Forums of the Megaverse®

livewire wrote:that is training not natural aptitude, if wp's and occ's were aptitude that would mean i have the wp with out training? so now wp's are inherent?

macksting wrote:

Natasha wrote:I missed the word "if". I didn't miss it previously when I said if natural aptitude is in Palladium, it's covered in the Weapon Proficiency.

That still doesn't make sense. It's not in weapon proficiencies, because weapon proficiencies offer precisely the same bonuses to everybody. I still say you either need to rephrase this or I feel you're making fun.

macksting wrote:That is to say, then, that you feel if a GM wants to say some folks are just better than others at using a class of firearms, changing the WP to reflect individual prowess (that is to say, no longer being +3 aimed/+1 burst and +1 per three levels but now varying by who is using it) is a more viable option in your opinion than attaching the bonus to a stat?
And that OCCs might be another option along those lines, mind you.

macksting wrote:

Natasha wrote:I think that the degree of aptitude in the characters is not enough to provide any extra bonuses than what is already available to them. I think that training enables one's aptitude, that's why I say weapon proficiencies encompass aptitude. But still this aptitude just isn't enough to prompt a bonus beyond what is already available.

So if natural aptitude = 0 whether it's in the equation or not, it's arguably not represented.
I take it you also haven't found people to have, shall we say, a negative natural aptitude value? That is to say, you've never found anybody to just be very difficult to get up to par when it comes to aiming?

macksting wrote:

Where aptitude is big enough to prompt a bonus, then it's generally an O.C.C. bonus or ability.

A reasonable approach, although it seems a touch narrow considering who therefore can't get natural skill bonuses. That is, most everybody can't. Certainly, though, an OOC can be a reasonable way to get it. And if the GM isn't inclined to believe anybody's really noticably better in real life except by devoting a class to it, that might be the only way.

Natasha wrote:

macksting wrote:That is to say, then, that you feel if a GM wants to say some folks are just better than others at using a class of firearms, changing the WP to reflect individual prowess (that is to say, no longer being +3 aimed/+1 burst and +1 per three levels but now varying by who is using it) is a more viable option in your opinion than attaching the bonus to a stat?
And that OCCs might be another option along those lines, mind you.

Not really. I'm really sorry I'm failing to express this clearly in English.

If you want to speak about aptitude in terms of the game rules, then here's how I would do it, since the game rules do not include rules for individual aptitude.

I think that the degree of aptitude in the characters is not enough to provide any extra bonuses than what is already available to them. I think that training enables one's aptitude, that's why I say weapon proficiencies encompass aptitude. But still this aptitude just isn't enough to prompt a bonus beyond what is already available.

Where aptitude is big enough to prompt a bonus, then it's generally an O.C.C. bonus or ability.


Otherwise you need to better define the attributes or create one or create some other mechanism to handle aptitude.

livewire wrote:

Natasha wrote:

macksting wrote:That is to say, then, that you feel if a GM wants to say some folks are just better than others at using a class of firearms, changing the WP to reflect individual prowess (that is to say, no longer being +3 aimed/+1 burst and +1 per three levels but now varying by who is using it) is a more viable option in your opinion than attaching the bonus to a stat?
And that OCCs might be another option along those lines, mind you.

Not really. I'm really sorry I'm failing to express this clearly in English.

If you want to speak about aptitude in terms of the game rules, then here's how I would do it, since the game rules do not include rules for individual aptitude.

I think that the degree of aptitude in the characters is not enough to provide any extra bonuses than what is already available to them. I think that training enables one's aptitude, that's why I say weapon proficiencies encompass aptitude. But still this aptitude just isn't enough to prompt a bonus beyond what is already available.

Where aptitude is big enough to prompt a bonus, then it's generally an O.C.C. bonus or ability.


Otherwise you need to better define the attributes or create one or create some other mechanism to handle aptitude.

ok since when does palladium not have rules for aptitude? that is exactly what the bonuses from your attributes is, an aptitude. the IQ bonus is an aptitude for learning and understanding information and skills. the ME bonus is an aptitude for resisting psionic attacks and mental insanity etc. all an aptitude is, is a natural ability to due something well palladium is full of aptitudes they are inherent to the system

macksting wrote:In this case, though, it's a question of aptitude with the aim of firearms. To my knowledge, Palladium has no means of or interest in determining the role of natural ability in any type of firearm.

Natasha wrote:

livewire wrote:

Natasha wrote:

macksting wrote:That is to say, then, that you feel if a GM wants to say some folks are just better than others at using a class of firearms, changing the WP to reflect individual prowess (that is to say, no longer being +3 aimed/+1 burst and +1 per three levels but now varying by who is using it) is a more viable option in your opinion than attaching the bonus to a stat?
And that OCCs might be another option along those lines, mind you.

Not really. I'm really sorry I'm failing to express this clearly in English.

If you want to speak about aptitude in terms of the game rules, then here's how I would do it, since the game rules do not include rules for individual aptitude.

I think that the degree of aptitude in the characters is not enough to provide any extra bonuses than what is already available to them. I think that training enables one's aptitude, that's why I say weapon proficiencies encompass aptitude. But still this aptitude just isn't enough to prompt a bonus beyond what is already available.

Where aptitude is big enough to prompt a bonus, then it's generally an O.C.C. bonus or ability.


Otherwise you need to better define the attributes or create one or create some other mechanism to handle aptitude.

ok since when does palladium not have rules for aptitude? that is exactly what the bonuses from your attributes is, an aptitude. the IQ bonus is an aptitude for learning and understanding information and skills. the ME bonus is an aptitude for resisting psionic attacks and mental insanity etc. all an aptitude is, is a natural ability to due something well palladium is full of aptitudes they are inherent to the system

It's ability.

livewire wrote:you say tomoto i say tomato it basically the same thing you are getting a bonus because your attributes say your better at something because of your high attribute. you can call it natural ability or natural aptitude its pretty much the same thing.

macksting wrote:How so?

Gypsy-Dancer wrote:My husband house-ruled it so the PP does work.
Having been shooting, and having seen him and others shoot, I can understand why.

Natasha wrote:

macksting wrote:How so?

Because aptitude and ability aren't the same thing.

macksting wrote:Flips and rolls... does this mean you've changed your mind about the definition of PP? (At least for some Palladium games?)

livewire wrote:

Natasha wrote:

macksting wrote:How so?

Because aptitude and ability aren't the same thing.

a·bil·i·ty (-bl-t)
n. pl. a·bil·i·ties
1. The quality of being able to do something, especially the physical, mental, financial, or legal power to accomplish something.
2. A natural or acquired skill or talent.
3. The quality of being suitable for or receptive to a specified treatment; capacity: the ability of a computer to be configured for use as a file server
Synonyms: ability, capacity, faculty, talent, skill, competence, aptitude

ap·ti·tude (pt-td, -tyd)
n.
1. An inherent ability, as for learning; a talent. See Synonyms at ability.
2. Quickness in learning and understanding; intelligence.
3. The condition or quality of being suitable; appropriateness.

well considering aptitude is a synonym of ability i would say that my comment of "you say tomoto and i say tomato" would seem rather fitting.

Dog_O_War wrote:

Natasha wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:What exactly is the point in all the going back and forth about how much of firing a gun is natural skill and how much is training?

My point is that firing a gun is 99% training, maybe more. Furthermore, that natural skill in firing guns is enabled by training reflected in the bonuses to strike provided by training. Training is the Weapon Proficiency.

99%? You really can't put a percentage on a "skill" in real life.

However, you can put a percentage on a skill in this game - which stands at 100% training.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Are bows somehow supposed to require less training than guns?
Or to rely more on natural skill?

Yes. give a caveman a bow and arrow and he'll atleast attempt to stab his prey with the pointy arrow. Yet you give him a loaded gun (with the safety on) and all's he's got is a club. The basics of learning the bow are far easier than that of the gun - but once you know the technology behind the gun you'll find it is the easier weapon.

But that's the difference; learning both the technology and the proficiency of the gun versus simply the proficiency of the bow.

Gypsy-Dancer wrote:My husband house-ruled it so the PP does work.
Having been shooting, and having seen him and others shoot, I can understand why.

Vrykolas2k wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:

Natasha wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:What exactly is the point in all the going back and forth about how much of firing a gun is natural skill and how much is training?

My point is that firing a gun is 99% training, maybe more. Furthermore, that natural skill in firing guns is enabled by training reflected in the bonuses to strike provided by training. Training is the Weapon Proficiency.

99%? You really can't put a percentage on a "skill" in real life.

However, you can put a percentage on a skill in this game - which stands at 100% training.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Are bows somehow supposed to require less training than guns?
Or to rely more on natural skill?

Yes. give a caveman a bow and arrow and he'll atleast attempt to stab his prey with the pointy arrow. Yet you give him a loaded gun (with the safety on) and all's he's got is a club. The basics of learning the bow are far easier than that of the gun - but once you know the technology behind the gun you'll find it is the easier weapon.

But that's the difference; learning both the technology and the proficiency of the gun versus simply the proficiency of the bow.

Yes, as I both know how to use a bow very well and I know how to shoot very well, I'd say a bow is harder to learn than is a fire-arm.
In point of fact, that's part of the design of fire-arms... to be simple.
So you can field armies of peasants with no real training for combat but will still win a battle.
There's a reason why archer were traditionally trained from child-hood, whilst snipers go through a school for a few weeks, all told and that's after if I remember right the two weeks they spend in basic.

macksting wrote:Forum God says play nice. You know you're coming across as hostile at this point, and there's really no reason to do so. It's an obstacle to conversation.

macksting wrote:For purposes of this conversation, in what ways are guns more complicated to use than bows? They're certainly a complex mechanism, but I'm in no way certain they're complicated to use. I haven't seen you demonstrate that argument in this thread.

macksting wrote:Which, to be fair, may mean I'm being dense. I can't seem to find any skill or class feature which allows PP to be added to strike rolls, only Initiative. You said you mentioned the skill earlier, and I'm afraid I can't find the mention, so I hope you'll forgive and indulge.

Dog_O_War wrote:

Gypsy-Dancer wrote:My husband house-ruled it so the PP does work.
Having been shooting, and having seen him and others shoot, I can understand why.

Really? I'll pit my vice-mounted rifle against your husband's unrested aim any day of the week.

Vrykolas2k wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:

Natasha wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:What exactly is the point in all the going back and forth about how much of firing a gun is natural skill and how much is training?

My point is that firing a gun is 99% training, maybe more. Furthermore, that natural skill in firing guns is enabled by training reflected in the bonuses to strike provided by training. Training is the Weapon Proficiency.

99%? You really can't put a percentage on a "skill" in real life.

However, you can put a percentage on a skill in this game - which stands at 100% training.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Are bows somehow supposed to require less training than guns?
Or to rely more on natural skill?

Yes. give a caveman a bow and arrow and he'll atleast attempt to stab his prey with the pointy arrow. Yet you give him a loaded gun (with the safety on) and all's he's got is a club. The basics of learning the bow are far easier than that of the gun - but once you know the technology behind the gun you'll find it is the easier weapon.

But that's the difference; learning both the technology and the proficiency of the gun versus simply the proficiency of the bow.

Yes, as I both know how to use a bow very well and I know how to shoot very well, I'd say a bow is harder to learn than is a fire-arm.
In point of fact, that's part of the design of fire-arms... to be simple.
So you can field armies of peasants with no real training for combat but will still win a battle.
There's a reason why archer were traditionally trained from child-hood, whilst snipers go through a school for a few weeks, all told and that's after if I remember right the two weeks they spend in basic.

Really? I hear-tell the Euros back in the day did the same thing with peasants and arrow-volley fire. I also heard that only the primitive cultures bothered to train with the bow from child-hood as a way of survival and didn't really participate in those full-scale battles you were talking about. Funny that...
...Oh yeah, I also remembered that the gun was the inferior weapon by a great degree for more than 100 years until it began recieving a technology upgrade; that before then a good strong english longbow would out range, out aim, and out RoF a gun every day of the week...

But I suppose all that "history" means nothing seeing as how guns today are better than the bow, which hasn't had a major tech. upgrade in nearly 1000 years.

But you are still right; firearms were meant to be 'simple'. Too bad they had to become severely complicated to accomplish that.

Basically I'm saying that you're comparing fire to the microwave oven. The microwave is easier, faster, and by all accounts more efficient, but in no way, shape or form is it the 'simpler' of the two. A child can use it, because it was designed to be that way. I believe this is where the miscommunication between myself and you others are coming to.


Finally, guns already recieve a bonus to strike from PP, but you need a special skill to recieve that bonus as I stated earlier.

Natasha wrote:

livewire wrote:

Natasha wrote:

macksting wrote:How so?

Because aptitude and ability aren't the same thing.

a·bil·i·ty (-bl-t)
n. pl. a·bil·i·ties
1. The quality of being able to do something, especially the physical, mental, financial, or legal power to accomplish something.
2. A natural or acquired skill or talent.
3. The quality of being suitable for or receptive to a specified treatment; capacity: the ability of a computer to be configured for use as a file server
Synonyms: ability, capacity, faculty, talent, skill, competence, aptitude

ap·ti·tude (pt-td, -tyd)
n.
1. An inherent ability, as for learning; a talent. See Synonyms at ability.
2. Quickness in learning and understanding; intelligence.
3. The condition or quality of being suitable; appropriateness.

well considering aptitude is a synonym of ability i would say that my comment of "you say tomoto and i say tomato" would seem rather fitting.

I hate it when the dictionary comes out.
People choose the definition which suits them best and then start banging heads against each other as if those are the only definitions.

macksting wrote:If there are semantic arguments in this thread, it's partially my fault, because I'm the one who used the term aptitude, had it be questioned, then lazily said "screw this, I'm using the term natural aptitude to mean X. What applies to X?"
So y'all can cool it, 'cause you know what each of you means and there's no reason to be obtuse. You're having one conversation, and only one, and nobody's changing the damn subject.

livewire wrote:

Natasha wrote:

livewire wrote:

Natasha wrote:

macksting wrote:How so?

Because aptitude and ability aren't the same thing.

a·bil·i·ty (-bl-t)
n. pl. a·bil·i·ties
1. The quality of being able to do something, especially the physical, mental, financial, or legal power to accomplish something.
2. A natural or acquired skill or talent.
3. The quality of being suitable for or receptive to a specified treatment; capacity: the ability of a computer to be configured for use as a file server
Synonyms: ability, capacity, faculty, talent, skill, competence, aptitude

ap·ti·tude (pt-td, -tyd)
n.
1. An inherent ability, as for learning; a talent. See Synonyms at ability.
2. Quickness in learning and understanding; intelligence.
3. The condition or quality of being suitable; appropriateness.

well considering aptitude is a synonym of ability i would say that my comment of "you say tomoto and i say tomato" would seem rather fitting.

I hate it when the dictionary comes out.
People choose the definition which suits them best and then start banging heads against each other as if those are the only definitions.

well as i just cut and pasted the entire definition i don't think you can say i am choosing a definition that suits me. and i did not post these primarily for the definitions that was only supportive information the primary reason i posted these was for the colored highlighted stuff hence the color highlighting. so the real reason was to show that the words are synonyms. which explains the tomoto/tomato comment. which was meant to show you were arguing about words that can be used equally well to describe the same thing

Vrykolas2k wrote:As for the shooting challenge, you're on. Whittington Center, you can name the date.

Vrykolas2k wrote:As for the archers training from child-hood and not taking part in large battles, you must not have heard of the Welsh or the Japanese.

Vrykolas2k wrote:The english didn't use a longbow until fairly late in their history, and they were never as good with it as a Welsh archer; in fact, english archers weren't well paid and had a constant morale problem. English bows were about half as long as the Welsh long-bow. You can see examples of them in the Bayeax Tapestry.

Vrykolas2k wrote:Your hostility is noted, and I doubt needed.
I am done with this thread.

Natasha wrote:I don't know the official rule.

And until the game I am playing says it's applied to ranged combat, I'm not going to apply it to ranged combat.

macksting wrote:

Natasha wrote:And I'm aware they can describe the same thing; I'm also aware they don't always.

If I may, why did you feel that poster wasn't referring to the same thing in this context?

livewire wrote:

Natasha wrote:I don't know the official rule.

And until the game I am playing says it's applied to ranged combat, I'm not going to apply it to ranged combat.

so you don't use house rules at all?

duck-foot wrote:i can answer this has a former marine. in boot camp i got marksman on the rifle range with my m-16. thats really good, but when it comes to actual balance i am somewhat less than normal. rifles and handguns in general require more of a hand and eye coordination then speed and agility.

GreenGhost wrote:

duck-foot wrote:i can answer this has a former marine. in boot camp i got marksman on the rifle range with my m-16. thats really good, but when it comes to actual balance i am somewhat less than normal. rifles and handguns in general require more of a hand and eye coordination then speed and agility.

I know exactly what you mean. Shooting a firearm has little if anything to do with "dexterity or balance." It's hand-eye coordination and breathing. If breathing required dexterity I know a lot of people who would be dead by now

I qualified expert in the Marine Corps (both rifle and pistol) and have applied what I've learned in recreational shooting as well as in hostile situations. I'm not clumsy, but I'm also not the most graceful. How many Marine Corps Heavy Gunner Ballerinas have you heard of?

I apply personal experience and reality when it comes to ruling, in the games that I GM, that PP bonuses are not applicable. It's just not realistic.

macksting wrote:

Natasha wrote:

macksting wrote:

Natasha wrote:And I'm aware they can describe the same thing; I'm also aware they don't always.

If I may, why did you feel that poster wasn't referring to the same thing in this context?

I don't understand the question, sorry.

You just seem very insistent that the poster you were responding to was changing the subject, when I'm pretty certain in that context that the term ability was being used as a synonym. Enlighten me.

macksting wrote:Sharpshooting doesn't give strike bonuses in HU2, don't think. Just makes shots less wild. Is this a Rifts thing?

macksting wrote:Now Duck-Foot and GreenGhost said they were aware of a certain amount of natural ability having an influence on their performance with firearms, and that hand-eye coordination was the big one for them. How much influence do you feel it had? Just estimating.

Dog_O_War wrote:

GreenGhost wrote:

duck-foot wrote:i can answer this has a former marine. in boot camp i got marksman on the rifle range with my m-16. thats really good, but when it comes to actual balance i am somewhat less than normal. rifles and handguns in general require more of a hand and eye coordination then speed and agility.

I know exactly what you mean. Shooting a firearm has little if anything to do with "dexterity or balance." It's hand-eye coordination and breathing. If breathing required dexterity I know a lot of people who would be dead by now

I qualified expert in the Marine Corps (both rifle and pistol) and have applied what I've learned in recreational shooting as well as in hostile situations. I'm not clumsy, but I'm also not the most graceful. How many Marine Corps Heavy Gunner Ballerinas have you heard of?

I apply personal experience and reality when it comes to ruling, in the games that I GM, that PP bonuses are not applicable. It's just not realistic.

Powered armour, vampires, and fireballs are? I hate to see that particular justification anywhere. I don't mind seeing "doesn't make sense" because that implies that the world it pertains to has justifications on why the other things I listed would. But 'not realistic' as a reason is... well... not realistic.
I mean we're already accepting that being smart makes you a better acrobat, that pulsing laser weapons cut your bonuses to strike in half *because* they fire multiple lasers micro-seconds apart (which does not cause any kick-back and still takes less time for all three lasers to leave the barrel than it does for even a single railgun round), and that AoE attacks seemingly only damage the most robust part of your armour - leaving the extremities intact (despite there being MDC amounts listed for them).

Just throwing that out there.

macksting wrote:I'm aware of your opinion on aptitude bonuses for firearms, and I was going to take your opinion into account, but I was asking Duck-Foot and GreenGhost.

So to clarify, did you ever feel that "ability" was being used as something other than a synonym for my half-assed use of the term "aptitude?"

GreenGhost wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:

GreenGhost wrote:

duck-foot wrote:i can answer this has a former marine. in boot camp i got marksman on the rifle range with my m-16. thats really good, but when it comes to actual balance i am somewhat less than normal. rifles and handguns in general require more of a hand and eye coordination then speed and agility.

I know exactly what you mean. Shooting a firearm has little if anything to do with "dexterity or balance." It's hand-eye coordination and breathing. If breathing required dexterity I know a lot of people who would be dead by now

I qualified expert in the Marine Corps (both rifle and pistol) and have applied what I've learned in recreational shooting as well as in hostile situations. I'm not clumsy, but I'm also not the most graceful. How many Marine Corps Heavy Gunner Ballerinas have you heard of?

I apply personal experience and reality when it comes to ruling, in the games that I GM, that PP bonuses are not applicable. It's just not realistic.

Powered armour, vampires, and fireballs are? I hate to see that particular justification anywhere. I don't mind seeing "doesn't make sense" because that implies that the world it pertains to has justifications on why the other things I listed would. But 'not realistic' as a reason is... well... not realistic.
I mean we're already accepting that being smart makes you a better acrobat, that pulsing laser weapons cut your bonuses to strike in half *because* they fire multiple lasers micro-seconds apart (which does not cause any kick-back and still takes less time for all three lasers to leave the barrel than it does for even a single railgun round), and that AoE attacks seemingly only damage the most robust part of your armour - leaving the extremities intact (despite there being MDC amounts listed for them).

Just throwing that out there.

I'm not saying that the "game itself" is realistic. There has got to be some sort of realism base or there'd be not foundation in the game. If people want to take the PP bonuses and apply them to their character's WPs in their game then that's their call. I was just stating that I don't allow it in my games and why. There are a lot of people that game (no offense meant to anyone) that have no experience with firearms and that may be why some think thatthe PP bonuses should be applied to their character's WP. The same goes for some many who think they're proficient with a firearm since they rank well on HALO or some other video game. Unless you've hand firearm training I can see why people would believe that.

Again- I'm just stating that I don't allow the PP bonuses to be applied in the games I GM and why. I have nothing against those who do apply it at all.

Rogue_Scientist wrote:...because modern weapons have a penalty to dodge/parry, while ancient attacks do not?

~RS

livewire wrote:

GreenGhost wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:

GreenGhost wrote:

duck-foot wrote:i can answer this has a former marine. in boot camp i got marksman on the rifle range with my m-16. thats really good, but when it comes to actual balance i am somewhat less than normal. rifles and handguns in general require more of a hand and eye coordination then speed and agility.

I know exactly what you mean. Shooting a firearm has little if anything to do with "dexterity or balance." It's hand-eye coordination and breathing. If breathing required dexterity I know a lot of people who would be dead by now

I qualified expert in the Marine Corps (both rifle and pistol) and have applied what I've learned in recreational shooting as well as in hostile situations. I'm not clumsy, but I'm also not the most graceful. How many Marine Corps Heavy Gunner Ballerinas have you heard of?

I apply personal experience and reality when it comes to ruling, in the games that I GM, that PP bonuses are not applicable. It's just not realistic.

Powered armour, vampires, and fireballs are? I hate to see that particular justification anywhere. I don't mind seeing "doesn't make sense" because that implies that the world it pertains to has justifications on why the other things I listed would. But 'not realistic' as a reason is... well... not realistic.
I mean we're already accepting that being smart makes you a better acrobat, that pulsing laser weapons cut your bonuses to strike in half *because* they fire multiple lasers micro-seconds apart (which does not cause any kick-back and still takes less time for all three lasers to leave the barrel than it does for even a single railgun round), and that AoE attacks seemingly only damage the most robust part of your armour - leaving the extremities intact (despite there being MDC amounts listed for them).

Just throwing that out there.

I'm not saying that the "game itself" is realistic. There has got to be some sort of realism base or there'd be not foundation in the game. If people want to take the PP bonuses and apply them to their character's WPs in their game then that's their call. I was just stating that I don't allow it in my games and why. There are a lot of people that game (no offense meant to anyone) that have no experience with firearms and that may be why some think thatthe PP bonuses should be applied to their character's WP. The same goes for some many who think they're proficient with a firearm since they rank well on HALO or some other video game. Unless you've hand firearm training I can see why people would believe that.

Again- I'm just stating that I don't allow the PP bonuses to be applied in the games I GM and why. I have nothing against those who do apply it at all.

and there are some of use who do have firearm experience and do think it should apply somewhat for a couple reasons

1) i believe hand eye coordination applies to shooting a gun and even though it is not stated in the books outright i believe PP is the attribute to refer to for it as this is implied by some of the bonuses given by PP
2) PP would work as a default as there is not really another one that works as easily to represent natural aptitude/ability (pick one lol) with a firearm
3) i do have experience with firearms and also have personal experience with having a natural ability/aptitude(see above) which i believe i talked about in some of my previous posts on this thread

macksting wrote:Now, whatever stat covers hand-eye coordination would be irrelevant to Natasha

Natasha, 7 May 2008 wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:

macksting wrote:Would I be correct, then, in saying you support the system's bonus scaling for training with a gun, but not so much its bonuses to swords and piloting? That in fact you feel the system doesn't properly represent natural aptitude at learning skills or using weaponry, and the bonuses to anything should be done away with?

Apparently in favor of more OCCs?

Even I had a hard time understanding this; basically you're saying (whether you meant to or not) do you think the game should go stat-less?

Because without bonuses (from stats!) there is no point to them.

I'm saying the stats should be better defined and that more stats should be added.

So what you're saying is that you see stats as either > 15 or irrelevant?

macksting wrote:* Natasha particularly, but all parties: Addressing natural ability sufficiently advanced or magical enough to make a difference short of an "I can aim a gun good" spell, there are a few mutant abilities which are devoted to delicacy and precision of touch, which would seem to cover aiming handguns well if I've got the right idea. While we're talking houserules, should mutant powers like Heightened Sense of Touch (bonus to pick pockets, locks, or such) or a micro-manipulation hand (yes, bonus to PP when dealing with small objects, but also a +5% or +10% bonus to delicate work and repairs) offer bonuses to strike with a handgun?

macksting wrote:

Natasha wrote:

macksting wrote:Now, whatever stat covers hand-eye coordination would be irrelevant to Natasha

Did I actually say this?

I'm afraid so.

Natasha wrote:

Misfit KotLD wrote:

Natasha wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:What exactly is the point in all the going back and forth about how much of firing a gun is natural skill and how much is training?

My point is that firing a gun is 99% training, maybe more. Furthermore, that natural skill in firing guns is enabled by training reflected in the bonuses to strike provided by training. Training is the Weapon Proficiency.

And the system does not reflect that with the same amount of training, the natural shooter shoots better than the non-natural.

It boils down to what being a natural shooter means.

I don't think it means very much.

macksting wrote:You maintained for quite a while that you don't feel natural ability makes enough difference to grant a +1 on a d20 roll.

macksting wrote:

Natasha wrote:If you can come up with a stat that handles shooting aptitude, then great. I think you're going to bump into a wall and have to add a math aptitude, a singing aptitude, a writing aptitude, etc. That's why I said I feared bothering with it would lead to too much micro-management.

I believe Rifts: Ultimate Edition has a table in character creation where a human or such can roll percentile and pick up an aptitude, a talent if you will, a knack developed somehow. If a table any human could roll on covered in separate percentiles singing, math, writing, handguns, rifles, bazooka, and mecha piloting, would that be a good balance of micromanagement and simplicity for you?

macksting wrote:

Natasha wrote:I can see precision of touch applying to sniping only since the trigger pull is very important in accurate shooting. But so is careful aim. Aimed shots get a bonus that reflects the aiming and shooting process, which includes trigger control. So that's sufficient for me. I could probably be convinced to add +1 if you have a superability such as Heightened Touch.

So you don't feel that a precise, unwavering hand and arm have much to do with aim except in sniping?
If any currently existing super powers applying to a specific kind of physical action apply, which might it be?
Another challenge, again something less specific than "I am Gun Guy," what would you require of a NEW super power to grant such a bonus to handguns?

As for the current Palladium Rules I can see why you'd see the PP bonuses as the closest thing to use for those who're "naturals" when it come to firearm proficiency.

I, personally, think that a "Talents & Faults Chart" (I made one a few years ago) can be used during character creation to determine whether a character is a natural with firearms.

Some OCCs give bonuses to WPs (I think the Paratrooper OCC in Merc Adventures is one of them) and if a character receives bonuses from a WP, the OCC (i.e. Paratrooper) and the PP attribute bonuses an unbalanced gaming situation has been born. I used to include the PP bonuses to the Rifts and N&SS games that I GMed about 15 years ago (or so) by a combination of mistakes and not completely reading the rules, but noticed how unbalanced the game was. I decided to get off my **** and actually read the rules. I haven't applied the PP bonuses to modern WPs since.

macksting wrote:So, first question. Does Stat X = Stat Y?

livewire wrote:

As for the current Palladium Rules I can see why you'd see the PP bonuses as the closest thing to use for those who're "naturals" when it come to firearm proficiency.

I, personally, think that a "Talents & Faults Chart" (I made one a few years ago) can be used during character creation to determine whether a character is a natural with firearms.

Some OCCs give bonuses to WPs (I think the Paratrooper OCC in Merc Adventures is one of them) and if a character receives bonuses from a WP, the OCC (i.e. Paratrooper) and the PP attribute bonuses an unbalanced gaming situation has been born. I used to include the PP bonuses to the Rifts and N&SS games that I GMed about 15 years ago (or so) by a combination of mistakes and not completely reading the rules, but noticed how unbalanced the game was. I decided to get off my **** and actually read the rules. I haven't applied the PP bonuses to modern WPs since.

well as far as balance thats why i cut the pp bonus to firearms in half it seems to take care of the balance issue.
i would love a talents and faults setup shadowrun has something like it and it works quite well and i think it fleshes the characters out quite well

livewire wrote:i think i am going to make one up using the shadowrun one as a base and go from there even if it does work better with a point system i think i work something out

darebear wrote:Can someone please rationalize to me why Ancient WP (bows, crossbows) allow a character to use their PP bonuses to strike but someone firing a handgun benefits from no PP bonus? It makes no sense to me since one would think that someone with high PP would be able to control the recoil/aim steadier and so on then someone who has a low PP.