Forums of the Megaverse®

Temporalmage wrote:

Nekira Sudacne wrote:
copy/past with something new added is not rewritten.

your argument would hold more weight. . . IF Palladium books had anything resembling a good track record editing.

FINALLY!!!! Something we can BOTH agree on!!!

Yet it is STILL cannon material. Weither we like it or not, (even weither it makes sense or not unfortunatly)

it may be cannon, but it's only words, and they have the meaning the reader gives them, and that which the author intended.

while the letter of the law may say different, I belive I and dead boy have the spirt of the law down.

that's what we're arguing.

Nekira Sudacne wrote:it may be cannon, but it's only words, and they have the meaning the reader gives them, and that which the author intended.

while the letter of the law may say different, I belive I and dead boy have the spirt of the law down.

that's what we're arguing.

Spirit of the law?

I do guess that you also believe that you believe the Crusaders and Inquisition were following the "spirit" of such laws as Thou Shalt Not Kill, or Love Thy Neighbour As you Love Thyself when they pillaged, massacred, tortured and killed?

The law may have vagueness, but what you and DB are advocating is clearly breaking it.

TechnoMancer wrote:Spirit of the law???

That's so vague that it can and will mean anything to everybody.

I, Nekira Sudacne, Hereby award TechnoMancer a Black Belt in Stating the Obvious. you have done well all thought this thread

I could say the spirit of the law really is for psi-stalkers to add ppe to mages... it just that the letter of the law is written REALLY REALLY baddly, and have the same level of justification.

sure you could. go ahead and do so. see if I care.

As a side note... following what one believes is the "Spirit" of the law is one of the main reasons for creating house rules... which you both have done.

no, if it's really the spirt of the law then it's the offical law.

just ask the Supream Court of the USA

TechnoMancer wrote:Also it would make Gods and Alien Intelligences pathetically easy to drain.

Seriously... imagine Thoth or Splynnie getting drained of all ppe just from a simple cut from a vibro blade and a touch from a psi-stalker.

*Imangines it*

ok. now what's your problem again?

Malignor wrote:Psi Stalker vs. God/SupIntel

- Psi stalker prowls up behind being. The psi-stalker is as much threat as a hornet, so 6th sense doesn't go off (the being has thousands of MDC... a Psi-stalker can maybe do dozens of MDC damage ... thats about a hundred hits, or maybe a few hundred... how much of a threat is that?)
- stalker cuts being with vibro-knife
- Being smashes psi-stalker into pudding before he can latch onto the wound and begin draining

===

Here's the only way to really do it to a massive SupIntel...

- Psi-stalker's buddy affects SupIntel with Deaden Senses and Deaden Pain.
- Psi-stalker cuts supIntel on some blind spot
- Psi-stalker latches onto wound and drains, unknown to the supIntel until it's too late.

This is bloody impossible to do... most Supintels have eyes all over the place, minions, plus magical, supernatual and psychic senses. As soon as that big beasty starts bucking, what Psi-stalker can possibly hold on with its pitiful strength?

your thinking too hard. remember, I don't think that you even need to hold on to do it. heres how I see it working out:

1. Psi-Stalker throws Vibro-blade for the 1d6 damage.
2. psi-stalker instantly drains the god-AI of all PPE
3. god/AI smashes Psi-stalker.

it won't work for really basic reasons guys . . . even a starving psi-stalker isnt' that stupid

I beg to differ with Malignor's scenario.

A deity or Int, even with a stalker on it's back which it could not detect, would not be regarded as captured, since it would be fully able to act however it chose. The fact that, as soon as drained, it can still squash the stalker without leaving him time to escape is proof of that. capture of such a being would probably entail putting it to sleep, since most of them will have enough psionics that meare physical tackling/binding would do no good .

Temporalmage wrote:Well that "would" be a good argument...except for the fact that the psi-stalker has been rewritten since those restrictions on mages came out, and they didn't change the stalker. So that seems to indicate that the "Old Ones" of Palladium did indeed mean capture...not something else involving called shots. Also how exactly to you "know" what the "sole reason" behind anything written by Palladium is???

Nek took the words right out of my mouth. An addition of a little text here and there is not "rewritten". It's just a quick fix that overlook a great deal more.

Admit it...your geussing just like the rest of us!!

I never "guess".... I "deduce"

You are correct sir. I did indeed challange someone to come up with a better way for a stalker to take out a mage. I also stated "by the book". Not "by the house rules". So no offense but your "interpretation" just doesnt play out as cannon. Hence my previous post stating as much.

You keep pulling out the phrase "House Rule" as a slam of sorts. Please stop doing that. What I am arguing here is not a House Rule as you call it, but instead my interpretation of the same line. It's just that we see it differently, hence this whole 8 page debate.

TechnoMancer wrote:Spirit of the law???

That's so vague that it can and will mean anything to everybody.

I could say the spirit of the law really is for psi-stalkers to add ppe to mages... it just that the letter of the law is written REALLY REALLY baddly, and have the same level of justification.

As a side note... following what one believes is the "Spirit" of the law is one of the main reasons for creating house rules... which you both have done.

Dude, if that was your honest and true personal interpretation of that vaguely written rule, then by all means, argue just that! However in reality this is just you trying to win by stating a gross exaggeration in an attempt to make the other guy look bad. Argue the merits of the point, don't make up silly extreme examples and blow the other guy's interpretation off by labeling it a "House Rule"

Great example: I for one do not use the ever dreaded "-10/No Bonus" dodge rule. Instead I use the system of -2,-4, and -6 from Heroes Unlimited. That is a House Rule and I freely acknowledge that. However, what we have here is not that at all. What's going on is that we are reading the same line and seeing it in two different ways. One of those ways is not a House Rule by default. It is a simply a difference of opinions. The same thing happens all the time between lawyers in a court of law until it is argued all the way to the Supreme Court, and frankly even then it may never be settled since the court has refused to hear many cases for no stated reason.

On the flip side of that, for Wild Shooting I impose a -6 to hit penalty. Wait a minute! The book also says that Wild Shooting is to determined by a straight roll of the dice with no bonuses or penalties. Which is right? Answer: They both are. The official canon rules have stated it both ways even in the same book, and a very recent one at that. So is my "-6 To Hit for Wild Shooting" a House Rule. No, it's not. I'm just using the one that makes the most sense to me.

Here's a good real-life example of our situation here: The US Supreme Court has refused to get involved in any case even remotely related to the 2nd Amendment for about 90 years now, which is why the Clinton Administration could get away with declaring that the 2nd only applied to military personnel in its many court cases designed to jam that opinion down the American People's collective throat. They stood by this interpretation even though EVERY constitutional scholar and professor of repute agrees that it is meant for the people as a whole, be they military or civilian. One little line, two interpretations, no authoritative voice setting it straight. Sound familiar?

Well the books do seem to say that it may be harder for a stalker to drain someone of thier PPE and leave them alive. Otherwise all the wild stalkers would be doing it. Instead the CS has to "train" them to be more humain. (Thats funny if ya think about it...the pro-human CS training them to be more humain...with the enemy of humanity!! Oh common..thats funny!!! ) Anyway the easiest way for a stalker to feed is just to kill the target. The two arguments that we have is the word "capture" and the inconsistancy of how long it takes to do it. Instantanious or 5 seconds. Without some sort of ruling from the makers of the game, we the victims...I mean gamers, have to make our own rationales based on our own limited perceptions. Wouldn't it be funny if the person who originally came up with the idea of the psi-stalkers intended them to be actual PPE vampires....as in passing on thier abilities to others once they drained them. But alas without some input from the Old Ones we are at an impasse.

As far as Doom is concerned the range is a screw up and shouldn't be there. The immobilization should override it.

Doom sees it as like sucking the soul out of the cut. It just doesn't seem right doing it at range.

But when Doom played a psi-stalker that didn't stop him from doing it at range.

Actually, Malignor, you put words into my mouth that never were there.

However, having tried to find a good formulation, I'd say that capture means that the victim must be at least partially restricted in its actions, unable to defend itself effectively, and to get rid of the stalker.

a tentative scenario for an effective capture could be as follows. all within a round. assuming the psi stalker has the initiative
-action 1) the stalker completes whatever actions aim at restraining the victim, or, if such actions were performed by another, or from a distance, closes up and seizes it. The victim may try to escape or toss the stalker off

-action 2) if the victim has not escaped or thrown the stalker off, the stalker makes the cut. the victim may still resist.

-action 3) if not yet thrown off his victim, the stalkers readies himself to feed. The victim gets one last chance to free itself or throw the stalker away and prevent the draining of its PPE

-Action 4) If the stalker is still latched to his victim, the draining is complete, he has fed.

This concept claims no perfect interpretation, but aims to be a conciliation between the officially written and oft reiterated "capture" requirement, and simple feasibility.

Zylo wrote:I have a question...

What about multiple psi-stalkers versus a single mage?

Say three stalkers leap out of an alley and tackle the mage in partial armor. They drive him to the ground and have him immoble, face in the dirt. A fourth supervisor/leader stalker walks up with a knife and cuts the mage.

Captured? Yes.
Cut? Yes.
Can all of them feed? ...?

Can only the stalker doing the cut feed or can any stalker involved feed?

That's a purely personal call ... but I'd say that all stalkers withing touching range of the victim can feed ... if the one wielding the knife leaves anything for the others.

the knife wielder has first dibs on the food, he takes as much as he wants.
anybody else wh actually touches the victim comes next, if there are several people, each determines how much he wants to eat, if there are more appetites than the victim has PPE, what there is is divided equally.
anybody who is close enough to touch the victim of strike it with a melee weapon, but not in contact with it takes or shares what the others have left.

Malignor wrote:I'm simply saying that if sleeping or unconcsiousness qualifies as capture, so does any other lack of awareness. If a Psi-stalker can drain without being noticed or resisted, it's the same as successful capture.

Thus if a god or supIntel is, for some reason, preoccupied or too slow to react, or has their senses dulled so that the stalker can drain without being noticed or interrupted, the drain is successful. "Capture" is about getting that opportunity to drain unhampered. It has nothing to do with the potential to resist otherwise there can be no willing drainees (like in Lone Star). Ignorance is just as good as permission.

Don't agree... because a sleeping or unconscious creature , once pounced upon and cut won't be able to get its marbles together in time to muster any resistance.

A creature who's simply pounced on by surprise, but is otherwise in full control of its faculties will react at once, and therefore "escape" before the stalker can feed.

Remember my earlier definition : at least partially restrained/restricted and unable to defend effectively

TechnoMancer wrote:

Malignor wrote:But what if they don't react? That's what I mean. By your definition, a psi-stalker has to tie up a willing victim.

I believe there are other rules that allow people to drain the willing.....

Actually, there are none. the existing rules are those that apply to a willing participant contributing PPE to a mage's casting effort.

There no mention at all of whether or not a willing "victim" could let himself be drained by a stalker peacefully and without violence

Malignor, you may house rule as much as you wish, but at least admit to it.
the rules as they stand specify capture, so, at least for the unwilling, capture *is* required.

The willing does not have as much potential to resist as the unwilling, if only because he chooses to nix that potential. As for your sentence, "if the willing can be drained..." to be syllogically true, it requires that the willing can effectively be drained. Since we're mostly playing to Siembieda's version of Rifts (or at least that's the one which we can discuss as a common ground) and not Malignor's, would you please tell me by what text or reasoning you know that a willing victim can be drained by a stalker? Does the stalker need to cut a willing patient too?

Temporalmage wrote:Well the books do seem to say that it may be harder for a stalker to drain someone of thier PPE and leave them alive. Otherwise all the wild stalkers would be doing it.... Anyway the easiest way for a stalker to feed is just to kill the target.

Indeed, the easiest way is always to kill, but no one ever said that Wild Stalkers have no use for non-lethal forms of the kill. Ironically the easyies way to capture the supernatural is to drain it of its PPE. Using non-lethal drains would be a great way for them to neutalize a creture so it can be captured and brought back home to fead the young for seasons upon seasons. In fact a bound creature, kept alive well beyond its deisre too do so, could fead a small village of Stalkers, full of both those capable of hunting and those who are too young, old or infirmed, for an indeffinate period of time! Just three creatues, beat down on a regular basis, could serve as their food provisions for years or even decades, (poor bastard).

Dr. Doom III wrote:But when Doom played a psi-stalker that didn't stop him from doing it at range.

That's funny coming from you.

Hey, weren't you banned for life or something like that?

svartalf wrote:
There no mention at all of whether or not a willing "victim" could let himself be drained by a stalker peacefully and without violence

Well going along with the "capture" line, I'd say that would be surenduring.

Zylo wrote:

svartalf wrote:That's a purely personal call ... but I'd say that all stalkers withing touching range of the victim can feed ... if the one wielding the knife leaves anything for the others.

the knife wielder has first dibs on the food, he takes as much as he wants.
anybody else wh actually touches the victim comes next, if there are several people, each determines how much he wants to eat, if there are more appetites than the victim has PPE, what there is is divided equally.
anybody who is close enough to touch the victim of strike it with a melee weapon, but not in contact with it takes or shares what the others have left.

Thanks for the response and I do agree, they all should be able to feed. I can't remember, but can they choose to share or do they take it all when they feed?

I was trying to hint at other situations, though. Like what if the three that had captured the mage were not stalkers but humans or d-bees? The stalker could still walk up and do a slice and grab on his PPE, even though he has not physically captured the mage.

I would say that type of thinking leads to mean unrestrained physical contact would mean physical capture for the extent of the power.

Also, ignorance of the psi-stalkers ability would not stop this from happening, IMHO. So the dragon that has a stalker jump on his back and stab with a vibro knife might get a rude surprise, even though the stalker could never wrestle it to the ground. It might be his last meal, but it would be good.

I'd say that sharing would be at the whim of the knife wielder, he could just decide to let the PPE flow equally to all feeding rahter than just himself.

If the mage is captrued, the stalker may feed. he must physically capture the prey, but nothing says he cannot have help in doing so.

" unrestrained physical contact " what do you mean exactly there?

And no, I don't agree with the dragon case. That kind of possibilities is the reason why, in my earlier posts, I specified that the victim must be at least partially restrained and unable to defend itself, and why I proposed to let the victim at least 3 actions to get "free" itself/rid of the psi stalker before the "captured" status would be recognized and the feeding allowed to take place.

Malignor wrote:Don't have my books here at work. However, look in Lone Star, under the description of House Town (what used to be Houston).

I'm saying that a numb victim who just sits there scatching its arse while a Psi-stalker cuts it and drains its PPE (sure it may look around after the drain, go "HEY!" and fight it out, but as long as the drain is already complete before the psi-stalker is noticed) is just as good as a captured victim.

Right. so a willing person that doesn't resist can be cut and drained. no problem.

That still tells nothing about the unwilling, as willingness lets down a lot of barriers that would other wise be impregnable. (like opening the proverbial castle gates).

"captured by lack of awareness" holds no water, especially for mages who are normally immune to having their PPE tapped by others unless they consciously allow it.

The arse scratcher isn't allowing anybody to tap it's PPE, he's just not in a resisting stance because he is unaware of danger. The stalker who wants to feed on it will still have to beat down those natural defences.

Sorry, but if "draining by surprise" was a definite option, that would be noted down. remember that a) defenses against having one's PPE tapped are largely subconscious, so don't need to be voluntarily put up. b) contrary to a mage who can secretly tap the PPE of the unwitting, the stalker has to use violence, so if the victim is in any state to resist once attacked/the cut given, those defences WILL be up, and the stalker stay hungry.

Dead Boy wrote:

Dr. Doom III wrote:But when Doom played a psi-stalker that didn't stop him from doing it at range.

That's funny coming from you.

Hey, weren't you banned for life or something like that?

Prettz decided to give him a second chance.

Malignor wrote:So now the psi-stalker can only drain willing victims without a save? Even captured mages get a save?

who ever meantioned a save? you sir are grabbing at straws and resorting to sophistry and bad arguments.

Dead Boy wrote: That's funny coming from you.

Hey, weren't you banned for life or something like that?

I'm a rules lawyer.
What do you expect?

Malignor wrote:

svartalf wrote:

Malignor wrote:So now the psi-stalker can only drain willing victims without a save? Even captured mages get a save?

who ever meantioned a save? you sir are grabbing at straws and resorting to sophistry and bad arguments.

This is what I was referring to...

The arse scratcher isn't allowing anybody to tap it's PPE, he's just not in a resisting stance because he is unaware of danger. The stalker who wants to feed on it will still have to beat down those natural defences.

Sorry, but if "draining by surprise" was a definite option, that would be noted down. remember that a) defenses against having one's PPE tapped are largely subconscious, so don't need to be voluntarily put up. b) contrary to a mage who can secretly tap the PPE of the unwitting, the stalker has to use violence, so if the victim is in any state to resist once attacked/the cut given, those defences WILL be up, and the stalker stay hungry.

Which I read as "emotional resistance stops the psi-stalker's PPE drain, and even unawareness stops the psi-stalker's PPE drain, despite the bloodletting and capture, as per the description regarding mages draining PPE from others".

Mmmh? the way you were telling it, you were doing away with the capture aspect altogether... and we already know that the bloodletting of itself is not enough

Malignor wrote:I'm saying capture has nothing to do with the will to resist. Trapping someone in a cage is defined as "capture", but they can still resist. Tying someone up and gagging them is capture, but they can still try to struggle against the bonds.

What you said implies that as long as there is the will to resist, there can be no drain. This may be a misinterpretation on my part, but ...

the stalker has to use violence, so if the victim is in any state to resist once attacked/the cut given, those defences WILL be up, and the stalker stay hungry.

... certainly seems to say a great deal about the will to resist. I never saw any written material saying that the will of the victim must be broken... and breaking one's will is not a necessary part of capture. However, capture is designed to remove the physical resistance, and allow for uninterrupted draining, which is the goal of the capturing (in this context).

In fact...

defenses against having one's PPE tapped are largely subconscious, so don't need to be voluntarily put up.

... implies that a psi-stalker can only drain willing AND captured victims; that any victim has to have none of the subconcious resistances... and the subconscious is even active during sleep or a coma! Am I mistaken in your meaning?

Where am I failing in my interpretation?

There is no written material concerning the "breaking" of the victim's will. Nor did I say anything about such. What I said is that the draining of PPE entails, in the act of capture, the *beating down* of the victim's natural defenses. What you proposed was letting a psi stalker feed off a free and fully resisting victim, one that is fully able to use whatever abilities it has to throw him off. There's a major difference between having a stalker jump on your back and try to sink his metaphorical fangs into you, and being bound and gagged, unable to do much, and nothing of it effective, and having that same stalker wave his knife dangerously close to your throat.

I did not imply that the will to resist is in an of itself an immunity to that power of the stalker, but that it must effectively be beaten down and neutralised before the stalker can feed. This is done by neutralising the victim's ability to effectively resist whatever the stalker may will to do to him (i.e. being at his mercy).

Remember that the stalker's ability to drain PPE from an unwilling victim, and a trained mage at that, is a major exception to the normal rule that a mage' s PPE can't be tapped without his goodwill. So making that act too easy, and disregarding the failsafes that are actually written in the rules is WRONG..

the trouble, where we seem to be fully disagreeing, is that you seem to assimilate passivity, such as comes from lack of awareness of danger, with acquiescence or unabilitu to resist.

the butt scratcher is passive, yes, but as soon as he knows trouble is afoot, he'll be perfectly aware and in full defensive mode. It will take more than just a pounce and cut to beat down his natural defences.

Yes, a drugged creature, being unable to resist what was being done to it, would be fully vulnerable to a stalker's drain. My point is that the victim must be somehow neutralised, if not submissive in the first place. The point is that the feeding cannot take place is the victim is a) of a mind to resist (including if attacked by surprise... he is not submissive or acquiescent) and b) able to do something about it.

Concerning the "effective resistance" bit. By "effective" I mean "having effect" : a bound and squirming victim is achieving precisely nothing. Thus his resistance does not count.

This line from TechnoMancer bugged me the moment I read it. However, with my copy of BoM returned to me as of today, (lent it to a friend for a while there along with several other books for a character he's working on), I can now refute it...

TechnoMancer wrote:Page 21 of the magic book would allow a mage to wear full enviro armor as along as it isn't made out of metal or man made metal alloys.

It's not the environmental nature that causes the problem, but the metal part.

It even goes on to say that ceramic and plastic as well as natural armors are all OK.

So... just use plastic, ceramic, and natural creature hide, and you can have all the enviro sealed armor you want... you can even have some metal in your armor and be fine... just not "a lot".

That's in the rules section... although on page 18 in the Fluff about magic vrs tech and the CS it says ceramic and plastic hampers.. but gives no rule as to how they do so.

Palladium REALLY needs to hire an editor to look for blatent rule clashes.

You really ough to read the whole page when it comes to things like this and not just stop when you get to part that makes your case. And I quote,
"...modern day environmental armor, blocks and interferes with the use of magic. A sorcers can not wear more than partial armor, ideally covering no more than a third of his body, never more than half." - RGMG pg. 18

So no, a mage can not suit up in full EBA and avoid a Called Shot to some exposed part of his person. Regardless of whether the drain power is usable at range or not, casters can't cheese their way out of betting bled by a Called Shot of some kind.

On a related note, since the spell casting of a practicioner of magic can be interupted and messed up if they take any damage to their person, the best way to deal with them is any time you see one to cast a spell, just take a pop-shot at an exposed arm or leg with whatever gun is handy. Not only will it blow off that limb if a mega damage weapon is used, but it will also mess up his spell.

TechnoMancer wrote:That's where the rules conflict.. and you just gave a pot kettle black.


Further reading... on page 18.

"Armor made of natural materials such as leather, or MDC animal can be worn without interfering with magic." So yes you can wear an environ suit... it just has to be made of natural material.

How on Earth is that a conflict? Yes, you can wear MDC leather or hides for armor, but where do you see the line that says, "which can be made into a crude Fully Environmental Armor. "? There is no such thing as Full EBA made from natural materials. And on top of that, MDC leather and hide armors are much more uncommon and difficult to find for several reasons. For starters there is no way to really fix it up after it gets damaged, meaning you'd have to find a new suit after every scirmish. In additioon to that, odds are the hide armor will only offer partial coverage as well unless you plan to shell out for a custom tailored suit every adventure (talk about a high overhead). Even if they were mass produced, they would most likely come as individual components like a protective vest, vambraces, grives, maybe a cod piece and the like. That would leave a few openings for a called shot on an unprotected part.

Further though... in the rules section on page 21...

"Snip... about metal being no more then 50% body coverage...."

"For this reason, many practioners of mage prefer natural armors, or magic to provide protection. Mega-Damage ceramics and plastic is also suitable for spell casters."

How on earth is it suitable for spell casters if it has the same penalties as metal?!?!

Did the part about plastic and ceramic armor directly contradict the part on page 18 limiting coverage? No, it didn't. They are suitable so long as they adhere to the coverage limitation, but can not protect more than a third to a half of their bodies because they are not natural materials. This isn't rocket science here. The two pages mesh perfectly fine.

Of course they could still just wear FULL armor covering that isn't environmental and avoid the called shots. As others have mentioned many of the Cyber knights style of armor would not be called shotable to hit the person inside, but wouldn't be considered EBA... of course it appears to be metal... so they would have to go with other material.

No, unlike the Stalker's non-lethal PPE Drain line, this rule is extremely clear and to the point with not abiguity about it. They can NOT wear a suit of full armor just because it's not fully envoronmental. No more than a third to a half of their persons can be covered in un-natural materials, peroid, lest they dare to deal with the roll checks for spell faiures. And you can forget about Cyber Knight suits of armor given that even the TW versions make extensive use of un-natural materials. And if you opts to have a custom suit made of MD hides and leathers, again you end up with something that would be either impossiuble to repair when it invariable takes damage, or would be exhorberantly costly to have even the the smallest nicks and burns replaces. And if that weren't enough, hide armors suck in the MDC department, so they aren't all that great from the get go. You're better off getting a discounted suit of "previously owned" Explorer armor and wearing stratiegic parts like the breast plate, shoulders, and maybe lower leggings and vambraces, and then have a few Ammulets loaded with the Invincible Armor spell ready to go and augment that at all times. That will get the job done within the confines of the canon rules.

TechnoMancer wrote:Again... my question is... why did the rules note out that ceramin and plastic armor as being fine.... if it works exactly the same way as metal which they list as having problems?

There is a disconnect between the two rules.


That's like me saying.... "Poison X causes the following effects if drank...... "

Then later saying....

"Poison Y is fine however to consume...."

When Poison X and Y cause the exact same effect if taken.

Do you not see at least a minor bit of a problem?

except for the fact that that is a flawed exsample, no.