Love It or Leave It; Mega-Damage Poll

[Nightmask]

I think it'd be more accurate to state that if the creature description states that it can take minor MD attacks, even though it is an SDC creature, then it can. But the Grimbor, for example, has 1D6x100 SDC, but no note about being a minor MD creature or being able to withstand minor MD attacks. There are other creatures that are the same way in other books, but I haven't the time to find them at the moment. It could be argued that the lack of note is an oversight, which is possible, or it could mean that regardless of the amount of SDC, unless stated otherwise, MD attacks just kill them regardless of amount of damage inflicted, since they are not inherintly capable of withstanding such a powerful attack.

They don't have to paste such a notice in those SDC characters, it's already covered under the basic entries regarding SDC/HP and MDC. Just as you don't go listing under every character how fast it heals because there's already a blanket entry that says 'heals this fast unless stated otherwise'. It's already stated that if you've enough SDC to handle the equivalent SDC of a MD attack you survive it, so they don't have to waste space stating that under the Grimbor or any other creature that has lots of SDC. Otherwise you get something as ridiculous as a full-sized Zentraedi with massive amounts of SDC being killed by a point of mega-damage which simply isn't the case.

That's my point. There is no "general rule" that states that. In your example, of course it would be rediculous for a full sized Zentradi, because it states in the Zentradi RCC write-up under SDC that they can take MD attacks. So, given that there are monsters that state it explicitly and there are others that do not, and there is no rule that states implicitly that SDC beings who have 100 more SDC can withstand MD attacks, no matter how limited, but there is a rule that states that in order for SDC creatures to survive MD attacks they must have some sort of MD protection.

You're reading the text wrong if you think that, and drawing the wrong inferences from the occasions where someone reiterates what's already covered under the main entry. The rules do indeed state that if you've more SDC/HP than the equivalent value of MD as SDC/HP damage you will indeed survive (although likely in very bad shape). Your basic premise is flawed as it insists that 'because they say this on occasion elsewhere then it must not apply anywhere else' when instead you've a case of 'well it says so under the main entry but I decided to repeat it here for those who might not have paid attention'. The fact that it's sometimes repeated for emphasis doesn't remotely imply that it doesn't apply elsewhere, particularly when the basic rules directly state the same material. You're taking a case of unnecessary repeating and drawing a completely wrong conclusion from it.

[Killer Cyborg]

The difference between a weapon that deals 1d6 MD and a weapon that deals 1d6x100 SDC is that MD weapons have a kind of blow-through effect.
If each of these weapons were fired at a target with 620 SDC, and both rolled a 6 for damage, the MD weapon would destroy the target, but the SDC weapon would leave it standing with 20 SDC.

Where is this explained?

--flatline

I think the example given is of a vehicle where the vehicle is still standing after x amount of SDC damage but destroyed by the equivalent amount of MD because for some reason all SDC from 1-99 that it had left was irrelevant and without reaching exactly or above the next equivalent point of MDC it was toast.

So if my character with HP + SDC = 199 gets hit for 1MD, I'm dead even though I still have 99 HP+SDC left?

--flatline

I'm not near my books right now, so I can't check where the cutoff is.
I think we rounded off, though I can't recall if that's canon.
So at 151 SDC, if you're hit for 1 MD, you have 51 SDC left.
At 149 SDC, 1 MD means you're dead.

[Pepsi Jedi]

The difference between a weapon that deals 1d6 MD and a weapon that deals 1d6x100 SDC is that MD weapons have a kind of blow-through effect.
If each of these weapons were fired at a target with 620 SDC, and both rolled a 6 for damage, the MD weapon would destroy the target, but the SDC weapon would leave it standing with 20 SDC.

Where is this explained?

--flatline

I think the example given is of a vehicle where the vehicle is still standing after x amount of SDC damage but destroyed by the equivalent amount of MD because for some reason all SDC from 1-99 that it had left was irrelevant and without reaching exactly or above the next equivalent point of MDC it was toast.

So if my character with HP + SDC = 199 gets hit for 1MD, I'm dead even though I still have 99 HP+SDC left?

--flatline

I'm not near my books right now, so I can't check where the cutoff is.
I think we rounded off, though I can't recall if that's canon.
So at 151 SDC, if you're hit for 1 MD, you have 51 SDC left.
At 149 SDC, 1 MD means you're dead.

It's not. 1MD isn't 1.49 MD. It's just 1. 1MD=100sdc. Period. There's no rounding up or down with MD to SDC. I'm really unsure where people are getting that.

As pointed out in the books above. Some SDC creatures just have "enough" SDC to take a few MD points worth of damage. There's no blow through or instant kills, UNLESS the char has under 100SDC. where in if you have 1-99 SDC, even one point of MD instantly kills you.

MOST humans have under 100 SDC. You need a ton of skills or powers or something to get above 100 sdc

[glitterboy2098]

The flipside of this arguement is that SDC weapons can NEVER hope to damage MDC constructs, because SDC would not be inherently capable of that sort of damage capacity.

actually, on page 288 it also says that "attacks of 1-99 SDC do no damage to MDC objects", meaning that any attack infliciting more than 100 SDC will damage an MDC object. the book even say that you round such attacks down to the nearest 100 when figuring, so if you hit for say, 140 SDC, you only inflicting 1MD.

I'm sorry, where did I say the text you quoted me as saying? After looking and looking, it was Johnnycat that said that, not me.

sorry, minor quote tags error. i'll fix it

[Scott Gibbons]

I have no problem with Mega damage.

My only problem is that vehicles don't have enough. MarkV APC's have less MD now days than some personal armor. lol But that's not a problem between MDC and SDC.

We just ramp up the tanks and stuff to about where they should be. (( We do the same with tank guns too))

100% in agreement.

[Killer Cyborg]

Rifts, p. 11-12
Always round down SDC damage. For example: a missile that inflicts 450 SDC equals 4 MDC.
Likewise, when an SDC structure is blasted by mega-damage, always round the SDC down when assessing damage. For example: when an object that has 230 SDC is hit by 2 MD points of damage, the item is destroyed (all 230 SDC). What little may remain is a useless piece of junk.

That's the rule that I was remembering.
Technically, I think that would mean that a person with 299 SDC/HP/PE would be killed by a 2 MD blast, because "round down" would mean rounding down to the lowest whole (MD) number. Rounding to 3 MDC would be technically "rounding up."
But, as I said, we always played this to mean "round off," so 251 or more would count as 3 MDC for the blast, so the character would only take 200 SDC.

BUT... in looking for this rule, I noticed two things:
1. This rule is not reprinted in RUE (that I have found, anyway).
2. CB1r has an interesting passage that indicates that the original Rifts rule might be changed to a new form.
(Personally, I treat CB1r as only semi-canon. Technically, it's canon... but a lot of the rules in that book seemed to come out of nowhere, and to quickly disappear back into nowhere as if the book was never written.)
CB1r, p. 25-26
...even an MD punch that only does 1 MD point of damage is likely to instantly kill an ordinary person...
...One of the only exceptions are living beings whose combined HP and SDC equal 100 or more.
In this case, 100 Hit Points and/or SDC equal roughly ONE MD point of damage. that means the character can withstand the equivalent of ONE MD, because one MD equals 100 HP and/or SDC. So a character with 118 points of HP/SDC can actually withstand one point of Mega-Damage. If the character has 150 to 200 combined points, he can withstand two points of MD (I like to round up to give the character a fighting chance).
In the case of some aliens, mutants, monsters, and super beings, the character may have way more than a hundred or so HP and SDC, when the numbers are combined....
Thus, a being with 900 SDC is equal to 9 MDC and can take up to 9 points of Mega-Damage before being killed....
... For example, a character in a suit of armor with 190 SDC and AR 18 will see the Mega-Damage attack blast through the AR as if it did not exist, but the physical armor will absorb 2 MD. The armor is blasted to smithereens or vaporized, but it takes damage first, leaving the rest of the MD of the attack to hit the character. So using this example, a blast that inflicts 10 MD will atomize the exterior armor, burning up two of the 10 MD, leaving 8 MD to hit the character himself.

Neither the original rule nor the CB1r rule conflict with the text of RUE, so RUE does not actually over-ride either.
Since CB1r is the newer rule, and it conflicts with the original Rifts rule, the CB1r rule IS technically the current canon.
So I was mistaken in my earlier statement as far as post-CB1r goes, but correct as far as pre-CB1r goes.

Each of the two rules has interesting mechanical repercussions for in-game physics.
Originally, a MD blast was more powerful than an equivalent SDC blast:
1 MD would destroy a target with up to 199 SDC/HP.
100 SDC would only destroy a target with up to 100 SDC/HP.
Personally, I like this rule. It gives a reason why some weapons (explosives, usually) inflict 1d6x100 SDC instead of just inflicting 1d6 MD.
And it demonstrates the sheer power of mega-damage.

The current* rule, though, changes things around.
Going RAW with the current rule, SDC weapons are sometimes more powerful than the MD equivalent.
A 2 MD blast can destroy a target with up to 150 SDC/HP.
A 200 SDC blast can destroy a target with up to 200 SDC/HP.
Which, personally, I think is.... a bad rule.
One that I plan to ignore in my games.




*(unless there's an even newer rule that I've missed)

[Killer Cyborg]

That's the rule that I was remembering.
Technically, I think that would mean that a person with 299 SDC/HP/PE would be killed by a 2 MD blast, because "round down" would mean rounding down to the lowest whole (MD) number. Rounding to 3 MDC would be technically "rounding up."
But, as I said, we always played this to mean "round off," so 251 or more would count as 3 MDC for the blast, so the character would only take 200 SDC.

The only rule similar to this is the rule for rounding SDC into MDC.

Ahem.

[Sureshot]

I have no problem with Mega damage.

My only problem is that vehicles don't have enough. MarkV APC's have less MD now days than some personal armor. lol But that's not a problem between MDC and SDC.

We just ramp up the tanks and stuff to about where they should be. (( We do the same with tank guns too))

100% in agreement.

Thirded. With damage values also raised accordingly. It's all good to make everything have more MDC. Uselss imo if we still have vechile and robot weapons being both undergunned in range in damage. I get why Kevin did it to give pc more of a survival rate. Yet if your going to be dumb enough to face an APC in the open you should pay the price imo.

[Balabanto]

No, it's based on the fact that the gun does mega-damage levels of SDC which would classify it as a mega-damage weapon. If a weapon does more than 100 SDC in damage then it's dealing mega-damage, which means by the game rules that gun does mega-damage. Screwing with the ratio means that the gun now does 10 times as much damage as it originally did to something like a dragon, making it far more lethal than it should hope to be in such a situation. Now if you like nerfing things so that creatures and items that ought to be epic aren't that's your prerogative but you aren't making them more balanced or more plausible you're making them less balanced and more implausible.[/quote]

Stop right there. You just proved everything I said. Plausibility is in the eye of the players and the GM, not in the eyes of the rules. Plausibility isn't whether or not a game effect is balanced. Plausibility is how believable something is. The idea that a single strike from a vibroknife will whack somebody if it falls off a shelf while active is NOT plausible, IMHO. You're talking about a game that is ridiculously unbelievable in the first place. Trying to create false realism where none previously existed will earn you no points.

[Pepsi Jedi]

No, it's based on the fact that the gun does mega-damage levels of SDC which would classify it as a mega-damage weapon. If a weapon does more than 100 SDC in damage then it's dealing mega-damage, which means by the game rules that gun does mega-damage. Screwing with the ratio means that the gun now does 10 times as much damage as it originally did to something like a dragon, making it far more lethal than it should hope to be in such a situation. Now if you like nerfing things so that creatures and items that ought to be epic aren't that's your prerogative but you aren't making them more balanced or more plausible you're making them less balanced and more implausible.

Stop right there. You just proved everything I said. Plausibility is in the eye of the players and the GM, not in the eyes of the rules. Plausibility isn't whether or not a game effect is balanced. Plausibility is how believable something is. The idea that a single strike from a vibroknife will whack somebody if it falls off a shelf while active is NOT plausible, IMHO. You're talking about a game that is ridiculously unbelievable in the first place. Trying to create false realism where none previously existed will earn you no points.[/quote]

Not really. If a light saber fell on you while lit up, you wouldn't go "OH GOD!! THERE'S NO WAY THAT"D KILL SOMEONE!" you'd go "oh MAN! That Saber just cut that dude in half. Bad luck!! You'd think he'd notice the glowing energy blade falling towards him!"

Same sort of deal. Vibroblades were the light sabers of Rifts. __I__ Am not trying to convert (( don't need to)) I'm jus' sayin'. They filled "That role".

And not puttin' too fine a point on it. A rock falling off a shelf can kill someone. So can a normal sword or knife depending on how it falls. An MD one surely could.

[Nightmask]

No, it's based on the fact that the gun does mega-damage levels of SDC which would classify it as a mega-damage weapon. If a weapon does more than 100 SDC in damage then it's dealing mega-damage, which means by the game rules that gun does mega-damage. Screwing with the ratio means that the gun now does 10 times as much damage as it originally did to something like a dragon, making it far more lethal than it should hope to be in such a situation. Now if you like nerfing things so that creatures and items that ought to be epic aren't that's your prerogative but you aren't making them more balanced or more plausible you're making them less balanced and more implausible.

Stop right there. You just proved everything I said. Plausibility is in the eye of the players and the GM, not in the eyes of the rules. Plausibility isn't whether or not a game effect is balanced. Plausibility is how believable something is. The idea that a single strike from a vibroknife will whack somebody if it falls off a shelf while active is NOT plausible, IMHO. You're talking about a game that is ridiculously unbelievable in the first place. Trying to create false realism where none previously existed will earn you no points.[/quote]

Where did anyone suggest a Vibro-knife could do that? Certainly not I. Nor is there any effort to create 'false realism' going on and won't earn you any points trying to dismiss other people's positions by trying to label them so.

[Killer Cyborg]

The idea that a single strike from a vibroknife will whack somebody if it falls off a shelf while active is NOT plausible, IMHO.

Why not?

[PhellaOne]

Voted 1:10. Changed that rule the minute I saw it for the first time. As far as the rest of the game being geared for that ratio, I don't follow that. Like I said, been using that rule for over 20 years and it NEVER unbalanced anything else.

[Killer Cyborg]

Voted 1:10. Changed that rule the minute I saw it for the first time. As far as the rest of the game being geared for that ratio, I don't follow that. Like I said, been using that rule for over 20 years and it NEVER unbalanced anything else.

It changes a Juicer from the equivalent of 1d4 MDC to the equivalent of 1d4x10 MDC, for one.

[PhellaOne]

Voted 1:10. Changed that rule the minute I saw it for the first time. As far as the rest of the game being geared for that ratio, I don't follow that. Like I said, been using that rule for over 20 years and it NEVER unbalanced anything else.

It changes a Juicer from the equivalent of 1d4 MDC to the equivalent of 1d4x10 MDC, for one.

And is that "unbalancing"?

[Killer Cyborg]

Voted 1:10. Changed that rule the minute I saw it for the first time. As far as the rest of the game being geared for that ratio, I don't follow that. Like I said, been using that rule for over 20 years and it NEVER unbalanced anything else.

It changes a Juicer from the equivalent of 1d4 MDC to the equivalent of 1d4x10 MDC, for one.

And is that "unbalancing"?

Depends on how you mean the term, I guess.

[slade the sniper]

I love MDC.
The MDC system is absolutely terrifying - you get caught without your armor on or have it blown off and you will end up very, very dead.
In a SDC setting you still have a reasonable chance of survival without your armor, Rifts needs to be as terrifying as it can be.

This what it is supposed to be...but when everyone has MDC it beomces a D&D style attrition combat game...and I HATE THAT.

It is not about realism, it is about time at the table. I want to roleplay, not grind through armor slowly.

What I use is SDC, a mid range 1:10 Vehicular Damage Capacity and the standard 1:100 MDC.

People and most things are SDC, what was formerly MD man portable weapons, body armor, powered armor, most mecha and light vehicles become VDC (reduced by 1/10th power) and all the tanks and big high end stuff stays MDC.

At the same time, I usually drop SDC from characters to make combat very fast (literally about 10 minutes of table time for 4 PCs and 5 enemy NPCs), very deadly and usually the last resort of PCs...therefore it keeps combat as a climactic event not an every day event like occurs in an MMO or a video game.

-STS

[Pepsi Jedi]

I love MDC.
The MDC system is absolutely terrifying - you get caught without your armor on or have it blown off and you will end up very, very dead.
In a SDC setting you still have a reasonable chance of survival without your armor, Rifts needs to be as terrifying as it can be.

This what it is supposed to be...but when everyone has MDC it beomces a D&D style attrition combat game...and I HATE THAT.

It is not about realism, it is about time at the table. I want to roleplay, not grind through armor slowly.

What I use is SDC, a mid range 1:10 Vehicular Damage Capacity and the standard 1:100 MDC.

People and most things are SDC, what was formerly MD man portable weapons, body armor, powered armor, most mecha and light vehicles become VDC (reduced by 1/10th power) and all the tanks and big high end stuff stays MDC.

At the same time, I usually drop SDC from characters to make combat very fast (literally about 10 minutes of table time for 4 PCs and 5 enemy NPCs), very deadly and usually the last resort of PCs...therefore it keeps combat as a climactic event not an every day event like occurs in an MMO or a video game.

-STS

You do realize you're complaining about lack of realisim in a game with magic, demons, dragons, floopers, shapers, werebeasts, talking crabs, vampires, psionics. Bipedal talking dogs, cats, rats, bats and other assorted animals, laser guns, vibro weapons, light sabers, plasma rifles, particle rifles, phase rifles, power armor, giant robot vechiles, cybernetics, bionics, borgs, juicers, crazies, dimensional travel, time travel, real 'live' gods and goddesses of a dozen pantheons walking the earth, Atlantis, Lemuria........ I mean.. I can go on all day. The "realisim" of MD armor is pretty low down on that list of things one accepts when they play rifts.

[Killer Cyborg]

That's the rule that I was remembering.
Technically, I think that would mean that a person with 299 SDC/HP/PE would be killed by a 2 MD blast, because "round down" would mean rounding down to the lowest whole (MD) number. Rounding to 3 MDC would be technically "rounding up."
But, as I said, we always played this to mean "round off," so 251 or more would count as 3 MDC for the blast, so the character would only take 200 SDC.

The only rule similar to this is the rule for rounding SDC into MDC.

Ahem.

I don't know if you caught it here, but I was agreeing with you. I was saying "other than what you posted, here's the rule from RUE".

Totally didn't catch that; thanks for the re-throw.

[slade the sniper]

I love MDC.
The MDC system is absolutely terrifying - you get caught without your armor on or have it blown off and you will end up very, very dead.
In a SDC setting you still have a reasonable chance of survival without your armor, Rifts needs to be as terrifying as it can be.

This what it is supposed to be...but when everyone has MDC it beomces a D&D style attrition combat game...and I HATE THAT.

It is not about realism, it is about time at the table. I want to roleplay, not grind through armor slowly.

What I use is SDC, a mid range 1:10 Vehicular Damage Capacity and the standard 1:100 MDC.

People and most things are SDC, what was formerly MD man portable weapons, body armor, powered armor, most mecha and light vehicles become VDC (reduced by 1/10th power) and all the tanks and big high end stuff stays MDC.

At the same time, I usually drop SDC from characters to make combat very fast (literally about 10 minutes of table time for 4 PCs and 5 enemy NPCs), very deadly and usually the last resort of PCs...therefore it keeps combat as a climactic event not an every day event like occurs in an MMO or a video game.

-STS

You do realize you're complaining about lack of realisim in a game with magic, demons, dragons, floopers, shapers, werebeasts, talking crabs, vampires, psionics. Bipedal talking dogs, cats, rats, bats and other assorted animals, laser guns, vibro weapons, light sabers, plasma rifles, particle rifles, phase rifles, power armor, giant robot vechiles, cybernetics, bionics, borgs, juicers, crazies, dimensional travel, time travel, real 'live' gods and goddesses of a dozen pantheons walking the earth, Atlantis, Lemuria........ I mean.. I can go on all day. The "realisim" of MD armor is pretty low down on that list of things one accepts when they play rifts.

Hmmmm, I was NOT complaining about realism...if you check...I said "It is not about realism, it is about time at the table. I want to roleplay, not grind through armor slowly."

-STS

[Pepsi Jedi]

Ahh thank you for the clarification.

[slade the sniper]

That's why they put on armor. Being shot with a gun should be lethal.

In point of fact, the statistics for surviving a single gunshot wound are relatively good. Its only after 2+ rounds (any caliber) that survival rates start to plummet.

Please define "Relatively good"? lol

Handguns? I believe around 70-80% survival rate. Survival rate for rifles, shotguns, or head shots are significantly lower.

This is the primary reason few professional military/police organizations go for a "one shot, one kill" approach with handguns any more. And why 9mm, 10mm, and (to a lesser extent) .40 caliber rounds have become popular for their balance of stopping power and magazine capacity. It's also why shotguns are typically viewed as better "home defense" options than handguns.

WOW, I love your link!!! Going to have more ingo to add to my ballistics files!! Thank You!

-STS

[Qev]

The poll is missing the "Throw it out and replace with something sensible" option.