Forums of the Megaverse®

So, in Palladium Fantasy, Energy Field is listed as having an A.R. of 4. Is this considered a natural A.R. (ie anything below does no damage, anything above comes off of armor) or a normal A.R. (ie anything below comes off of armor total, anything above hits wearer of armor/those behind field)?

Also, what good is an A.R. of 4 since anything below a 4 is a miss anyway?

For me it was always a typo for M.D.C. setting, in an S.D.C. setting you have to beat the A.R. to do damage to the field (so A.R. is very low).

The field covers the areas and you have to destroy the field first.

Ice Dragon wrote:For me it was always a typo for M.D.C. setting, in an S.D.C. setting you have to beat the A.R. to do damage to the field (so A.R. is very low).

The field covers the areas and you have to destroy the field first.

A.R. is ridiculous since a roll of 4 or below is a miss anyways. Stellar game design...

barna10 wrote:

Ice Dragon wrote:For me it was always a typo for M.D.C. setting, in an S.D.C. setting you have to beat the A.R. to do damage to the field (so A.R. is very low).

The field covers the areas and you have to destroy the field first.

A.R. is ridiculous since a roll of 4 or below is a miss anyways. Stellar game design...

Ridiculous would be saying that you could miss an Energy Field with a melee weapon.
AR 4 gives an effective miss chance on what would normally not require any strike roll.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

barna10 wrote:

Ice Dragon wrote:For me it was always a typo for M.D.C. setting, in an S.D.C. setting you have to beat the A.R. to do damage to the field (so A.R. is very low).

The field covers the areas and you have to destroy the field first.

A.R. is ridiculous since a roll of 4 or below is a miss anyways. Stellar game design...

Ridiculous would be saying that you could miss an Energy Field with a melee weapon.
AR 4 gives an effective miss chance on what would normally not require any strike roll.

Sorry, I'm not following. Are you trying say you don't need to roll to strike something without an AR? Does this mean you don't have to roll to hit a human?

Also a roll of "4 or less" is ALWAYS a miss (at least according to RUE, pg 339). So an AR 4 is as good as having no AR at all.

barna10 wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

barna10 wrote:

Ice Dragon wrote:For me it was always a typo for M.D.C. setting, in an S.D.C. setting you have to beat the A.R. to do damage to the field (so A.R. is very low).

The field covers the areas and you have to destroy the field first.

A.R. is ridiculous since a roll of 4 or below is a miss anyways. Stellar game design...

Ridiculous would be saying that you could miss an Energy Field with a melee weapon.
AR 4 gives an effective miss chance on what would normally not require any strike roll.

Sorry, I'm not following. Are you trying say you don't need to roll to strike something without an AR? Does this mean you don't have to roll to hit a human?

Also a roll of "4 or less" is ALWAYS a miss (at least according to RUE, pg 339). So an AR 4 is as good as having no AR at all.

Greetings and Salutations. So your argument is that the rules say if you're standing in front of the broadside of a barn and take a swing with a sword (or even fire straight into the wall) you might miss? To that let me just respond by saying ...

barna10 wrote:I must bow down to all of your knowledge, and the wisdom provided by the PFRPG main book (which of course, since it's an RPG book, everything in it it MUST be true)

[snip]

Or I know, I get it, it works in the real-world, but NOT in fantasy! My bad.

Are most of you actually trying to say that questioning the logic of the rules is munchkin? If so, why not return your brains, I don't think they're being used. I live in a world of logic and so do my characters.

[snip]

Arguing that "you can't do that because lord Siembieda wrote that you can't, you cheater!" is just a ridiculous argument that makes the person presenting it look like a (insert derogatory term here)!

Change the "PFRPG" to "RUE" in this conext.

This isn't a body tight field, this is a field with an 8 foot diameter. That means 8 feet high, and at 8 feet wide. It can fit 6-8 people within it. If you think missing this large, stationary target is the same as missing a moving and much smaller target, I direct you to your own words above.

Thank you for your time and patience, please have a nice day. Farewell and safe journeys for now.[/justify]

barna10 wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:Ridiculous would be saying that you could miss an Energy Field with a melee weapon.
AR 4 gives an effective miss chance on what would normally not require any strike roll.

Sorry, I'm not following. Are you trying say you don't need to roll to strike something without an AR?

No, I'm saying that if you're standing a couple feet away from a stationary wall, you don't need to roll to strike.

Also a roll of "4 or less" is ALWAYS a miss (at least according to RUE, pg 339). So an AR 4 is as good as having no AR at all.

Except for in cases where you normally don't have to roll at all.
Then, because of the AR, you would have to roll, because automatically hitting the thing doesn't mean that you're going to automatically damage it.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Except for in cases where you normally don't have to roll at all.
Then, because of the AR, you would have to roll, because automatically hitting the thing doesn't mean that you're going to automatically damage it.

Is there a section that defines when you don't have to roll to hit?

Also, like I stated when I began the thread, which type of AR is it? If it's a Natural AR, this would all make sense, but if it's a normal AR (like armor) anyone standing in the field takes damage if the attacker rolls above a 4!

I'm going to ignore the AR since Create Force Field has no A.R. (which makes more sense).

Prysus wrote:

barna10 wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

barna10 wrote:

Ice Dragon wrote:For me it was always a typo for M.D.C. setting, in an S.D.C. setting you have to beat the A.R. to do damage to the field (so A.R. is very low).

The field covers the areas and you have to destroy the field first.

A.R. is ridiculous since a roll of 4 or below is a miss anyways. Stellar game design...

Ridiculous would be saying that you could miss an Energy Field with a melee weapon.
AR 4 gives an effective miss chance on what would normally not require any strike roll.

Sorry, I'm not following. Are you trying say you don't need to roll to strike something without an AR? Does this mean you don't have to roll to hit a human?

Also a roll of "4 or less" is ALWAYS a miss (at least according to RUE, pg 339). So an AR 4 is as good as having no AR at all.

Greetings and Salutations. So your argument is that the rules say if you're standing in front of the broadside of a barn and take a swing with a sword (or even fire straight into the wall) you might miss? To that let me just respond by saying ...

barna10 wrote:I must bow down to all of your knowledge, and the wisdom provided by the PFRPG main book (which of course, since it's an RPG book, everything in it it MUST be true)

[snip]

Or I know, I get it, it works in the real-world, but NOT in fantasy! My bad.

Are most of you actually trying to say that questioning the logic of the rules is munchkin? If so, why not return your brains, I don't think they're being used. I live in a world of logic and so do my characters.

[snip]

Arguing that "you can't do that because lord Siembieda wrote that you can't, you cheater!" is just a ridiculous argument that makes the person presenting it look like a (insert derogatory term here)!

Change the "PFRPG" to "RUE" in this conext.

This isn't a body tight field, this is a field with an 8 foot diameter. That means 8 feet high, and at 8 feet wide. It can fit 6-8 people within it. If you think missing this large, stationary target is the same as missing a moving and much smaller target, I direct you to your own words above.

Thank you for your time and patience, please have a nice day. Farewell and safe journeys for now.[/justify]

I really don't understand your response. My question is with the mechanics as written. Which type of AR does the field have? What was the intention if giving the field an irrelevant AR value? Is there something I'm missing? I'm not trying to say it should be one way or the other; I'm just trying to understand what was written.

Again, where are the rules that say you don't need to roll to hit X?

Either way, saying that giving something an AR means you MUST roll to hit, and then saying it's like aiming at the broadside of a barn and you don't need to roll to hit is contradictory. Which is it?

Besides, I think it is logical to say there are instances in a to-hit roll is not necessary, but I don't think a target having or not having an AR should be a factor in whether or not a to-hit roll is necessary. For instance, if one can hit the broadside of a barn from 10 feet away without having to roll, why not an M1 tank? I understand there is the issue with the tank of rolling to low to do damage but still hitting, but what of the Energy Field? There is no "rolling to low to do damage"; it is totally hit or miss! You either hit and do damage to the field (which really should be impossible to miss unless the weapon misfires), or you miss. There is no "you hit but it bounced off" with an Energy Field.

barna10 wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:Except for in cases where you normally don't have to roll at all.
Then, because of the AR, you would have to roll, because automatically hitting the thing doesn't mean that you're going to automatically damage it.

Is there a section that defines when you don't have to roll to hit?

Not really, it's one of those things that they chalk up to "common sense."
The RGMG does have optional rules for firearms where they mention not needing to roll a strike against a person tied up in a chair.

Also, like I stated when I began the thread, which type of AR is it? If it's a Natural AR, this would all make sense, but if it's a normal AR (like armor) anyone standing in the field takes damage if the attacker rolls above a 4!

It's a Natural AR.

I'm going to ignore the AR since Create Force Field has no A.R. (which makes more sense).

It only applies in SDC environments in any case.
And I don't see that ignoring it would make much difference- it was always a weird passage.

barna10 wrote:So, in Palladium Fantasy, Energy Field is listed as having an A.R. of 4. Is this considered a natural A.R. (i.e. anything below does no damage, anything above comes off of armor) or a normal A.R. (i.e. anything below comes off of armor total, anything above hits wearer of armor/those behind field)?

Also, what good is an A.R. of 4 since anything below a 4 is a miss anyway?

I take the it as a typo and it to be a Nat AR 4. (Just like all full force fields have.)

With in the mechanics of the game it means that if it hits the field it does damage to the field till all the SDC is depleted. And if missed the field, it misses the field. Thus any talk about "Force fields don't have a Nat AR is <descriptive adverb> Moot. Cause if it is below the NAR "It Misses" not deflected off it. (Sorry, Old Bitter argument from the past.)

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:

barna10 wrote:So, in Palladium Fantasy, Energy Field is listed as having an A.R. of 4. Is this considered a natural A.R. (i.e. anything below does no damage, anything above comes off of armor) or a normal A.R. (i.e. anything below comes off of armor total, anything above hits wearer of armor/those behind field)?

Also, what good is an A.R. of 4 since anything below a 4 is a miss anyway?

I take the it as a typo and it to be a Nat AR 4. (Just like all force fields have.)

With in the mechanics of the game it means that if it hits the field it does damage to the field till all the SDC is depleted. And if missed the field, it misses the field. Thus any talk about "Force fields don't have a Nat AR is <descriptive adverb> Moot. Cause if it is below the NAR "It Misses" not deflected off it. (Sorry, Old Bitter argument from the past.)

I found in the online FAQ clarifications for this, thanks all! Drew Kitty is right, arguing over the AR of 4 is a moot point.

Yeah, I recall that last time I was in a discussion on this that it boiled down to the 'AR 4' on the field was just to reinforce the fact that a straight miss on the target did not damage the field. An attempt to nip arguments about a miss still hitting/damaging the field around a target, a discussion I could see coming up at least as often as the 'AR 4' one does now.

barna10 wrote:I found in the online FAQ clarifications for this, thanks all! Drew Kitty is right, arguing over the AR of 4 is a moot point.

Armorlord wrote:Yeah, I recall that last time I was in a discussion on this that it boiled down to the 'AR 4' on the field was just to reinforce the fact that a straight miss on the target did not damage the field. An attempt to nip arguments about a miss still hitting/damaging the field around a target, a discussion I could see coming up at least as often as the 'AR 4' one does now.

It is arguing over a Natural AR 4 that is a moot point, not a AR 4. Yes, not saying the Whole "Nat.AR" or "NAR" does make a difference from a mechanics viewpoint.

[@ all posters]Please do not make this common (and lazy) mistake again please. It also make it look like you are not paying attention to what is being talked about. [/@ all posters]