regular silver sword.

Personally I want Palladium to release an update to the setting where the Spluggs and the CS get taken down a notch, but that's not why I believe in your interpretation.

I just hide people who I think are arguing from a biased stance and try not to respond to them.

[kaid]

Honestly I don't get the big issue here to splugorth taking triple damage to silver sdc weapons in MDC. If all you have to attack a splugorth with is an SDC weapon made of silver then you are pretty much dead already so the question is moot. You could wail away on it all day and all night and still not do any appreciable damage to it.

[HWalsh]

Honestly I don't get the big issue here to splugorth taking triple damage to silver sdc weapons in MDC. If all you have to attack a splugorth with is an SDC weapon made of silver then you are pretty much dead already so the question is moot. You could wail away on it all day and all night and still not do any appreciable damage to it.

I wouldn't go that far. Another MDC being (or someone wearing MD armor) wielding a silver sword with a decent PS at triple damage can do some real damage. Give them some buffs (speed weapon maybe) and a couple of similarly outfitted allies and a Splug can be taken down.

I mean, if someone can get to 20 damage (not unreasonable) or 35-ish that gets you to 60-105 damage per hit. You get in 10 swings and you multiply it by a party (say 5 people) and you're easily burning through 5k mdc per round. Add in a little support and you could put the hurt on a splug.

Of course a few silver boom gun rounds wouldn't hurt...

(3d6×10)×3 avg 300 MDC per shot... That can put the hurt with the quickness.

[kaid]

Given the amount of MDC the splugorth have the rate they bio regen and the amount of servitors they have I would stand by my if all you have is SDC silver weapons you are pretty much dead already. Vulnerability to SDC silver is not going to win a fight vs a splugorth for you. Now if you have a full force of MDC equiped attackers sufficient to somehow block off minion counter attack AND stop the splugorth from porting out then frankly you have enough force to kill it silver or no silver.

[Curbludgeon]

I'm not up to checking out all the different silver ammunitions, but rail gun damages I've seen for such are generally far lower. The anti-vampire rail gun ammo in WB1r lists silver or wood ammo as 3d6x10 HP damage. There might be some wooden Boom Gun I just don't remember. For a silvered Boom Gun round to inflict 3d6x10 damage, which is then tripled, it would have to be especially hardened in some fashion which makes this discussion irrelevant.

[Hotrod]

As always Eliakon, I suspect there is a bias at play.

Some people like the CS and will argue into the ground that the CS isn't evil because some people in the CS aren't evil. The leadership is all evil, the laws are undoubtedly evil, but because not every single rank and file soldier is evil that is all the justification needed to say they aren't evil.

I think that's going on here as well. Some people really want the Spluggorth to be virtually unbeatable. Which the Empire may be, but an individual one can be killed by a normal being with a really good regular silver sword.

Personally I want Palladium to release an update to the setting where the Spluggs and the CS get taken down a notch, but that's not why I believe in your interpretation.

I just hide people who I think are arguing from a biased stance and try not to respond to them.

One of the central themes of the original Rifts was that power comes at a price. Another was that(and this is a direct quote from Kevin himself) there are no utopias.

Thus, you could become incredibly powerful at the cost of your humanity (borg), a very shortened future (juicer), or your sanity (crazy). You could embrace your ancestors' tech with a crippling financial cost (most tech warrior types). You could harness the power of the same ley lines that are actively wrecking your world, make pacts with strange alien powers, or become a PPE vampire that preys on such power but isn't really trusted by regular people, either.

I see the CS in a similar light; they embrace security and unity at the cost of liberty. They spend a great deal of time, blood, and treasure fighting foes that are far worse than they are. It says something about how dark Rifts truly is when the neo-nazi anti-book dictatorship isn't even close to being the biggest or most evil threat. The fact that Palladium is in the middle of the Minion War series in which it presents the Coalition as the "Heroes of Humanity" invites us as fans to contemplate how we might align ourselves and act in such extreme circumstances.

This is why I like the CS; because it invites the player and GM to contemplate what matters most in life. Could you stomach tolerating anti-literacy policies, authoritarian despotism, and unprovoked xenocidal acts to be safe from alien and human threats that want to enslave you, mutilate you, murder you, and/or eat you, not necessarily in that order? That's a difficult question to contemplate, and I would argue that it's an important one.

[torjones]

It still seems pretty cut and dry.
RMB (1990) sets up the concept of "vulnerability" starting on page 249.

"Note Most supernatural creatures are especially vulnerable to a particular item/element such as fire, water, or iron, and so on; even weapons (of this element) that are normally S.D.C. weapons will inflict mega-damage on the supernatural being. This is the result of some unusual disparity in the physical laws that govern our world and the dimension in which the being normally exists. See Weakness."

This is a much better argument, imo. I still don't think it's a good one, but it's the best argument I've seen so far. My rebuttal to this would be that this is still all about the randomly rolled monsters, not a general rule that applies to all monsters. I would also continue to refute this by pointing out that if there was a general rule that all vulnerabilities/weaknesses became MDC damage, then there would be no need to point it out explicitly in so many of the entries.

But wait! There's more!
That was just the animalistic predators. What about intelligent beings?

RMB 1 on page 251 also has this to say about "Intelligent supernatural monsters"

"Note: The intelligent supernatural creatures are also vulnerable to a particular item/element such as fire, water, or iron and so on; even weapons that are normally S.D.C. weapons will inflict mega- damage on the supernatural being. See Weakness."

From this we see that substances you have a weakness to do MDC is the general default rule supernatural beings, since this is before we have official beings, this table is officially how all monsters are created!

This is how monsters are created using random roll tables. You may however note that Palladium does not follow these rules when creating monsters, given that we do have several examples immediately following the random roll creation tables, and none of them follow the tables.

But what about Intelligences you ask?

Then in Conversion Book 1 (1991) we have the Intigence Random Table on page 206.
they first show up sets up the ground rules on Intelligences.

"01-40% Vulnerable to weapons made of silver: Inflicts M.D. equal to its usual M.D. in damage."

What do you know... the normal rule is still the normal rule

Again, this is a random roll table for supernatural intelligences, not a general rule for all monsters, and it still explicitly calls out each time that it intends SDC weapons to deal MDC damage.

World Book 1 (1991) introduces a new Intelligence, the VI. This intelligence does NOT follow the normal rules. And that deviation is spelled out to us as one of its powers as found on page 11

"Wood, silver, running water and holy water inflict damage direct to hit points!"

Exactly. Every time it is listed under a creature's entry, it explicitly spells out exactly what it means for that creature.

World Book 2 (1992) Introduces the second Intelligence Race... the Splugorth. This race though follows the rules in CB1 to a "t" with the minor exception that the damage multipliers of the weaknesses are changed. Again, only the multiplier is called out as being different from the template in CB1. Other than that they are almost exactly like the template as found in the book. Their stats are either the same or nearly so, their MDC is pretty close and their powers? Identical down to their summoning in of minions being identical to the CB1 demon summoning powers!

We see this format followed in WB 2 where the multiplier of some things is changed and a new vulnerability (Millennium) is added.

More over in all my searching I have not been able to find a *single* example of any creature that has a note that has a vulnerability to something but that it does NOT take MDC from that vulnerability... which would lead one to suspect that such a state of affairs does not even exist with in the official rules as a possibility which would be why it is not addressed in every write up any more than humans have to have a note that they are SDC creatures and thus take 100x rolled damage from MDC attacks.

Thus the idea that every other part of the format was followed except for this one, single part seems... unrealistic.
Especially since there is not, to my knowledge, any canonical support for the existence of the claimed state of affairs to even be possible.

And the Splugorth continues to follow the established tradition of defining exactly what vulnerabilities/weaknesses means for that species by explicitly stating what it means for that species.
I would suggest that the Splugorth is potentially the first MDC creature with a weakness that doesn't specifically take MDC damage from that substance.

[eliakon]

It still seems pretty cut and dry.
RMB (1990) sets up the concept of "vulnerability" starting on page 249.

"Note Most supernatural creatures are especially vulnerable to a particular item/element such as fire, water, or iron, and so on; even weapons (of this element) that are normally S.D.C. weapons will inflict mega-damage on the supernatural being. This is the result of some unusual disparity in the physical laws that govern our world and the dimension in which the being normally exists. See Weakness."

This is a much better argument, imo. I still don't think it's a good one, but it's the best argument I've seen so far. My rebuttal to this would be that this is still all about the randomly rolled monsters, not a general rule that applies to all monsters. I would also continue to refute this by pointing out that if there was a general rule that all vulnerabilities/weaknesses became MDC damage, then there would be no need to point it out explicitly in so many of the entries.

They don't have to point it out. They do point it out. There is a difference.
And the argument that "well we should ignore the definition of vulnerability and weakness as defined in the book because I don't like it" doesn't really sway me.

But wait! There's more!
That was just the animalistic predators. What about intelligent beings?

RMB 1 on page 251 also has this to say about "Intelligent supernatural monsters"

"Note: The intelligent supernatural creatures are also vulnerable to a particular item/element such as fire, water, or iron and so on; even weapons that are normally S.D.C. weapons will inflict mega- damage on the supernatural being. See Weakness."

From this we see that substances you have a weakness to do MDC is the general default rule supernatural beings, since this is before we have official beings, this table is officially how all monsters are created!

This is how monsters are created using random roll tables. You may however note that Palladium does not follow these rules when creating monsters, given that we do have several examples immediately following the random roll creation tables, and none of them follow the tables.

And yet, any and all monsters from there forward that use the word weakness or vulnerability DO use the definition described.

But what about Intelligences you ask?

Then in Conversion Book 1 (1991) we have the Intigence Random Table on page 206.
they first show up sets up the ground rules on Intelligences.

"01-40% Vulnerable to weapons made of silver: Inflicts M.D. equal to its usual M.D. in damage."

What do you know... the normal rule is still the normal rule

Again, this is a random roll table for supernatural intelligences, not a general rule for all monsters, and it still explicitly calls out each time that it intends SDC weapons to deal MDC damage.

Again you are deliberately misinterpreting what is being said.
This is the definitional base.
This is where we see what "vulnerable to silver" means when it comes to AIs. AIs have a specific meaning for the word and that meaning is found here.
Thus when we see AIs with these rolled up abilities in the future we do not have to have the entire ability reprinted every time. We can know that if it has ability X or weakness Y what that is by looking at the basic template what line X or Y says.
Thus the Splugorth have the power of possession. But that is not specified in detail... because the details of that power are found in the AI table. Same with their other powers. And as their powers go, so do their weaknesses.

World Book 1 (1991) introduces a new Intelligence, the VI. This intelligence does NOT follow the normal rules. And that deviation is spelled out to us as one of its powers as found on page 11

"Wood, silver, running water and holy water inflict damage direct to hit points!"

Exactly. Every time it is listed under a creature's entry, it explicitly spells out exactly what it means for that creature.

Again you are misstating what is presented.
The Splugorth state that they take triple damage not double.
Just like the VI states that it takes damage to its HP and not off of its MDC.
There is NO support for the claim that in this one instance that the meaning of the word "vulnerability" and "weakness" are changed and that they do not mean what is meant in every other use of the word.
Especially since the power does NOT state that it is changed from the listed weakness in any OTHER way. Meaning that it is the same roll found in the random table for AIs, but doing x3 not x2.

World Book 2 (1992) Introduces the second Intelligence Race... the Splugorth. This race though follows the rules in CB1 to a "t" with the minor exception that the damage multipliers of the weaknesses are changed. Again, only the multiplier is called out as being different from the template in CB1. Other than that they are almost exactly like the template as found in the book. Their stats are either the same or nearly so, their MDC is pretty close and their powers? Identical down to their summoning in of minions being identical to the CB1 demon summoning powers!

We see this format followed in WB 2 where the multiplier of some things is changed and a new vulnerability (Millennium) is added.

More over in all my searching I have not been able to find a *single* example of any creature that has a note that has a vulnerability to something but that it does NOT take MDC from that vulnerability... which would lead one to suspect that such a state of affairs does not even exist with in the official rules as a possibility which would be why it is not addressed in every write up any more than humans have to have a note that they are SDC creatures and thus take 100x rolled damage from MDC attacks.

Thus the idea that every other part of the format was followed except for this one, single part seems... unrealistic.
Especially since there is not, to my knowledge, any canonical support for the existence of the claimed state of affairs to even be possible.

And the Splugorth continues to follow the established tradition of defining exactly what vulnerabilities/weaknesses means for that species by explicitly stating what it means for that species.
I would suggest that the Splugorth is potentially the first MDC creature with a weakness that doesn't specifically take MDC damage from that substance.

That suggestion is circular. You are using as your evidence your claim.
Specifically you are claiming that your proof that the reason they said Triple was NOT because they take Triple MDC instead of the usual double MDC... but because they instead take triple SDC, which is an utterly unique and novel power... one that is so unique and novel as to be unseen in any other creature...but that they do not bother to actually explicitly state. AND that they don't even bother to tell us overrides the normal meaning of the words "vulnerability" and "weakness" as used in the core books when they set up what those terms MEAN?
AND that because all of that must be true because you assert it is true... that it is evidence of the validity of your position because it provides proof that you must be correct by providing an example of what you are claiming!
That is just beyond absurd.

[Axelmania]

It still seems pretty cut and dry.

RMB (1990) sets up the concept of "vulnerability" starting on page 249.

"Note Most supernatural creatures are especially vulnerable to a particular item/element such as fire, water, or iron, and so on; even weapons (of this element) that are normally S.D.C. weapons will inflict mega-damage on the supernatural being. This is the result of some unusual disparity in the physical laws that govern our world and the dimension in which the being normally exists. See Weakness."

Hmmm, lets go to weakness then and see what it says about silver.

66-75 Silver. The paranormal monster is vulnerable to weapons made of silver (including bullets). Basically works the same as Weapons of Iron."

I'm going to stop you there: you're still going on about the random monster generation table, which only applies to randomly generated monsters.

What is written there doesn't apply to non-random monsters.

But what about Intelligences you ask?

Then in Conversion Book 1 (1991) we have the Intigence Random Table on page 206.
they first show up sets up the ground rules on Intelligences.

"01-40% Vulnerable to weapons made of silver: Inflicts M.D. equal to its usual M.D. in damage."

What do you know... the normal rule is still the normal rule

There is no "normal rule". Instead, you will find things which apply only to randomly generated alien intelligences.

It is evident there are no uniform rules and that these are random-only rules when you note the differences between the tables:

RMBp250 31-45 Fire. All fires, even normal fires, inflict mega-damage. Mega-damage fire/plasma/magic niflicts double damage.
RCBp206 01-42% Vulnerable to fire: M.D. and magic fire inflicts double damage

AIs are tougher. RCB205 describes it asa "general way to create generic type supernatural intelligences". There is no reason to think what is written there would apply to Splugorth.

World Book 1 (1991) introduces a new Intelligence, the VI. This intelligence does NOT follow the normal rules.

There are no normal rules, there are stats you can roll for random alien intelligences. Splugorth are not random AIs any more than Zlyphan would be.

World Book 2 (1992) Introduces the second Intelligence Race... the Splugorth. This race though follows the rules in CB1 to a "t" with the minor exception that the damage multipliers of the weaknesses are changed. Again, only the multiplier is called out as being different from the template in CB1.

CB1 didn't have "rules" for AIs, it had a random generation table.

WB2p41 had plenty of other differences:

+1D6 MA became +2
+2 to ME
+1D6 PS became +6
Spd reduced from 2D4x10 to 1D6x10
MDC increased from 2D6x10k to 3D4x10k
MDC regen DOUBLED
PPE increased from 4D6k to 6D4k
not impervious to poisons/toxins/drugs
no natural invisibility (only seeing)
psi is sensitive/healer/super which is not possible on table (closest would be sens+heal+1d6 super or ALL)
magic knowledge much more: LLW+Stone+Tats+rune+choice instead of just 1 category

Other than that they are almost exactly like the template as found in the book

It appears you immediately backpedaled from your previous statement about ONLY the multiplier being different.

We see this format followed in WB 2 where the multiplier of some things is changed and a new vulnerability (Millennium) is added.

As if the author used the template to generate the AI and then chose to make specific changes to it, such as doubling their healing ability or removing the ability of mundane silver to convert to mega-damage.

Yet you do not acknowledge the significance of that removal?

More over in all my searching I have not been able to find a *single* example of any creature that has a note that has a vulnerability to something but that it does NOT take MDC from that vulnerability...

You mean OTHER examples, besides the Splugorth? I already mentioned some earlier, Nimro and Algor.

If you want explicit text describing how MDC creatures shrug off non-MD attacks that do less than 100 damage, I would check your basic rule books.

the idea that every other part of the format was followed except for this one, single part seems... unrealistic.

A fake argument, since even you already admitted it was not this "one single part". The Splugorth vary from CB's random generation table in several places.

Especially since there is not, to my knowledge, any canonical support for the existence of the claimed state of affairs to even be possible.

The canonical support was introduced on page 11 of Rifts:

Typically, only a mega-damage weapon can harm a M.D.C. structure.
S.D.C. missiles and explosives that can inflict over 100 S.D.C. points of damage do inflict the equivalent of mega-damage.
In these rare cases, approximately every 100 S.D.C. points of damage equals one mega-damage point.

If you want to go to town on a Splugorth with a silver dagger that doesn't inflict MD, you should soup it up somehow.

One way that existed at the time was Pogtalian Dragon Slayers (Vampire Kingdoms 151) whose energy aura allowed them to inflict their punch damage using SDC weapons. Plus the obvious option of simply silver-plating your magic weapons.

Honestly I don't get the big issue here to splugorth taking triple damage to silver sdc weapons in MDC. If all you have to attack a splugorth with is an SDC weapon made of silver then you are pretty much dead already so the question is moot. You could wail away on it all day and all night and still not do any appreciable damage to it.

The issue is that it isn't canon, not that I have any personal problem with it.

Given the amount of MDC the splugorth have the rate they bio regen and the amount of servitors they have I would stand by my if all you have is SDC silver weapons you are pretty much dead already.

Why would you even waste money on MD weapons if SDC silver would do the job?

2D6x10/minute regen is double a randomly generated AI but pretty low in comparison to a lot of gods. You're averaging 35 per 30 seconds, if you're adding PS bonuses to SDC melee weapon damage (or keep in mind the high damage of automatic SDC guns) that wouldn't be hard to sustain, and be much cheaper than e-clips.

They don't have to point it out. They do point it out. There is a difference.

You do have to define how a vulnerability works, otherwise it doesn't mean anything other than something being able to harm you.

Perhaps it might mean that while normal "inflict 100 damage to deplete 1 MDC" guidelines only apply to explosives, a vulnerability could mean that something other than explosives follows this rule?

That certainly makes more sense than pulling some dmg>MD conversion out of thin air.

And the argument that "well we should ignore the definition of vulnerability and weakness as defined in the book because I don't like it" doesn't really sway me.

Those are not "the definition" for anything other than randomly generated things.

Unless of course, you think anything which takes double damage from energy will also be immune to kinetic attacks, since randomly generated monsters are?

any and all monsters from there forward that use the word weakness or vulnerability DO use the definition described.

That is a blatant falsehood. In the very next book (England page 85) the Vulnerability of Zllyphan mentions psionics but nothing about damage becoming MD. This would be a very important consideration for things like Mind Bolt or non-Buster Pyrokinesis.

Again you are deliberately misinterpreting what is being said.
This is the definitional base.
This is where we see what "vulnerable to silver" means when it comes to AIs. AIs have a specific meaning for the word and that meaning is found here.
Thus when we see AIs with these rolled up abilities in the future we do not have to have the entire ability reprinted every time. We can know that if it has ability X or weakness Y what that is by looking at the basic template what line X or Y says.
Thus the Splugorth have the power of possession. But that is not specified in detail... because the details of that power are found in the AI table. Same with their other powers. And as their powers go, so do their weaknesses.

Not an equivalent comparison. The possession rules on page 206 are not part of "Creating a Supernatural Intelligence" random rules.

If you check the table of contents on page 4, these are separate headings which are collectively part of the "Beings Who Would be Gods" section that lasts from page 196 to the end of the book.

It would only make sense to consult text in that table when we are told to. Possession stands alone.

[Hotrod]

As always Eliakon, I suspect there is a bias at play.

Some people like the CS and will argue into the ground that the CS isn't evil because some people in the CS aren't evil. The leadership is all evil, the laws are undoubtedly evil, but because not every single rank and file soldier is evil that is all the justification needed to say they aren't evil.

(snip)

I just hide people who I think are arguing from a biased stance and try not to respond to them.

I believe it's important to take people one at a time. In my experience, judging by the group isn't a constructive approach. Thus, I seem to fall in your "biased" category (a categorization I dispute). Before you hide me, though, I encourage you to reconsider your approach.

In the thread on CK Zen Combat, you were quick to try to establish rules and boundaries for others' posts. Here, you're openly stating that you make a practice of hiding posts of people who disagree with you, and you're trying to get someone else to forcibly end a conversation involving someone who disagrees with you. Your statements suggest that you actively avoid having your positions challenged. Calling someone who disagrees with your take on the CS "biased" and hiding their posts might make you feel better, but in the long run, you run the risk of living with weakly-supported positions. If you refuse to consider the merits of another perspective, how can you truly have any confidence in your own?

[Mack]

HWalsh,
Hotrod,

Please focus on the discussion at hand, and not on other posters.

Thanks,
Mack

[torjones]

It still seems pretty cut and dry.
RMB (1990) sets up the concept of "vulnerability" starting on page 249.

"Note Most supernatural creatures are especially vulnerable to a particular item/element such as fire, water, or iron, and so on; even weapons (of this element) that are normally S.D.C. weapons will inflict mega-damage on the supernatural being. This is the result of some unusual disparity in the physical laws that govern our world and the dimension in which the being normally exists. See Weakness."

This is a much better argument, imo. I still don't think it's a good one, but it's the best argument I've seen so far. My rebuttal to this would be that this is still all about the randomly rolled monsters, not a general rule that applies to all monsters. I would also continue to refute this by pointing out that if there was a general rule that all vulnerabilities/weaknesses became MDC damage, then there would be no need to point it out explicitly in so many of the entries.

They don't have to point it out. They do point it out. There is a difference.
And the argument that "well we should ignore the definition of vulnerability and weakness as defined in the book because I don't like it" doesn't really sway me.

They point it out because it's important to point it out. There is a reason that they point it out. I'm not arguing that "we should ignore the definition of vulnerability/weakness as defined in the book" I'm saying that a generic rule that applies to every instance of it has never been defined. I'm saying that because no generic rule exists, each time it is listed, it is explicit in what it means for this creature, nothing more, nothing less. There is no justification in the rules, from a strict reading of those rules, for believing anything other than that.

But wait! There's more!
That was just the animalistic predators. What about intelligent beings?

RMB 1 on page 251 also has this to say about "Intelligent supernatural monsters"

"Note: The intelligent supernatural creatures are also vulnerable to a particular item/element such as fire, water, or iron and so on; even weapons that are normally S.D.C. weapons will inflict mega- damage on the supernatural being. See Weakness."

From this we see that substances you have a weakness to do MDC is the general default rule supernatural beings, since this is before we have official beings, this table is officially how all monsters are created!

This is how monsters are created using random roll tables. You may however note that Palladium does not follow these rules when creating monsters, given that we do have several examples immediately following the random roll creation tables, and none of them follow the tables.

And yet, any and all monsters from there forward that use the word weakness or vulnerability DO use the definition described.

I'm sorry, but you are factually incorrect here. They do NOT all use a generic definition. There IS no generic definition. Each monster that includes an entry for weakness or vulnerability spells out exactly what that weakness means in that instance. You can not just put things in that aren't there and claim that it is and anyone who disagrees is wrong. If you think that there is a generic rule, please point it out, so far, you haven't done so. Every monster printed with a vulnerability or weakness spells out exactly what that weakness means with no ambiguity or reference to how SDC always becomes MDC. If I'm wrong, please point it out, because I'd like to see it.

But what about Intelligences you ask?
Then in Conversion Book 1 (1991) we have the Intigence Random Table on page 206.
they first show up sets up the ground rules on Intelligences.

"01-40% Vulnerable to weapons made of silver: Inflicts M.D. equal to its usual M.D. in damage."

What do you know... the normal rule is still the normal rule

Again, this is a random roll table for supernatural intelligences, not a general rule for all monsters, and it still explicitly calls out each time that it intends SDC weapons to deal MDC damage.

Again you are deliberately misinterpreting what is being said.
This is the definitional base.
This is where we see what "vulnerable to silver" means when it comes to AIs. AIs have a specific meaning for the word and that meaning is found here.
Thus when we see AIs with these rolled up abilities in the future we do not have to have the entire ability reprinted every time. We can know that if it has ability X or weakness Y what that is by looking at the basic template what line X or Y says.
Thus the Splugorth have the power of possession. But that is not specified in detail... because the details of that power are found in the AI table. Same with their other powers. And as their powers go, so do their weaknesses.

Again, you can not assume that something stated for a random roll table is a generic rule intended for all creatures. You can not ignore this.

World Book 1 (1991) introduces a new Intelligence, the VI. This intelligence does NOT follow the normal rules. And that deviation is spelled out to us as one of its powers as found on page 11

"Wood, silver, running water and holy water inflict damage direct to hit points!"

Exactly. Every time it is listed under a creature's entry, it explicitly spells out exactly what it means for that creature.

Again you are misstating what is presented.
The Splugorth state that they take triple damage not double.
Just like the VI states that it takes damage to its HP and not off of its MDC.
There is NO support for the claim that in this one instance that the meaning of the word "vulnerability" and "weakness" are changed and that they do not mean what is meant in every other use of the word.
Especially since the power does NOT state that it is changed from the listed weakness in any OTHER way. Meaning that it is the same roll found in the random table for AIs, but doing x3 not x2.

I am not misstating anything. I'm saying that the words printed mean what they normally mean, in the context in which they are used, lacking any specific statement that they might mean something else. I believe it is you who is misrepresenting the material intended as limited to randomly rolled monsters and misapplying it as a generic rule. If you do this, of course your position makes perfect logical sense. The problem is that it is NOT a generic statement intended for all monsters, it is limited to the section on randomly rolled monsters.

World Book 2 (1992) Introduces the second Intelligence Race... the Splugorth. This race though follows the rules in CB1 to a "t" with the minor exception that the damage multipliers of the weaknesses are changed. Again, only the multiplier is called out as being different from the template in CB1. Other than that they are almost exactly like the template as found in the book. Their stats are either the same or nearly so, their MDC is pretty close and their powers? Identical down to their summoning in of minions being identical to the CB1 demon summoning powers!

We see this format followed in WB 2 where the multiplier of some things is changed and a new vulnerability (Millennium) is added.

More over in all my searching I have not been able to find a *single* example of any creature that has a note that has a vulnerability to something but that it does NOT take MDC from that vulnerability... which would lead one to suspect that such a state of affairs does not even exist with in the official rules as a possibility which would be why it is not addressed in every write up any more than humans have to have a note that they are SDC creatures and thus take 100x rolled damage from MDC attacks.

Thus the idea that every other part of the format was followed except for this one, single part seems... unrealistic.
Especially since there is not, to my knowledge, any canonical support for the existence of the claimed state of affairs to even be possible.

And the Splugorth continues to follow the established tradition of defining exactly what vulnerabilities/weaknesses means for that species by explicitly stating what it means for that species.
I would suggest that the Splugorth is potentially the first MDC creature with a weakness that doesn't specifically take MDC damage from that substance.

That suggestion is circular. You are using as your evidence your claim.
Specifically you are claiming that your proof that the reason they said Triple was NOT because they take Triple MDC instead of the usual double MDC... but because they instead take triple SDC, which is an utterly unique and novel power... one that is so unique and novel as to be unseen in any other creature...but that they do not bother to actually explicitly state. AND that they don't even bother to tell us overrides the normal meaning of the words "vulnerability" and "weakness" as used in the core books when they set up what those terms MEAN?
AND that because all of that must be true because you assert it is true... that it is evidence of the validity of your position because it provides proof that you must be correct by providing an example of what you are claiming!
That is just beyond absurd.

I'm sorry, but again, you aren't understanding what's being said. This is not circular, or at least, no more circular than your own argument is. There is no normal meaning. Every time it is used, it is always explicitly stated what it means for that creature. Nowhere, in any of the books, does it state "When a creature is vulnerable to a material it always takes MDC damage if it's an MDC creature" or anything even slightly resembling such a statement. Nowhere does it state "As always, SDC damage with this substance becomes MDC." You are inserting that meaning yourself. It is never stated anywhere. Without a statement something along those lines, you can not assume that it means what you're claiming. It's factually erroneous and logically invalid.

[Axelmania]

Interesting thing I just noticed, "Mephisto the Deceiver" from the back of the Conversion Book (page 224) the end of his Natural Abilities originally read:
Vulnerable to weapons made of iron: inflicts M.D. equal to its usual S.D.C. damage

His stats on page 39 of Dark Conversions split this off into "Natural Vulnerabilities and Weaknesses" and changed it to:
Weapons made of pure iron do triple damage, and he can also be harmed by holy weapons, rune weapons and magic of all kinds. Psionics also do normal damage.

The instruction to change usual SDC damage into MD was removed and replaced with tripling.

The other things don't have multipliers so it begs the question of why to list holy/rune weapons, magic and psi.

He originally had a "resistant to fire and cold (does half damage)" which is still present, along with a "fire and cold resistant (half damage)". Superfluous reiteration? I wouldn't really care if it stacked to have him take 1/4 either.

I could see "psionics also do normal damage" as perhaps meaning that pyrokinetic / cryokinetic attacks aren't halved/quartered, but "can be harmed by" is just odd... can't EVERYONE be harmed by holy/rune weapons and magic?

This would make more sense if he had some kind of "immunity to normal weapons" (I've seen that a few times besides vampires, forget where) so it would be reminding us of non-normal things that don't fall under the immunity.

This makes me think that being MDC is a lot more powerful than most surmise: that the "normal damage of 100 depletes 1 MDC" only applies with explosives by default, and nothing else, unless you are vulnerable, in which case the 100:1 conversion is capable for non-explosive things.

Every time it is used, it is always explicitly stated what it means for that creature.

The Dark Conversions example above shows it isn't always explicitly stated what a Vulnerability means (or if it means anything at all) but I would agree that if it's meaning isn't clear, that's not grounds to start inserting definitions from whatever other kind of monster we like.

I think the simplest is reminding us of things a monster is not immune to, even if there isn't a need for it. If we had to assign some purpose to a listed vulnerability then it may be in respect to ignoring a natural ability (like an immunity or resistance) or something like acting like an explosive in being able to damage MDC at all.

RUE 288 seems to have removed that explosives-only default though (now it seems ANYTHING that does 100 SDC can deplete 1 MDC) so my guess is vulnerabilities, if there's a need felt to assign meaning, is ignoring resistance and doing stated damage without dividing it.

That doesn't do anything in respect to MDC though because that's not a resistance, that's just a ratio.

- - -

Although I don't think anything from 1990-2004 supports Eliakon's interpretation, I just discovered something introduced into RUE which could be viewed as supporting it... the left column of RUE 289...

Supernatural beings have weird vulnerabilities and weaknesses that defy logic but can save a human's life.
Consequently, weapons and bullets made of silver may inflict Mega-Damage to the demon even if it does S.D.C. damage to mortals.

That first part is of no consequence since it merely says "may", but read on...

The description of the creature will indicate any weakness to ordinary S.D.C. materials
and may indicate the M.D. inflicted by weapons made from them.
If it does not indicate specific damage, the rule of thumb
is that the weapon inflicts its S.D.C. damage as Mega-Damage.
Example: A silver plated short sword that normally inflicts 2D6 S.D.C. damage
does 2D6 M.D. to beings vulnerable to silver.

Here's where it gets interesting... what happens when we have something like a Silver Vibro-Blade? It just ties? Maybe not...

If we look at the previous page RUE 288...

One Mega-Damage point inflicts the equivalent of 100 S.D.C., so a Mega-Damage weapon that inflicts the equivalent of 100-600 S.D.C./Hit Point damage

If silver vibro-swords started doing 1D6x100 MDC to silver-vulnerables that would be quite extreme, it would be instant death a lot of the time for a lot of the Russian demons, perhaps explaining why demons may not be a rush to engage russian cyborgs up close?

That said, upon further research, it occurs to me that even though we do know that silver vibro-blades exist, we don't necessarily know what they cost.

Although Warlords of Russia mentions a static +100 credits for silvering a knife, much as I'd like to say that technically should apply to a vibro-knife, this was listed under "Field Equipment" (large/small/survival/throwing knife presumably being SDC) and there wasn't a mention of this price on page 185 under "Odds and Ends" when Vibro-blades were described.

Perhaps silver causes complications with vibro-blade energy fields increasing the price of making them (or increasing their energy demands to use) so for whatever reason they're reserved only for the super-expensive Cyborgs the Russians use, and aren't in the hands of everyday troops?

It may be that it is so problematic to do that only the Russians are able to do it affordably, explaining why we haven't seen silvered vibro-weapons mentioned for the Coalition States, even though it would be useful against Vampires/Werewolves they encounter.

The reason for my thinking this comes from C.J. Carella... page 31 of World Book 6 (South America) has the Aguirre Heavy Combat Robot.

It comes standard equipped with a "Giant Vibro Sword" that does 1D6x10 MD, but notes:

Sometimes the robots are equipped with a non-energy silver-plated giant sword for anti-vampire purposes


If silver vibro blades were an easy thing, you'd have to ask "well, why not just make that a vibro-sword too?"

Interestingly, the silver-played sword is capable of doing 2D4 MD to normal targets. This is less than the 3D6 MD the Aguirre can do with a punch, which means the soft metal is probably a step down, but still possible good for added reach and WP bonuses.

[HWalsh]

Interesting thing I just noticed, "Mephisto the Deceiver" from the back of the Conversion Book (page 224) the end of his Natural Abilities originally read:
Vulnerable to weapons made of iron: inflicts M.D. equal to its usual S.D.C. damage

His stats on page 39 of Dark Conversions split this off into "Natural Vulnerabilities and Weaknesses" and changed it to:
Weapons made of pure iron do triple damage, and he can also be harmed by holy weapons, rune weapons and magic of all kinds. Psionics also do normal damage.

The instruction to change usual SDC damage into MD was removed and replaced with tripling.

The other things don't have multipliers so it begs the question of why to list holy/rune weapons, magic and psi.

He originally had a "resistant to fire and cold (does half damage)" which is still present, along with a "fire and cold resistant (half damage)". Superfluous reiteration? I wouldn't really care if it stacked to have him take 1/4 either.

I could see "psionics also do normal damage" as perhaps meaning that pyrokinetic / cryokinetic attacks aren't halved/quartered, but "can be harmed by" is just odd... can't EVERYONE be harmed by holy/rune weapons and magic?

This would make more sense if he had some kind of "immunity to normal weapons" (I've seen that a few times besides vampires, forget where) so it would be reminding us of non-normal things that don't fall under the immunity.

This makes me think that being MDC is a lot more powerful than most surmise: that the "normal damage of 100 depletes 1 MDC" only applies with explosives by default, and nothing else, unless you are vulnerable, in which case the 100:1 conversion is capable for non-explosive things.

Every time it is used, it is always explicitly stated what it means for that creature.

The Dark Conversions example above shows it isn't always explicitly stated what a Vulnerability means (or if it means anything at all) but I would agree that if it's meaning isn't clear, that's not grounds to start inserting definitions from whatever other kind of monster we like.

I think the simplest is reminding us of things a monster is not immune to, even if there isn't a need for it. If we had to assign some purpose to a listed vulnerability then it may be in respect to ignoring a natural ability (like an immunity or resistance) or something like acting like an explosive in being able to damage MDC at all.

RUE 288 seems to have removed that explosives-only default though (now it seems ANYTHING that does 100 SDC can deplete 1 MDC) so my guess is vulnerabilities, if there's a need felt to assign meaning, is ignoring resistance and doing stated damage without dividing it.

That doesn't do anything in respect to MDC though because that's not a resistance, that's just a ratio.

- - -

Although I don't think anything from 1990-2004 supports Eliakon's interpretation, I just discovered something introduced into RUE which could be viewed as supporting it... the left column of RUE 289...

Supernatural beings have weird vulnerabilities and weaknesses that defy logic but can save a human's life.
Consequently, weapons and bullets made of silver may inflict Mega-Damage to the demon even if it does S.D.C. damage to mortals.

That first part is of no consequence since it merely says "may", but read on...

The description of the creature will indicate any weakness to ordinary S.D.C. materials
and may indicate the M.D. inflicted by weapons made from them.
If it does not indicate specific damage, the rule of thumb
is that the weapon inflicts its S.D.C. damage as Mega-Damage.
Example: A silver plated short sword that normally inflicts 2D6 S.D.C. damage
does 2D6 M.D. to beings vulnerable to silver.

Here's where it gets interesting... what happens when we have something like a Silver Vibro-Blade? It just ties? Maybe not...

If we look at the previous page RUE 288...

One Mega-Damage point inflicts the equivalent of 100 S.D.C., so a Mega-Damage weapon that inflicts the equivalent of 100-600 S.D.C./Hit Point damage

If silver vibro-swords started doing 1D6x100 MDC to silver-vulnerables that would be quite extreme, it would be instant death a lot of the time for a lot of the Russian demons, perhaps explaining why demons may not be a rush to engage russian cyborgs up close?

That said, upon further research, it occurs to me that even though we do know that silver vibro-blades exist, we don't necessarily know what they cost.

Although Warlords of Russia mentions a static +100 credits for silvering a knife, much as I'd like to say that technically should apply to a vibro-knife, this was listed under "Field Equipment" (large/small/survival/throwing knife presumably being SDC) and there wasn't a mention of this price on page 185 under "Odds and Ends" when Vibro-blades were described.

Perhaps silver causes complications with vibro-blade energy fields increasing the price of making them (or increasing their energy demands to use) so for whatever reason they're reserved only for the super-expensive Cyborgs the Russians use, and aren't in the hands of everyday troops?

It may be that it is so problematic to do that only the Russians are able to do it affordably, explaining why we haven't seen silvered vibro-weapons mentioned for the Coalition States, even though it would be useful against Vampires/Werewolves they encounter.

The reason for my thinking this comes from C.J. Carella... page 31 of World Book 6 (South America) has the Aguirre Heavy Combat Robot.

It comes standard equipped with a "Giant Vibro Sword" that does 1D6x10 MD, but notes:

Sometimes the robots are equipped with a non-energy silver-plated giant sword for anti-vampire purposes


If silver vibro blades were an easy thing, you'd have to ask "well, why not just make that a vibro-sword too?"

Interestingly, the silver-played sword is capable of doing 2D4 MD to normal targets. This is less than the 3D6 MD the Aguirre can do with a punch, which means the soft metal is probably a step down, but still possible good for added reach and WP bonuses.

Vibro blades deal damage based on the energy field, not the blade itself. I don't think the material matters.

[eliakon]

HWalsh is correct.
Vibro-blades do their damage via an energy field around the blade.
As such the material the blade is made of is only of relevance if the blade is turned off.

[Vincent Takeda]

These kind of conversations are exactly why I love not playing palladium's mdc settings. So much rules lawyering interpretive back and forth. Just not worth the hassle. What would Kevin do? Is this what the Wuj would have wanted? Pages of twisting english and rulebook skullduggery? I mean yeah, the coalition has a lot of skulls in it, but cmon guys.

It works this way because it says such and such
It doesnt work this way because it doesnt say it does
It works or doesnt work this way because it doesnt say it *doesnt*
It does or doesnt work this way because it is or isnt specific or similar across all instances
blah blah blah.

The books are inconsistant because they had multiple authors and decades of development and poor editing. Unless we get new books, thats what you've got to work with. Just work with it already. Homebrew how you particularly handle it, tell your table, and get back to *actually* gaming already.

you'd think this was the paizo threads.

[dreicunan]

@Axelmania: I knew that I had seen a more explicit reference to that, but hadn't found it. RUE settles that, then.

[The Beast]

Vibro blades deal damage based on the energy field, not the blade itself. I don't think the material matters.

Reading their fluff text that's understandable conclusion. But then PB goes and makes Ripper blades with silver coating, but leave out any mechanics on whether or not the damage rolled is changed or if the field has to be turned off when fighting SNC weak to silver.

[eliakon]

Vibro blades deal damage based on the energy field, not the blade itself. I don't think the material matters.

Reading their fluff text that's understandable conclusion. But then PB goes and makes Ripper blades with silver coating, but leave out any mechanics on whether or not the damage rolled is changed or if the field has to be turned off when fighting SNC weak to silver.

You can always turn off a vibro blade.

And the fact that there is no note about extra damage would seem to indicate that there isn't any... since usually silver weapons mention the extra damage.

[Axelmania]

Vibro blades deal damage based on the energy field, not the blade itself. I don't think the material matters.

HWalsh is correct.
Vibro-blades do their damage via an energy field around the blade.
As such the material the blade is made of is only of relevance if the blade is turned off.

I seem to remember vibro-blades being referred to as kinetic weapons in some examples, and don't seem to remember Impervious to Energy necessarily being a stop to them.

@Axelmania: I knew that I had seen a more explicit reference to that, but hadn't found it. RUE settles that, then.

Well, now that I take an even fresher look: RUE 289's "if it does not indicate specific damage" may not be fulfilled, since Splugorth do indicate "triple" specifically: the rule of thumb may not apply. I guess it depends on what is meant by "specific". Is it a specific fixed amount, a specific fixed number of dice, or a specific fixed multiplier to them?

the fact that there is no note about extra damage would seem to indicate that there isn't any... since usually silver weapons mention the extra damage.

Just because the individual weapon doesn't note extra damage doesn't mean there isn't any. They may simply expect you to refer to a creatures' abilities to find out how much.

[glitterboy2098]

Vibro blades deal damage based on the energy field, not the blade itself. I don't think the material matters.

Reading their fluff text that's understandable conclusion. But then PB goes and makes Ripper blades with silver coating, but leave out any mechanics on whether or not the damage rolled is changed or if the field has to be turned off when fighting SNC weak to silver.

IIRC ripper vibroblades exist only in an unofficial rifter article.

[Axelmania]

Dimension Book 8 page 23 actually, top of 24 says silver's standard in Rifts.

I can't say I really understand the explanation about how flipping between different fields causes more damage and makes it slower to heal.

Was there ever anything more specific than "a few days longer to heal without surgery, magic or psionic healing"? That's really not the most helpful =/

[The Beast]

Vibro blades deal damage based on the energy field, not the blade itself. I don't think the material matters.

Reading their fluff text that's understandable conclusion. But then PB goes and makes Ripper blades with silver coating, but leave out any mechanics on whether or not the damage rolled is changed or if the field has to be turned off when fighting SNC weak to silver.

IIRC ripper vibroblades exist only in an unofficial rifter article.

No, they're in DB8.