Forums of the Megaverse®

Dr. Doom III wrote:

Vrykolas2k wrote:Until I get home to look it up, all I can say is, in Rifts, the rule has always been there for PCs to get the 2 "extra" attacks... I am fairly certain it was Sourcebook 1 which fully clarified that, I'll check. The rule in the main book is iffy, but since parctically every NPC I've ever seen doesn't get them, I'd say NPCs are SOL when it come to the 2 "extras".

So PC Juicer is a larger then life character but NPC Juicer is just Joe Average and gets less attacks because the GM controlls him and not a player?

Right!!!
J/K... I think it's really because the PCs are supposed to be like the centre of the game or somesuch... sounds like meatbag arrogance to me...

Vrykolas2k wrote:Until I get home to look it up, all I can say is, in Rifts, the rule has always been there for PCs to get the 2 "extra" attacks... I am fairly certain it was Sourcebook 1 which fully clarified that, I'll check. The rule in the main book is iffy, but since parctically every NPC I've ever seen doesn't get them, I'd say NPCs are SOL when it come to the 2 "extras".

I can see why you follow that theory; Palladium claims that characters always got the two attacks for living, but none (or virtually none) of their NPCs in the early books get those extra attacks.

On the other hand, the NPCs in the later books DO get the extra attacks... which indicates that NPCs are supposed to follow the same rules as characters.

Possibly Palladium originally intended for things to go the way you say, then changed things around the same time that they started claiming that all characters get the 2 for living...

GlitterMan wrote:

Dr. Doom III wrote:You mean like it says "additional attacks" for PC's?

They mean the exact same thing.
The only thing in question is whether or not it meant the ones at first level which in Rifts said "starts with" and in games like HU revised said plus or it just means the attacks gained beyond first level for both PC's and NPC's alike.

Then why bother putting the word players in italics and adding the word "only" when saying NPCs usually only start with two attacks. If PCs and NPCs were meant to have the exact same number it would have been written: "PCs and NPCs start with two attacks plus those for hand to hand combat and boxing skills." or something similar. Instead the two were broken out seperately and use different words/sentence structure. Sounds fishy to me.

I have always found that passage to be fishy.
The two sentences appear to be slightly different wordings of the same thing. Possibly they are meant to mean different things, but either sentence is as likely to mean "gets the two attacks for living" as the other.
Or is just as likely NOT to mean that.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

GlitterMan wrote:

Dr. Doom III wrote:You mean like it says "additional attacks" for PC's?

They mean the exact same thing.
The only thing in question is whether or not it meant the ones at first level which in Rifts said "starts with" and in games like HU revised said plus or it just means the attacks gained beyond first level for both PC's and NPC's alike.

Then why bother putting the word players in italics and adding the word "only" when saying NPCs usually only start with two attacks. If PCs and NPCs were meant to have the exact same number it would have been written: "PCs and NPCs start with two attacks plus those for hand to hand combat and boxing skills." or something similar. Instead the two were broken out seperately and use different words/sentence structure. Sounds fishy to me.

I have always found that passage to be fishy.
The two sentences appear to be slightly different wordings of the same thing. Possibly they are meant to mean different things, but either sentence is as likely to mean "gets the two attacks for living" as the other.
Or is just as likely NOT to mean that.

Hmm... difficult to say. Always in motion, the rule-books are.
At any rate, I haven't found which of my many books explains that only PCs get the extra 2 attacks at 1st level... but I know it's in one of them {looks at shelf of Rifts books with trepidition}.

Killer Cyborg wrote:That's also possible...

Are Simvan supposed to be as fast as juicers?

Conversion Book 1, p. 10

"The Crazies, Juiver, Borg, Simvan Warrior, cyber-knight, dragon, and those operating power armor or bots (excluding the Glitter Boy) can attempt to parry a bullet or single energy blast if they have a suitable item/shield with which to parry. The Cyber-knight, Mind Melter, and Master Psionic who can create a psi-sword or psi-shield can also attempt to parry mega-damage energy attacks. Likewise, practicioners of magic who have a magic sword or magic shield can try to parry energy attacks."

Dr. Doom III wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:That's also possible...

Are Simvan supposed to be as fast as juicers?

Conversion Book 1, p. 10

"The Crazies, Juiver, Borg, Simvan Warrior, cyber-knight, dragon, and those operating power armor or bots (excluding the Glitter Boy) can attempt to parry a bullet or single energy blast if they have a suitable item/shield with which to parry. The Cyber-knight, Mind Melter, and Master Psionic who can create a psi-sword or psi-shield can also attempt to parry mega-damage energy attacks. Likewise, practicioners of magic who have a magic sword or magic shield can try to parry energy attacks."

Yup.
I noticed that the other day, when I was looking that up for a different thread.
It looks like they ARE supposed to be pretty darn fast.

According to this my ley line walker with his P.P. 10 can parry the blast from a MD weapon, so it is not just about speed...

Unless of course you think that laser beam is moving slower than the speed of light.

MattLing wrote:The game is balanced without the 2 extra attacks "for breathing" in mind. It makes Juicers literally twice as fast as anyone else, for example, and doesn't nerf magic users.

actually, 2 attacks for breathing would screw over certain classes.

some mutants don't breath

Killer Cyborg wrote:Yup.
I noticed that the other day, when I was looking that up for a different thread.
It looks like they ARE supposed to be pretty darn fast.

Well I did copy and paste it from that thread.

I for one believe the two rule was always there.

Depends on how you interperet that one paragraph that has been heavily disputed.

I can tell you that the two attacks to start with were always there ...

danboals wrote:According to this my ley line walker with his P.P. 10 can parry the blast from a MD weapon, so it is not just about speed...

He can only do it if he has a magic sword.
So in his case it's NOT about speed; it's about magic.
A Simvan, on the other hand, could parry with virtually anything.

Unless of course you think that laser beam is moving slower than the speed of light.

Good point.
But that's just a good argument for why it should be impossible for anybody to be able to parry; not an explanation for why Simvan can.
If the factor isn't speed, what is it?
Realistically, the only way to block a laser blast would be to determine exactly where the foe was going to shoot and put something in the path of the beam before they pull the trigger.
The Simvan have sort of high PP(4d6), but nothing extraordinary. Really, it's not significantly better than humans.
They have 6th Sense as a racial psionic power, but even minor psionics can have this power... and the only way for a mind melter to parry an energy blast is to use their psi-sword.

Beats me.
I see no reason other than speed why the Simvan could parry bullets or energy blasts, but that doesn't necessarily mean a whole lot.
Man, this is gonna bug me...

Josh Sinsapaugh wrote:I for one believe the two rule was always there.

Depends on how you interperet that one paragraph that has been heavily disputed.

So what's your take on the fact that all the human NPCs don't get those 2 attacks?

Maryann wrote:I can tell you that the two attacks to start with were always there ...

Can you shed some light on why none of the human NPCs or sample character get them?
It's kind of confusing...

Maryann wrote:I can tell you that the two attacks to start with were always there ...

Can you tell us why none of the NPCs from all the early books have them?

gadrin wrote:yeah, it's even in the old HU Revised book I have.

Wrong game.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Can you shed some light on why none of the human NPCs or sample character get them?
It's kind of confusing...

My bet would be that KS didn't spend the time making up the NPCs himself. He slapped together a history and had some flunky flesh out the statistics. Said flunky blew it.

This supposes that KS is really busy and delegates work. Some people don't but most successful ones do. Plus, the general level of editing is no where near as high as the level of creativity to put it nicely.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Josh Sinsapaugh wrote:I for one believe the two rule was always there.

Depends on how you interperet that one paragraph that has been heavily disputed.

So what's your take on the fact that all the human NPCs don't get those 2 attacks?

Thats easy, creative license, none of the authors strictly follow the creation guidelines for NPCs. They usually give them what they think they need.

Maryann wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Josh Sinsapaugh wrote:I for one believe the two rule was always there.

Depends on how you interperet that one paragraph that has been heavily disputed.

So what's your take on the fact that all the human NPCs don't get those 2 attacks?

Thats easy, creative license, none of the authors strictly follow the creation guidelines for NPCs. They usually give them what they think they need.

So basically, you're giving the "the PCs are larger-than-life, even larger than the larger-than-life NPCs" explanation.

PigLick

Maryann wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Josh Sinsapaugh wrote:I for one believe the two rule was always there.

Depends on how you interperet that one paragraph that has been heavily disputed.

So what's your take on the fact that all the human NPCs don't get those 2 attacks?

Thats easy, creative license, none of the authors strictly follow the creation guidelines for NPCs. They usually give them what they think they need.

In virtually every case, the NPCs are written exactly by the rules for character creation... only they are exactly two attacks short.
For example:
In the back of the Rifts book, the stats for the "typical coalition grunt" only has 2 attacks per melee.
The "Typical SAMAS" has 4 attacks per melee.
The "Typical High-Tech Bandit (Headhunter)" has 2 attacks per melee.

KS is the only listed author for the main Rifts book, did he intend for the "average" Coalition Grunt to have 2 less attacks than CS Grunt who was a player character?

PigLickJF wrote:

Maryann wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Josh Sinsapaugh wrote:I for one believe the two rule was always there.

Depends on how you interperet that one paragraph that has been heavily disputed.

So what's your take on the fact that all the human NPCs don't get those 2 attacks?

Thats easy, creative license, none of the authors strictly follow the creation guidelines for NPCs. They usually give them what they think they need.

So basically, you're giving the "the PCs are larger-than-life, even larger than the larger-than-life NPCs" explanation.

PigLick

Exactly.

I also think that, if the 2 attacks for living have always been there...
It's weird that my Rifts book says (under HTH Expert and HTH Martial Arts)
"Level 1 Two attacks per melee to start"

I've mentioned this before, but nobody commented on it.

Killer Cyborg wrote:I also think that, if the 2 attacks for living have always been there...
It's weird that my Rifts book says (under HTH Expert and HTH Martial Arts)
"Level 1 Two attacks per melee to start"

I've mentioned this before, but nobody commented on it.

Well, technically that could be explained away by saying that those attacks are, by their very nature, bonus attacks. So it is in effect saying "two extra attacks to start," but since it's already a given that they are extra attacks, it leaves that part out. (Note, I'm not saying that's what I believe, nor trying to defend that point, just pointing out that it's possible).

PigLick

PigLickJF wrote:Well, technically that could be explained away by saying that those attacks are, by their very nature, bonus attacks. So it is in effect saying "two extra attacks to start," but since it's already a given that they are extra attacks, it leaves that part out. (Note, I'm not saying that's what I believe, nor trying to defend that point, just pointing out that it's possible).

PigLick

Yet in a game like HU revised where "all heroes get two attacks to start" that same line in the hand-to-hand skills says plus two attacks.
With the copy and paste nature of Palladium books why the difference?


Sorry Maryann that explanation doesn't wash. I'll buy it for NPCs that have more PPE then they should because the author wants to make a tough villain but not Benny the Juicer getting two attacks less just like every other NPC in every other early book.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Josh Sinsapaugh wrote:I for one believe the two rule was always there.

Depends on how you interperet that one paragraph that has been heavily disputed.

So what's your take on the fact that all the human NPCs don't get those 2 attacks?

Well, it depends on the author, I believe that in the early books they thought you would be responsible for "tacking on" those two extra attacks.

Dr. Doom III wrote:

PigLickJF wrote:Well, technically that could be explained away by saying that those attacks are, by their very nature, bonus attacks. So it is in effect saying "two extra attacks to start," but since it's already a given that they are extra attacks, it leaves that part out. (Note, I'm not saying that's what I believe, nor trying to defend that point, just pointing out that it's possible).

PigLick

Yet in a game like HU revised where "all heroes get two attacks to start" that same line in the hand-to-hand skills says plus two attacks.
With the copy and paste nature of Palladium books why the difference?


Sorry Maryann that explanation doesn't wash. I'll buy it for NPCs that have more PPE then they should because the author wants to make a tough villain but not Benny the Juicer getting two attacks less just like every other NPC in every other early book.

Like I said, I wasn't trying to defend that argument, just pointing it out. Personally, I agree with you, which is why I made my tongue-in-cheek response to Maryann.
What it comes down to is that the rules were horribly written and the books horribly edited, such that no one can tell what the heck was intended, and even the author(s) him/themselves have no good explanation.

PigLick

silverlb wrote:Did I miss somthing? Didn't the GM rifts guide explain the confusion over the Attacks per melee? It even gave HTH for the untrained. Over course, before that the System Faliure game came to the rescue. How con anyone still argue 2/3?

Nobody is arguing that the rules are STILL 2-3 attacks per melee.
The difference in opinion is whether it has always been that way, or if Palladium changed the rules out from under us.

If the rules always included the 2 attacks for living, then that leaves us wondering why every decypherable NPC and every sample character (the "Average CS Grunt" in the back of the book, for example) ignore those two attacks.

There seem to be several possible explanations for this:
1. NPCs are less extraordinary than PCs, so NPCs don't get the extra attacks.
2. Palladium has changed the rules for some reason, and for some reason claims that the rules have always been that way.
3. The stats of NPCs are picked at random and are not in any way supposed to correspond to the way that player characters are made.
4. All the NPCs and sample characters were mistakes.
5. Palladium assumed that we would know how things were supposed to go and would finish the NPCs and sample characters ourselves.

Okay... so now the rule is, no-one gets the attacks for living, or what...? I'm confused...

Vrykolas2k wrote:Okay... so now the rule is, no-one gets the attacks for living, or what...? I'm confused...

Currently, the rule seems to be that everybody (NPCs and PCs) get the two attacks for living.

Originally, it appears that either Nobody got them,
or only PCs got them.
(But that's the debate)

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Vrykolas2k wrote:Okay... so now the rule is, no-one gets the attacks for living, or what...? I'm confused...

Currently, the rule seems to be that everybody (NPCs and PCs) get the two attacks for living.

Originally, it appears that either Nobody got them,
or only PCs got them.
(But that's the debate)

AAARRGGH!!!
I think originally it was just the PCs... I KNOW I read that in an official capacity, but I can't seem to locate it... perhaps in the Q&A...?
This is SUCH a headache. Think I'll hang out with my cheerleader friends at let their numbness rub off on me a bit...

Vrykolas2k wrote:Okay... so now the rule is, no-one gets the attacks for living, or what...? I'm confused...

Well, see the GMG for specifics. Basically, there are no "attacks for living" anymore. Your level of HtH skill determines how many attacks you start with. No HtH is 1 attack (plus 2 non-attack actions, I believe), Basic Expert and MA are all 4 atatcks per melee, and Assassin is 3.

PigLick

Vrykolas2k wrote:Okay... so now the rule is, no-one gets the attacks for living, or what...? I'm confused...

No one gets any.
The hand to hands were changed so that they give 4 attacks to start (3 for assassin).
Technically no one ever got "two attacks for living" since people with no hand to hand skill only got one attack per round not three.

I don't have the GMG, may or may not bother to buy it... I've seen alot of negatives in the past few weeks...
Anyway, if no-one get the "two attacks for living", that's what I'd prefer... I always went with it because that SEEMED to be the rule.
That which is deep, is shallow...

I am going to change my position on this one and say that the original rules definitely did not give NPCs 4 attacks and probably did not give players 4 attacks.

I just read on page 39 of the RMB "Most first level pilots, with both skills ( robot combat and HTH ) will have a total of FOUR attacks per melee.

So it is pretty clear I was wrong about them always having 4 as the basis, wonder when it changed?

GlitterMan wrote:

Basara_549 wrote:This is a Palladium writer, answering it in an official FAQ column, in an official Palladium publication...

Interesting, but sadly this does not clear up how to handle Rifts character attacks. Within the quote itself it states that they changed how they calculated attacks based on the environment of the system.

Rifts is a very deadly environment, and it allows the integration of superheroes and dragons. Furthermore, Rifts characters are suppsed to be heroes who change the world (hopefully for the better). This is why I believe that KS (eventually) decided to go with the 4 attacks at 1st level approach. Maybe he thought 2 attacks would be enough at first (i.e. during the writing of the core book), but after playing for a few years realized that Rifts was maybe a little too deadly for characters with only 2 attacks and upped it to 4 in order to make the characters more capable of heroics.

All conjecture of course...

BtS, p. 47
(Under "Psychic Combat", just like Rifts)

"A reminder: All player characters automatically start off with two attacks/actions per 15 second melee. Additional attacks per melee are gained from the hand to hand skills and boxing.
A typical non-player character gets only one attack per melee plus hand to hand combat and/or boxing skill additions."

The only difference between this section in BtS and the section in Rifts is that NPCs in BtS only get 1 attack per melee base, but PCs get two.

Personally, I find that this explains something I have been wondering about- why the Rifts description describes NPCs and PCs seperately, but then describes them identically.
Sloppy cut and paste.