Forums of the Megaverse®

I have a question about the Fencing skill. Does the additional 1d6 to damage add to MD weapons such as Vibro-Swords or Psi-Swords?

Splicers updated the skill to remove the confusion:

Splicers page 196 wrote:+ 1D6 to damage (S.D.C. or M.D. depending on the weapon) with a sword

Giant2005 wrote:Splicers updated the skill to remove the confusion:

Splicers page 196 wrote:+ 1D6 to damage (S.D.C. or M.D. depending on the weapon) with a sword

[thread]GIANT2005 WINZ!!![/thread]

Something tells me that The Galactus Kid wrote that book.

dragonfett wrote:Something tells me that The Galactus Kid wrote that book.

Ha. Splicers? No. I'll be writing sourcebooks for it. I was just saying that the correct, canon answer had been posted.

The Galactus Kid wrote:

Giant2005 wrote:Splicers updated the skill to remove the confusion:

Splicers page 196 wrote:+ 1D6 to damage (S.D.C. or M.D. depending on the weapon) with a sword

[thread]GIANT2005 WINZ!!![/thread]

However,you both lose because Splicers rules are non-canon in Rifts.
----------
The Rifts rules are stupidly unclear in this matter.

IMO
Unless the fencer is facing off with a MDC creature the bonus from fencing does not apply.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:However,you both lose because Splicers rules are non-canon in Rifts.

You are incorrect.

The Galactus Kid wrote:

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:However,you both lose because Splicers rules are non-canon in Rifts.

You are incorrect.

How so?

Setting rules are for those individual settings. Not applying to other settings.

IOW, more bluntly, Rifts is not the canon for all the PB megaverse.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:

The Galactus Kid wrote:

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:However,you both lose because Splicers rules are non-canon in Rifts.

You are incorrect.

Splicers has all kinds of rules that are canon in Rifts, such as what happens if a bio-tech creation comes into the Rifts universe. The fencing rule is a clarifcation of the rule. Also, in RUE Fencing says +1D6 damage. not SDC or MDC, but damage. It is dependent on the damage level of the weapon used.

The Galactus Kid wrote:

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:

The Galactus Kid wrote:

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:However,you both lose because Splicers rules are non-canon in Rifts.

You are incorrect.

Splicers has all kinds of rules that are canon in Rifts, such as what happens if a bio-tech creation comes into the Rifts universe. The fencing rule is a clarifcation of the rule. Also, in RUE Fencing says +1D6 damage. not SDC or MDC, but damage. It is dependent on the damage level of the weapon used.

Does the book say that they are canon 'In Rifts'?
If so, Where? (usual page, paragraph)

Considering it is talking about what happens when things in the book come into the Rifts universe, yes.

Regardless, the original question has been answered since fencing states "Damage" not specifically S.D.C. or M.D.C. and both are levels of damage. The Splicers rule clarified, not changed, the definition of the skill.

The Galactus Kid wrote:Considering it is talking about what happens when things in the book come into the Rifts universe, yes.
...snip

What pages are these on?
I do have the book...I have just skimmed it when I got it. And that was quite a while ago.

(i.e.:back up what you are talking about with checkable facts.)

Its in the section discussing the effects of metal. There is an entire section discussing what happens if someone from Rifts comes to Splicers and vise versa.

I don't have my book on me, but thats irrelevant to the point of the thread since it was already answered by the description of fencing and the quoted page earlier.

lets see... thinks you mean this quote....

Splicers page 167,Characters from other Palladium Games wrote:..., Palladium's games are deliberately designed with on basic game system so players and Game Masters can port characters, equipment, and concepts from any (or all) of our games into each other.

Notice that the limitations are that it takes someone to import something into and out of each of the games?
Canon rules for each setting (or game as it is said in the quote above) are the ones in the published books of that setting, nothing else.

Thank you for stating your house rule about the you bringing in the Splicers Fencing text into your games.
-------------
I am not against people importing rules and stuff from other settings into their games. (Most of my Rifts races and/or classes from 'other games'.) As demonstrated in the above quote, the game books were written with the intention of making it easy for GMs import things from the other settings into Their Games.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:lets see... thinks you mean this quote....

Splicers page 167,Characters from other Palladium Games wrote:..., Palladium's games are deliberately designed with on basic game system so players and Game Masters can port characters, equipment, and concepts from any (or all) of our games into each other.

Notice that the limitations are that it takes someone to import something into and out of each of the games?
Canon rules for each setting (or game as it is said in the quote above) are the ones in the published books of that setting, nothing else.

Thank you for stating your house rule about the you bringing in the Splicers Fencing text into your games.
-------------
I am not against people importing rules and stuff from other settings into their games. (Most of my Rifts races and/or classes from 'other games'.) As demonstrated in the above quote, the game books were written with the intention of making it easy for GMs import things from the other settings into Their Games.

Why you being so rude to him about it?

It is like many PB books that have added rules for conversion. Mutants in Orbit, HU'ext, all have rules in them regarding how somethings convert to Rifts. That is canon for the Rifts game system. There would be no point in posting those rules in the Main rule book / RUE when the basic characters offered in it would never need to use those rules.

Next your going to say that many characters in the Mercenaries books which come from those other game settings are invalid as some OCC's didn't come from a Rifts book.

It is things like this that give the game a bad name because all your concerned with is what 'is' raw or canon and you sure showed the rest of us with your lawyer knowledge. So much of the fun of the game feels like it has been driven out of the game by many a thread on the forums.

PS. GK, I have always loved that name. I even debated making GK2 but ya, might be a bit too much

What a GM allows into or imports into his own game it up to him or her. But That does not affect what is canon or not.

When a Question is asked Here in the Forums, The Canon answer needs to be said.
And if you are presenting a house rule, there needs to be something in the statement that says you are presenting a house rule. There are Too many Newbs here to be presenting just a house rule with telling people that it is just a house rule.

I had my own cherished house rules, things that were discussed and argued over for a decade or more. Till someone insisting that his house rules were canon...arguments ensued and unsaid cease fires came into place.

So TGK got his house rules shown to him that they are what they are, house rules. Just like my own cherished house rules were shown to me.

Drew, is it your theory, then, that Palladium intends for the Fencing skill to work specifically one way in Splicers, and to specifically work a different way in Rifts?

1) In Rifts canon, the fencing skill adds +1D6 damage. It does not state SDC nor MDC, but simply damage. As both are damage types it is an implication.
2) In Splicers, the rule is clarified for those that needed further extrapolation. It does not work differently in each setting. It works exactly the same, but Splicers is worded more concisely.
3) This is not a house rule. This is in plain black and white.
4) If you would like to further discuss canon vs. non-canon across various settings please start a new thread or take this to PM.

enhancer wrote:

The Galactus Kid wrote:

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:

The Galactus Kid wrote:

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:However,you both lose because Splicers rules are non-canon in Rifts.

You are incorrect.

Splicers has all kinds of rules that are canon in Rifts, such as what happens if a bio-tech creation comes into the Rifts universe. The fencing rule is a clarifcation of the rule. Also, in RUE Fencing says +1D6 damage. not SDC or MDC, but damage. It is dependent on the damage level of the weapon used.

I'd be careful if I was you about making statements that if it just says "damage" instead of "S.D.C" or "M.D.C" it automatically means either, Palladium has been quite lazy about making that distinction sometimes in their books, more often in the older ones.

Splicers clarifies it in unambiguous language.

enhancer wrote:I don't doubt that, but you were quoting RUE. In fact, the skill directly above it is Climbing, where if you fail your skill and fall you take 1D6 "damage" per 10ft. Are we to assume then that human skin and bone takes the same damage falling 10 or 20ft as the armor of a borg, robot, power armor, or dragon? See what I mean?

Yes. That is precisely how I run falling damage in my game since that is how it is written.

enhancer wrote:IAs a side note Galactus Kid, would you say that skill based damage would apply to things that you've said in other posts that don't take additional damage from strength, a la vampires/werewolves?

With an appropriate and successful Lore: Demons and Monsters roll, yes.

The skill roll is so the character can realize the subtle nuances of the creature's combat tactics and anatomy. One could assume that the anatomy is the same but that isn't always the case. In the Long artwork example, it is always good to remember that artwork is not canon.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Drew, is it your theory, then, that Palladium intends for the Fencing skill to work specifically one way in Splicers, and to specifically work a different way in Rifts?

Only that the Rifts Canon if only found in Rifts Books. Or maybe in the Rifter when official errata is published.

I did not say "the Rifts fencing does not work like the Splicers' fencing." All I said about the rifts Fencing was...

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:The Rifts rules are stupidly unclear in this matter.

Yes, I did state 'My Opinion' after that, as my "stated opinion."

If PB intended to make an errata/correction about the Rifts Fencing PB should of Made an Errata in a rifts book. This is a Duh simple concept.
Yes, the Rifter is an acceptable forum to publish said errata. Even if it is a bit awkward place for one.
@TGK, this was a response to a question directed to me and had no plans to comment further to this aspect of the OP topic.

The Galactus Kid wrote:The skill roll is so the character can realize the subtle nuances of the creature's combat tactics and anatomy. One could assume that the anatomy is the same but that isn't always the case. In the Long artwork example, it is always good to remember that artwork is not canon.

Agrees that that w/o the lore or Xeno-Biology knowledge of a creature is needed for the fencing skill to be fully effective vs a creature other then humanoids. (yes, the humanoids is a bit of simplification for easier application of this opinion.)

And yet again a simple question devolves into a debate for the sake of debate over wording and what book that wording is located in. Good job guys.

I know I'm using the Splicers clarification - although I really wish Palladium would SERIOUSLY put effort into revising a single concise set of rules and making that consistent across all of their lines. I'd pay serious money for that, and I doubt I'm alone.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:Drew, is it your theory, then, that Palladium intends for the Fencing skill to work specifically one way in Splicers, and to specifically work a different way in Rifts?

Only that the Rifts Canon if only found in Rifts Books. Or maybe in the Rifter when official errata is published.

I did not say "the Rifts fencing does not work like the Splicers' fencing." All I said about the rifts Fencing was...

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:The Rifts rules are stupidly unclear in this matter.

Yes, I did state 'My Opinion' after that, as my "stated opinion."

If PB intended to make an errata/correction about the Rifts Fencing PB should of Made an Errata in a rifts book. This is a Duh simple concept.

There are lots of simple concepts that will never really get implemented.

In this case, we have two scenarios:
1. Fencing works differently in Splicers than it does in Rifts.
OR
2. Fencing works the same way in both of these settings that are part of the overall "megaversal system."

Seems like a really simple situation to me.

Even going with the assumption that fencing gives greater tip control for targeting "weak" points, I don't see how a 2d6 weapon could penetrate deep enough into a MDC creature to reach the targeted vulnerable internal organs to do the extra damage.

If 2d6 is enough, then why don't we get to do extra damage with well placed pistol or rifle shots? What makes fencing so special?

--flatline

flatline wrote:Even going with the assumption that fencing gives greater tip control for targeting "weak" points, I don't see how a 2d6 weapon could penetrate deep enough into a MDC creature to reach the targeted vulnerable internal organs to do the extra damage.

If 2d6 is enough, then why don't we get to do extra damage with well placed pistol or rifle shots? What makes fencing so special?

--flatline

Oh, I agree; it makes little to no sense.

I blame the damage bonus on technique and refined training on how to use the sword myself, allowing for more damage with all types (awkward with run weapons though)

MikelAmroni wrote:And yet again a simple question devolves into a debate for the sake of debate over wording and what book that wording is located in. Good job guys.

I know I'm using the Splicers clarification - although I really wish Palladium would SERIOUSLY put effort into revising a single concise set of rules and making that consistent across all of their lines. I'd pay serious money for that, and I doubt I'm alone.

I agree. If you want to have a megaversial rule system. make it Universal across the boards.

enhancer wrote:

The Galactus Kid wrote:Splicers clarifies it in unambiguous language.

I don't doubt that, but you were quoting RUE. In fact, the skill directly above it is Climbing, where if you fail your skill and fall you take 1D6 "damage" per 10ft. Are we to assume then that human skin and bone takes the same damage falling 10 or 20ft as the armor of a borg, robot, power armor, or dragon? See what I mean?

As ridiculous as it sounds Palladium does actually have it that a falling SDC/HP 6' 200lb human will take SDC/HP damage while the falling MDC 6' 200lb super-being or borg will take Mega-damage.

flatline wrote:Even going with the assumption that fencing gives greater tip control for targeting "weak" points, I don't see how a 2d6 weapon could penetrate deep enough into a MDC creature to reach the targeted vulnerable internal organs to do the extra damage.

If 2d6 is enough, then why don't we get to do extra damage with well placed pistol or rifle shots? What makes fencing so special?

--flatline

In my honest opinion, the Sniper skill should grant a bonus to damage as well, not just a bonus to hit.

Nightmask wrote:

enhancer wrote:

The Galactus Kid wrote:Splicers clarifies it in unambiguous language.

I don't doubt that, but you were quoting RUE. In fact, the skill directly above it is Climbing, where if you fail your skill and fall you take 1D6 "damage" per 10ft. Are we to assume then that human skin and bone takes the same damage falling 10 or 20ft as the armor of a borg, robot, power armor, or dragon? See what I mean?

As ridiculous as it sounds Palladium does actually have it that a falling SDC/HP 6' 200lb human will take SDC/HP damage while the falling MDC 6' 200lb super-being or borg will take Mega-damage.

The ratios are different, though.
Humans take 1d6 damage per 10', but MDC beings take about 1 MD per 100'.

for those upset about the lack of a ranged combat skill that increases damage, i would suggest you look up vital strike in splicers.

for those upset that the melee skill only works with swords, and won't work with, say, polearms... can't help you much there. although for polearms specifically, splicers does have another benefit; take a look at WP reverse strike.

in fact, you should probably just buy splicers on general principle. even if you don't use it for splicers, you can use it to create an incredible variety of unique monsters, and you get a few robotic enemies as well (some of which are frankly very creepy).

Shark_Force wrote:for those upset about the lack of a ranged combat skill that increases damage, i would suggest you look up vital strike in splicers.

for those upset that the melee skill only works with swords, and won't work with, say, polearms... can't help you much there. although for polearms specifically, splicers does have another benefit; take a look at WP reverse strike.

in fact, you should probably just buy splicers on general principle. even if you don't use it for splicers, you can use it to create an incredible variety of unique monsters, and you get a few robotic enemies as well (some of which are frankly very creepy).

I've seen groups that allow for the use of a Fencing style skill for just about any kind of melee weapon to reflect a comparable devotion to a none sword style weapon. I distinctly remember seeing a character sheet with an axe based version of the Fencing.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:Drew, is it your theory, then, that Palladium intends for the Fencing skill to work specifically one way in Splicers, and to specifically work a different way in Rifts?

Only that the Rifts Canon if only found in Rifts Books. Or maybe in the Rifter when official errata is published.

I did not say "the Rifts fencing does not work like the Splicers' fencing." All I said about the rifts Fencing was...

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:The Rifts rules are stupidly unclear in this matter.

Yes, I did state 'My Opinion' after that, as my "stated opinion."

If PB intended to make an errata/correction about the Rifts Fencing PB should of Made an Errata in a rifts book. This is a Duh simple concept.

There are lots of simple concepts that will never really get implemented.

In this case, we have two scenarios:
1. Fencing works differently in Splicers than it does in Rifts.
OR
2. Fencing works the same way in both of these settings that are part of the overall "megaversal system."

Seems like a really simple situation to me.

To have the Rifts Fencing work the same as the Text in Spclicer's Fencing is us to the individual GMs, because of the way the way the canon rifts text for the fencing skill is written and they are they are the final decision makers of what is in their games.


Think about the stupidity that to have to get a Differnt's game's Main Book to get canon for the Game you do play. Even then it is not listed as canon for the 1st game. You people think I'm talking non-sence. Have you seen what you peeps are preaching? I am only saying "To be Rifts Canon, is for it to 'Say it is Rifts Canon' if not in a rifts book."
-----------
The new RT books use the same text as in the RUE, and RT:SC was published After Splicers.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:Drew, is it your theory, then, that Palladium intends for the Fencing skill to work specifically one way in Splicers, and to specifically work a different way in Rifts?

Only that the Rifts Canon if only found in Rifts Books. Or maybe in the Rifter when official errata is published.

I did not say "the Rifts fencing does not work like the Splicers' fencing." All I said about the rifts Fencing was...

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:The Rifts rules are stupidly unclear in this matter.

Yes, I did state 'My Opinion' after that, as my "stated opinion."

If PB intended to make an errata/correction about the Rifts Fencing PB should of Made an Errata in a rifts book. This is a Duh simple concept.

There are lots of simple concepts that will never really get implemented.

In this case, we have two scenarios:
1. Fencing works differently in Splicers than it does in Rifts.
OR
2. Fencing works the same way in both of these settings that are part of the overall "megaversal system."

Seems like a really simple situation to me.

To have the Rifts Fencing work the same as the Text in Spclicer's Fencing is us to the individual GMs, because of the way the way the canon rifts text for the fencing skill is written and they are they are the final decision makers of what is in their games.

No.
How Fencing works in Rifts officially is unknown, but the way that it works in Splicers provides a very strong indication of how it is supposed to work in Rifts.
Especially since it would make no sense for it to work one way in Rifts, and another way in Splicers.
So while we can't say 100%, we CAN say with 95%+ certainty that the Splicers' rules describe how the skill works in Rifts.

I am only saying "To be Rifts Canon, is for it to 'Say it is Rifts Canon' if not in a rifts book."

And I am only saying that you are incorrect.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:Drew, is it your theory, then, that Palladium intends for the Fencing skill to work specifically one way in Splicers, and to specifically work a different way in Rifts?

Only that the Rifts Canon if only found in Rifts Books. Or maybe in the Rifter when official errata is published.

I did not say "the Rifts fencing does not work like the Splicers' fencing." All I said about the rifts Fencing was...

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:The Rifts rules are stupidly unclear in this matter.

Yes, I did state 'My Opinion' after that, as my "stated opinion."

If PB intended to make an errata/correction about the Rifts Fencing PB should of Made an Errata in a rifts book. This is a Duh simple concept.

There are lots of simple concepts that will never really get implemented.

In this case, we have two scenarios:
1. Fencing works differently in Splicers than it does in Rifts.
OR
2. Fencing works the same way in both of these settings that are part of the overall "megaversal system."

Seems like a really simple situation to me.

To have the Rifts Fencing work the same as the Text in Spclicer's Fencing is us to the individual GMs, because of the way the way the canon rifts text for the fencing skill is written and they are they are the final decision makers of what is in their games.


Think about the stupidity that to have to get a Differnt's game's Main Book to get canon for the Game you do play. Even then it is not listed as canon for the 1st game. You people think I'm talking non-sence. Have you seen what you peeps are preaching? I am only saying "To be Rifts Canon, is for it to 'Say it is Rifts Canon' if not in a rifts book."
-----------
The new RT books use the same text as in the RUE, and RT:SC was published After Splicers.

Well i think you'd have to be crazy to believe that. That is like saying the Rifter official sources are not canon because it is not a Rifts book. Then there is the already pointed out that thing converting into the game, say like Mutants in Orbit which is not a Rifts book, but yet the satelite issue presented in there is the same issue in Rifts, but much of the materiel in there that lists Rifts rules from a TMNT book, is valid as Rifts canon from a non Rifts book. Why? Because you would not need to put rules for that stuff in a Rifts book unless it deals with that element specifically to clarify it. Then there is the space Glitterboy, which omg, it is from the TMNT setting, there fore it can't be canon... Maybe you should listen to what you are saying and think about it.

Slight001 wrote:

Shark_Force wrote:for those upset about the lack of a ranged combat skill that increases damage, i would suggest you look up vital strike in splicers.

for those upset that the melee skill only works with swords, and won't work with, say, polearms... can't help you much there. although for polearms specifically, splicers does have another benefit; take a look at WP reverse strike.

in fact, you should probably just buy splicers on general principle. even if you don't use it for splicers, you can use it to create an incredible variety of unique monsters, and you get a few robotic enemies as well (some of which are frankly very creepy).

I've seen groups that allow for the use of a Fencing style skill for just about any kind of melee weapon to reflect a comparable devotion to a none sword style weapon. I distinctly remember seeing a character sheet with an axe based version of the Fencing.

That's one of the house rules that I use. I allow fencing to be taken for whatever ancient WP the player wants to spend a skill to be further specialized in, must spend a skill for each type of weapon they want the bonus with.

It's one of thoese examples where someone takes their reading of a text as gospel.

Galactus Kid, you really aught to take into account that you can think for many reasons it applies, but that doesn't somehow determine what Kevin would say on it. If you asked him, he might say it doesn't apply in Rifts. As enhancer asks - where is the book and page number for saying those rules apply in rifts? Without that explicit instruction, the subject becomes speculation. Conversion rules do not somehow answer this as much as if Kevin was asked or Kevin wrote 'Yep, splicer rules apply in rifts as well' in a book. It's not right to tell others ones own speculation as if it's concrete fact, I think. Some note of it being speculation based on some evidence, aught be noted.

enhancer wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Nightmask wrote:

enhancer wrote:

The Galactus Kid wrote:Splicers clarifies it in unambiguous language.

I don't doubt that, but you were quoting RUE. In fact, the skill directly above it is Climbing, where if you fail your skill and fall you take 1D6 "damage" per 10ft. Are we to assume then that human skin and bone takes the same damage falling 10 or 20ft as the armor of a borg, robot, power armor, or dragon? See what I mean?

As ridiculous as it sounds Palladium does actually have it that a falling SDC/HP 6' 200lb human will take SDC/HP damage while the falling MDC 6' 200lb super-being or borg will take Mega-damage.

The ratios are different, though.
Humans take 1d6 damage per 10', but MDC beings take about 1 MD per 100'.

If you think about it though it's still weird, since 1M.D is 100 S.D.C, they should really being taking 1D6x10 S.D.C. I know why they put a rule like that in place, to keep people from jumping off buildings onto their face and laughing it off, or Power Armors from falling from the sky relatively unscathed, but they kinda forgot their own damage system in the first place. Apparently falling on your butt is more damaging then getting hit with a burst of .50 caliber machine gun fire, and potentially as damaging as getting hit with a Rocket Launcher(1D4 M.D/1D4x100 S.D.C), a 66mm Light Anti-Tank Weapon(L.A.W, 1D6 M.D/1D6x100 S.D.C), 90mm Recoilless Rifle(1d10 M.D/1d10x100 S.D.C), 40mm Grenade Launcher(1d4M.D/1d4x100 S.D.C), or getting rammed by a 28ft tall 22 ton Titan Combat Robot(1d6M.D and 75% chance knockdown).

All I know is if I fall 10 feet or so I can often walk it off, but 20+ and I will probably break a leg... and I am no hero with a ton of SDC. On the other hand, if a car or plane suddenly droped 10 feet it would take much more than 1d6 S.D.C. It would most likely need to go to a mechanic for a week or two. much more if it fell 100 feet. Even M.D.C. vehicles and armor has to be carefully calibrated and balanced. It is set up to protect itself from things like Anti-tank Weapons, not sudden 20+ foot drops. (the outer armor might be fine, or bent to pieces, but the computers, shocks, etc. will be shot to crap).

Bobboky wrote:

enhancer wrote:If you think about it though it's still weird, since 1M.D is 100 S.D.C, they should really being taking 1D6x10 S.D.C. I know why they put a rule like that in place, to keep people from jumping off buildings onto their face and laughing it off, or Power Armors from falling from the sky relatively unscathed, but they kinda forgot their own damage system in the first place. Apparently falling on your butt is more damaging then getting hit with a burst of .50 caliber machine gun fire, and potentially as damaging as getting hit with a Rocket Launcher(1D4 M.D/1D4x100 S.D.C), a 66mm Light Anti-Tank Weapon(L.A.W, 1D6 M.D/1D6x100 S.D.C), 90mm Recoilless Rifle(1d10 M.D/1d10x100 S.D.C), 40mm Grenade Launcher(1d4M.D/1d4x100 S.D.C), or getting rammed by a 28ft tall 22 ton Titan Combat Robot(1d6M.D and 75% chance knockdown).

All I know is if I fall 10 feet or so I can often walk it off, but 20+ and I will probably break a leg... and I am no hero with a ton of SDC. On the other hand, if a car or plane suddenly droped 10 feet it would take much more than 1d6 S.D.C. It would most likely need to go to a mechanic for a week or two. much more if it fell 100 feet. Even M.D.C. vehicles and armor has to be carefully calibrated and balanced. It is set up to protect itself from things like Anti-tank Weapons, not sudden 20+ foot drops. (the outer armor might be fine, or bent to pieces, but the computers, shocks, etc. will be shot to crap).

Except an MDC being is simply not on the same scale as an SDC one, and shouldn't be taking hundreds of times more damage from the same exact thing. A hundred foot fall shouldn't even knock the breathe out of an MDC being let alone actually hurt it, that'd be like seeing the Hulk crash into the pavement and break his leg rather than crawl out unharmed as such beings should.

Nightmask wrote:

Bobboky wrote:

enhancer wrote:If you think about it though it's still weird, since 1M.D is 100 S.D.C, they should really being taking 1D6x10 S.D.C. I know why they put a rule like that in place, to keep people from jumping off buildings onto their face and laughing it off, or Power Armors from falling from the sky relatively unscathed, but they kinda forgot their own damage system in the first place. Apparently falling on your butt is more damaging then getting hit with a burst of .50 caliber machine gun fire, and potentially as damaging as getting hit with a Rocket Launcher(1D4 M.D/1D4x100 S.D.C), a 66mm Light Anti-Tank Weapon(L.A.W, 1D6 M.D/1D6x100 S.D.C), 90mm Recoilless Rifle(1d10 M.D/1d10x100 S.D.C), 40mm Grenade Launcher(1d4M.D/1d4x100 S.D.C), or getting rammed by a 28ft tall 22 ton Titan Combat Robot(1d6M.D and 75% chance knockdown).

All I know is if I fall 10 feet or so I can often walk it off, but 20+ and I will probably break a leg... and I am no hero with a ton of SDC. On the other hand, if a car or plane suddenly droped 10 feet it would take much more than 1d6 S.D.C. It would most likely need to go to a mechanic for a week or two. much more if it fell 100 feet. Even M.D.C. vehicles and armor has to be carefully calibrated and balanced. It is set up to protect itself from things like Anti-tank Weapons, not sudden 20+ foot drops. (the outer armor might be fine, or bent to pieces, but the computers, shocks, etc. will be shot to crap).

Except an MDC being is simply not on the same scale as an SDC one, and shouldn't be taking hundreds of times more damage from the same exact thing. A hundred foot fall shouldn't even knock the breathe out of an MDC being let alone actually hurt it, that'd be like seeing the Hulk crash into the pavement and break his leg rather than crawl out unharmed as such beings should.

Then again, most naturally naturally M.D.C. creatures are supernatural creatures. Supernatural creatures are supernatural and thus magic... and magic makes weird things do weird things.

Bobboky wrote:

Nightmask wrote:

Bobboky wrote:

enhancer wrote:If you think about it though it's still weird, since 1M.D is 100 S.D.C, they should really being taking 1D6x10 S.D.C. I know why they put a rule like that in place, to keep people from jumping off buildings onto their face and laughing it off, or Power Armors from falling from the sky relatively unscathed, but they kinda forgot their own damage system in the first place. Apparently falling on your butt is more damaging then getting hit with a burst of .50 caliber machine gun fire, and potentially as damaging as getting hit with a Rocket Launcher(1D4 M.D/1D4x100 S.D.C), a 66mm Light Anti-Tank Weapon(L.A.W, 1D6 M.D/1D6x100 S.D.C), 90mm Recoilless Rifle(1d10 M.D/1d10x100 S.D.C), 40mm Grenade Launcher(1d4M.D/1d4x100 S.D.C), or getting rammed by a 28ft tall 22 ton Titan Combat Robot(1d6M.D and 75% chance knockdown).

All I know is if I fall 10 feet or so I can often walk it off, but 20+ and I will probably break a leg... and I am no hero with a ton of SDC. On the other hand, if a car or plane suddenly droped 10 feet it would take much more than 1d6 S.D.C. It would most likely need to go to a mechanic for a week or two. much more if it fell 100 feet. Even M.D.C. vehicles and armor has to be carefully calibrated and balanced. It is set up to protect itself from things like Anti-tank Weapons, not sudden 20+ foot drops. (the outer armor might be fine, or bent to pieces, but the computers, shocks, etc. will be shot to crap).

Except an MDC being is simply not on the same scale as an SDC one, and shouldn't be taking hundreds of times more damage from the same exact thing. A hundred foot fall shouldn't even knock the breathe out of an MDC being let alone actually hurt it, that'd be like seeing the Hulk crash into the pavement and break his leg rather than crawl out unharmed as such beings should.

Then again, most naturally naturally M.D.C. creatures are supernatural creatures. Supernatural creatures are supernatural and thus magic... and magic makes weird things do weird things.

It rarely makes things more vulnerable and easier to damage a hundred fold more from a narrow band of damaging effects while NOT affecting attacks that are of the same type (kinetic energy) and far more energetic. A rail gun round moving the same speed hitting an SDC/HP target vs an MDC target deals the same damage roughly yet impossibly a far weaker amount of kinetic impact is said to deal a hundred times more damage against a target that's a hundred times tougher than another. That's just ridiculous. Two guys jump off a rough one SDC the other MDC the MDC guy shouldn't take any damage at all, he most certainly shouldn't take a hundred times the damage the guy who's SDC and jumped with him took. That's beyond absurd.

I don't understand the argument against MD critters taking damage from falls.
The fall has to be at least 200' before they suffer any damage and even then, the damage is pretty minor.
200' is a significant fall to suffer minor damage from.
The only real issue is how the damage they suffer from such a fall compares to what an SDC creature suffers from a similar fall. That isn't a reflection of the MD critter taking too much damage, that is a reflection of his SDC counterpart taking too little damage.

Noon wrote: Galactus Kid, you really aught to take into account that you can think for many reasons it applies, but that doesn't somehow determine what Kevin would say on it. If you asked him, he might say it doesn't apply in Rifts.

I have, and it does.

enhancer wrote:

The Galactus Kid wrote:

Noon wrote: Galactus Kid, you really aught to take into account that you can think for many reasons it applies, but that doesn't somehow determine what Kevin would say on it. If you asked him, he might say it doesn't apply in Rifts.

I have, and it does.

While you were at it did you ask if Kevin Long's artwork in both books was wrong?

Kevin Long has no art in Splicers and Kevin has stated before that art is not canon.

Nether wrote:
Well i think you'd have to be crazy to believe that. That is like saying the Rifter official sources are not canon because it is not a Rifts book. Then there is the already pointed out that thing converting into the game, say like Mutants in Orbit which is not a Rifts book, but yet the satellite issue presented in there is the same issue in Rifts, but much of the materiel in there that lists Rifts rules from a TMNT book, is valid as Rifts canon from a non Rifts book. Why? Because you would not need to put rules for that stuff in a Rifts book unless it deals with that element specifically to clarify it. Then there is the space Glitterboy, which OMG, it is from the TMNT setting, there fore it can't be canon... Maybe you should listen to what you are saying and think about it.

*yawn*
(Saying what was said in the above in fewer words.)
You are saying I'm crazy & stupid for only letting into a setting what is of that setting, by using an example of a book that is both ATB and Rifts that has absolutely no reference to the subject being talked about.

It was so hard to say which is more insulting, the being called crazy or that you expected everyone to swallow what you posted 'hook, line, and sinker' as correct. But mostly it is boring cause it has no semblance to what I was saying.

-------------------

Yes, there are Rifts conversion notes everywhere because of all the Rifters looking about into the other settings' books; and then wanting to bring things into the Cash Cow.
**However, with MiO 2/5th of the Book is Text for the Rifts setting. Since 1/5th of the book is taken up be equipment (which they Share)...that means the book is just about equally divided between ATB and RIfts.

--------------------
The Falling rules in the climbing skill are meant for SDC beings (i.e.: Humans). So you need to look up the Falling rules for MDC beings. Yes, there are such if you look for them.

enhancer wrote:Drewkitty seems to be arguing that only true Rifts(i.e World Books) are according to Hoyle Rifts books. He is right. Usually Palladium only puts stuff in books like World Books when they're ready for it to be scripture(not C.J Carella though, he's different ), and harder for G.Ms to ignore.
Of course, I may be completely of base and both of you can feel free to tell me to shut up .

I said Rifts books, and did not get any more specific then that.

There are official stuff in the Rifters, and some of them are not labeled as such when they were published says the Rifter Index.
Cause in the R Index it has articles labeled as official, but what is published does not say it is official. (the pre R40 Q&A's mostly.) However, the Q&As deal with Rifts questions, so they are of limited value for the other settings.

However, starting with when PB published the extras from RC2, they have been good at labeling the official stuff as so, and which setting it is for.