Forums of the Megaverse®

For a long time, the canon-presented scenario of a Cyber-knight using his Psi-Tomahawk to loop onto an exhaust pipe and use it as a climbing tool always bothered me for some reason. We think of climbing hooks as physical things, I didn't understand how an energy weapon could do it...

At some point I think someone pointed out that in the process of doing so, he cut through the pipe. Had he climbed any slower, his Tomahawk may have severed the pipe before he could finish getting up, presumably... it's one thing to use MD energy weapons to climb MDC fixtures, but they would probably destroy SDC fixtures too quickly to be able to climb that way, I would say. Other than SDC/MDC I don't really know where to draw the line though. In a lot of cases we might not know the damage capacity of certain fixtures...

If you had a rule where the weapon could not cut through the thing on the first shot, or else you lose your purchase, if someone wanted to hold a climbing position for longer, do you think they could roll to pull punch and reduce the damage inflicted by their weapon?

In the case of physical attacks, pull punch makes sense to me because you just hold back some of the force, or hit with a bit of the weapon, or maybe hit on a less vulnerable area, don't go as deep, put less weight behind it, etc. Pull-punching is a confusing issue when I think of energy weapons. I mean... can you pull a blow-torch? If Luke were using a Lightsaber to stab a wall and then climb that wall, could he really slow down the rate at which the plasma burned the wall?

With physical weapons, I might stab a sword into a wall horizantally so that the edges face left and right, which would damage the wall less (although at the cost of being rougher on the sword) and basically stop the sword from cutting downward as you put weight on it to climb... but do energy swords even HAVE a 'flat'?

There's the kind in HU2p99 which I think is the basic 'beam of energy' type which would not have such details. The Psi-Sword powers can get so specific in shape, they may well have flats... and I don't really know if that flat is damaging or not.

HU2p98 mentions "if a long sword is used to parry an energy sword, the laser beam will scorch and pit the metal of the sword"

So this answers a confusion I had a while back, physical weapons can indeed parry energy weapons.

I guess that makes sense because if physical objects couldn't stop the energy, it would just go through armor and stuff, like a phase beam.

I guess it's just weird to picture energy having structure like this... when I think of a pillar of flame wielded like a sword, I figure if it hit an object it would just deform and go around it, but the rules don't support this.

In some cases we're told how energy keeps its form (like magnetic field) but in other cases, like say a magical sword made entirely of flame, it's odd to think about why the fire doesn't splash when it hits stuff... I guess a magic field keeping it in place?

If a long sword can parry a laser sword, then could a laser sword parry a long sword? I think I'll have to check New West....

But anyway, getting back to the rule issue, any idea on how to tell whether or not a sword is too damaging to hold a purchase in a wall without cutting a downward swath when weight is put on it? You want it strong enough to go in, but not so strong as it annihilates the surface and prevents you from going up.

This also makes me wonder... how do you picture an energy weapon doing an entangle? Could a cyber-knight make a psi-trident and do a body flip or trip on an opponent with it? Would those inflict the normal MD from the weapon in addition to the damage and penalties from those maneuvers?

It all depends on which energy melee weapons you are talking about. And which setting you are asking about. Each are governed by different rules and presumptions.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:It all depends on which energy melee weapons you are talking about. And which setting you are asking about. Each are governed by different rules and presumptions.

This. Most of the Energy Weapons operate very differently to one another.
The Wilk's Laser sword for example has no physical form and cannot be used to parry but the Energy Weapons in Aliens Unlimited do have a physical form and can parry but because of their nature as energy, they inflict 50% of their damage to the opposed weapon.
The latter is probably what you would want to apply regarding climbing.

Calling the wilks laser rod, a laser sword, was a wilks' (PB's) marketing ploy.
--------------
Actually the Kitanni (spelling) plasma weapons are the most plausible tech "energy weapon" that could be formed as a pick for climbing. This is because they have a physical core. 'On' when imbedding and pulling out and 'Off' when being used to support weight.

I assume that psi-swords and such are partially composed of telekinetic force

They don't really need to be though... since we have examples of energy weapons which can parry.

Giant2005 wrote:The Wilk's Laser sword for example has no physical form and cannot be used to parry
the Energy Weapons in Aliens Unlimited do have a physical form and can parry but because of their nature as energy, they inflict 50% of their damage to the opposed weapon.

Keeping in mind on HU2p98 we're not discussing the Energy Melee Weapons in the left column (72-80) from Special Ranged Weapons, but rather the Energy Weapons on the right column (axe/knife/club/sword) from Special (High-Tech Melee Weapons)...

These are not described as having any physical form. They have the same structure as a wilk's laser blade (or a TW flaming sword, or a PF2nd magic flaming sword), a hilt/shaft/rod housing energy generators, the blade is formed purely from energy.

They are so non-physical that PS damage is not added to them. It is possible for attacks from these energy blades to be parried. Though it is not explicitly clear whether or not these weapons are capable of parrying, the energy sword gets a parry bonus, so I believe they have this capability.

So I'm really not sure why these can parry but the Wilks' knife/sword of laser can't. Can the TW flame blade parry? The PF2nd magic flame sword? If it's all energy, it's odd how some pure-energy can parry and other kinds can't.

These HU weapons can even be made of 'concentrated light' which sounds pretty closer to LASER.

Speaking of logical house-rules here, regarding the damage bonus from two-handing these 1-hand weapons, I think it ought to be ignored for these energy blades that don't benefit from PS, but would apply it to vibro/kisentite weapons.

Tor wrote:They don't really need to be though... since we have examples of energy weapons which can parry.

Giant2005 wrote:The Wilk's Laser sword for example has no physical form and cannot be used to parry
the Energy Weapons in Aliens Unlimited do have a physical form and can parry but because of their nature as energy, they inflict 50% of their damage to the opposed weapon.

Keeping in mind on HU2p98 we're not discussing the Energy Melee Weapons in the left column (72-80) from Special Ranged Weapons, but rather the Energy Weapons on the right column (axe/knife/club/sword) from Special (High-Tech Melee Weapons)...

These are not described as having any physical form. They have the same structure as a wilk's laser blade (or a TW flaming sword, or a PF2nd magic flaming sword), a hilt/shaft/rod housing energy generators, the blade is formed purely from energy.

Right, but the nature of the energy is different, including a component of physical force.
Unlike the Wilk's weapon.

These HU weapons can even be made of 'concentrated light' which sounds pretty closer to LASER.

Or more like Hard Light from Red Dwarf.

Or like that kinetic photon blast that APS light can do in PU3 I guess.

Tor wrote:They don't really need to be though... since we have examples of energy weapons which can parry.

Giant2005 wrote:The Wilk's Laser sword for example has no physical form and cannot be used to parry
the Energy Weapons in Aliens Unlimited do have a physical form and can parry but because of their nature as energy, they inflict 50% of their damage to the opposed weapon.

Keeping in mind on HU2p98 we're not discussing the Energy Melee Weapons in the left column (72-80) from Special Ranged Weapons, but rather the Energy Weapons on the right column (axe/knife/club/sword) from Special (High-Tech Melee Weapons)...

These are not described as having any physical form. They have the same structure as a wilk's laser blade (or a TW flaming sword, or a PF2nd magic flaming sword), a hilt/shaft/rod housing energy generators, the blade is formed purely from energy.

They are so non-physical that PS damage is not added to them. It is possible for attacks from these energy blades to be parried. Though it is not explicitly clear whether or not these weapons are capable of parrying, the energy sword gets a parry bonus, so I believe they have this capability.

So I'm really not sure why these can parry but the Wilks' knife/sword of laser can't. Can the TW flame blade parry? The PF2nd magic flame sword? If it's all energy, it's odd how some pure-energy can parry and other kinds can't.

These HU weapons can even be made of 'concentrated light' which sounds pretty closer to LASER.

Speaking of logical house-rules here, regarding the damage bonus from two-handing these 1-hand weapons, I think it ought to be ignored for these energy blades that don't benefit from PS, but would apply it to vibro/kisentite weapons.

I said Aliens Unlimited, not Heroes Unlimited.

Giant2005 wrote:

Tor wrote:They don't really need to be though... since we have examples of energy weapons which can parry.

Giant2005 wrote:The Wilk's Laser sword for example has no physical form and cannot be used to parry
the Energy Weapons in Aliens Unlimited do have a physical form and can parry but because of their nature as energy, they inflict 50% of their damage to the opposed weapon.

Keeping in mind on HU2p98 we're not discussing the Energy Melee Weapons in the left column (72-80) from Special Ranged Weapons, but rather the Energy Weapons on the right column (axe/knife/club/sword) from Special (High-Tech Melee Weapons)...

These are not described as having any physical form. They have the same structure as a wilk's laser blade (or a TW flaming sword, or a PF2nd magic flaming sword), a hilt/shaft/rod housing energy generators, the blade is formed purely from energy.

They are so non-physical that PS damage is not added to them. It is possible for attacks from these energy blades to be parried. Though it is not explicitly clear whether or not these weapons are capable of parrying, the energy sword gets a parry bonus, so I believe they have this capability.

So I'm really not sure why these can parry but the Wilks' knife/sword of laser can't. Can the TW flame blade parry? The PF2nd magic flame sword? If it's all energy, it's odd how some pure-energy can parry and other kinds can't.

These HU weapons can even be made of 'concentrated light' which sounds pretty closer to LASER.

Speaking of logical house-rules here, regarding the damage bonus from two-handing these 1-hand weapons, I think it ought to be ignored for these energy blades that don't benefit from PS, but would apply it to vibro/kisentite weapons.

I said Aliens Unlimited, not Heroes Unlimited.

And this is why I said "It depends on the setting"

In HU energy melee weapons can be parried, where in Rifts the only similar tech energy melee weapons are the Wilks laser blades, and that can't be parried.

*wonders why AU energy weapons differ from HU alien-category energy weapons*

I don't understand how this is a question; you've gone over factual information that some energy weapons have a physical form/component and some don't.

That in and of itself answers the question.

The primary example is that of a physical object (made of energy) looping around another physical object.

So why question the material? We have "mega-damage material" which from the same perspective does not make any sense any more than any other (currently) fictional material.

It's like saying dragons are okay, but angels are far-fetched.

If an energy weapon is physical enough for you to convey your strength through it as a climbing tool (like say, an ice-pick) then it ought to be physical enough to benefit from PS bonuses.

This isn't similar enough to angels/dragons for me to understand your metaphor.

This is a discussion of physical properties.

I would say that if a melee weapon is composed of energy (like psi swords and the wilks laser sword) then it cannot parry nor can it be used to hook onto or climb anything, rules and book examples be damned. But that's just me.

Tor wrote:If an energy weapon is physical enough for you to convey your strength through it as a climbing tool (like say, an ice-pick) then it ought to be physical enough to benefit from PS bonuses.

This isn't similar enough to angels/dragons for me to understand your metaphor.

This is a discussion of physical properties.

Physical properties of fantastical things that would defy the laws of physics in our world? Yah they are going to have properties that don't make sense to us....since we are used to our worlds laws.
The metaphor though seems to be
We are talking about Dragons (cinematic tech, psionics, magic....) and yet Angels (implausible properties for those things) is 'unrealisitic'

I'm not going to engage in debating metaphor in this case since I don't agree it's the same level of difference. Angels and Dragons are named different things. I'm talking about multiple things called energy weapons.

Tor wrote:I'm not going to engage in debating metaphor in this case since I don't agree it's the same level of difference. Angels and Dragons are named different things. I'm talking about multiple things called energy weapons.

And each of those 'energy weapons' has its own set of assumptions and rules. So yah...the answer is going to be "that depends on the weapon in question, and how the GM chooses to interpret the various, often contradictory things in the game"
A Psi-Sword may be able to, since it has enough mass to interact with physical weapons enough to allow it to parry, and in turn be parried. Or it may not be able to since its apparently not solid enough to get PS bonuses (or then again it might...its unclear in the extreme)
A Wilks Laser Sword is just a beam of light, no substance. It most certainly can't be used to climb with if it cant parry, and it cant be parried due to the explicit fact that the 'blade' has no substance.

Tor wrote:I'm not going to engage in debating metaphor in this case since I don't agree it's the same level of difference. Angels and Dragons are named different things. I'm talking about multiple things called energy weapons.

Instead of talking about multiple things called "Supernatural Beings."

Supernatural beings with their own names.

I think if 'energy weapons' are going to operate differently, we ought to be given unique names to tell them apart in conversation.

In-universe, how would characters describe the HU2 alien-category "energy melee weapon" versus the Aliens Unlimited "energy melee weapon"?

Tor wrote:Supernatural beings with their own names.

I think if 'energy weapons' are going to operate differently, we ought to be given unique names to tell them apart in conversation.

In-universe, how would characters describe the HU2 alien-category "energy melee weapon" versus the Aliens Unlimited "energy melee weapon"?

I forget which book came out first.
The more recent might over-rule the previous. I haven't looked into it.

Tor wrote:Supernatural beings with their own names.

I think if 'energy weapons' are going to operate differently, we ought to be given unique names to tell them apart in conversation.

In-universe, how would characters describe the HU2 alien-category "energy melee weapon" versus the Aliens Unlimited "energy melee weapon"?

Who says they are different? Actually, the odd one out is the Wilks Laser Sword, as that is AFAIK the only 'energy melee weapon' that doesnt have any physical effect (ie can not parry/be parried). Everything else is just 'energy melee weapon' sort of like 'guns' or 'spells'....its kinda generic, and you will have to actually bother to find out the specific kind of object being talked about.

Giant2005 wrote:the Energy Weapons in Aliens Unlimited do have a physical form and can parry
because of their nature as energy, they inflict 50% of their damage to the opposed weapon.

AUp17 matches up with HU2p98-99 in respect to this section. Only change I can see is other weapons taking 1/2 dmg. Before I think people would assume full.

I do notice that AU removed the 'energy melee weapon' from 72-80 of the Ranged Weapon table though, probably realized how ridiculously overpowered it is to everything in both sections.

My reasons for agreeing with you remain the same per my HU ones though. Parry bonus indicates the energy guys can parry, other weapons taking damage indicates it can be parried.

I guess I'm wondering though: since the PS bonus is not added to the energy weapons (concentrated light or damaging energies) then even if they can parry or be parried I still don't know if that means you could climb with them.

Tor wrote:I guess I'm wondering though: since the PS bonus is not added to the energy weapons (concentrated light or damaging energies) then even if they can parry or be parried I still don't know if that means you could climb with them.

You're back full-circle with arbitrary reasoning.

Vibro-weapons don't use strength either; so what does it matter if you can add strength to your melee attack when in regards to climbing with a weapon that has some kind of physical aspect?

Dog_O_War wrote:

Tor wrote:I guess I'm wondering though: since the PS bonus is not added to the energy weapons (concentrated light or damaging energies) then even if they can parry or be parried I still don't know if that means you could climb with them.

You're back full-circle with arbitrary reasoning.

Vibro-weapons don't use strength either; so what does it matter if you can add strength to your melee attack when in regards to climbing with a weapon that has some kind of physical aspect?

RGMG p.32 says that vibro weapons do use added damage bonuses (however the consensus is that its just SDC which is pointless to add.)

So....Yes you can climb with energy weapons, as long as your not using the Wilks Laser Sword?

eliakon wrote:So....Yes you can climb with energy weapons, as long as your not using the Wilks Laser Sword?

As long as you're using an energy weapon that has a significant physical component, then it seems reasonable to allow it to be used to climb.

The question is what qualifies as signidicant.

If it were something like the Gizmoteer Psi-Sword amplifier, that'd be okay in my book, since the blade surrounds a physical component that's presumably MDC...

But in the case where the only physical component is a handle... doesn't say much.

Looking back at the parry bonus an energy sword gets in HU/AU, am realizing that doesn't necessarily indicate that it can parry physical things, could be for parrying energy attacks or other energy blades.

While it's possible to parry an energy blade with a physical one (with it taking damage, unless high-tech) it's also possible to parry a laser blast with a vibro-blade or MDC shield, so being a parry-able energy blade doesn't mean the energy blade itself can stop physical things it doesn't successfully destroy, or that it's a climbing tool.

Tor wrote:The question is what qualifies as signidicant.

If it were something like the Gizmoteer Psi-Sword amplifier, that'd be okay in my book, since the blade surrounds a physical component that's presumably MDC...

But in the case where the only physical component is a handle... doesn't say much.

Looking back at the parry bonus an energy sword gets in HU/AU, am realizing that doesn't necessarily indicate that it can parry physical things, could be for parrying energy attacks or other energy blades.

While it's possible to parry an energy blade with a physical one (with it taking damage, unless high-tech) it's also possible to parry a laser blast with a vibro-blade or MDC shield, so being a parry-able energy blade doesn't mean the energy blade itself can stop physical things it doesn't successfully destroy, or that it's a climbing tool.

And it doesn't say it isn't either. I would however point out that the Wilks Laser sword IS 'intangible' and that it was considered important enough to point out this. Which to me suggests that other 'energy blades' are, actually, blades they are just formed out of some sort of 'solid energy' (heaven knows there is enough of that floating around in palladium) or contained in/around a force field (even MORE common) or otherwise has an actual physical effect. Thus they can be used to parry (since they are melee weapons, and the rules seem to imply that all melee weapons can parry unless explicitly stated to not be able to parry).
Or put another way, is there anything in the books that says that an entire class of weapons, should be stripped of the ability to parry, while simultaneously being made unable to be parried? That's a pretty significant change in power level there and I would expect that there be some sort of rule to back it up rather than 'I want it this way'

There is some ambiguity about how the Amaki TW Psi-Blade works. While Tor is definitely talking the depiction on page 165, however...... on page 156 the picture shows it projecting the blade of Psi-energy from just the hilt as a physical component.
The easy explanation for the differences would be that different Amaki (Psi) Gizmoteers build their Psi-Sword Enhancers differently and thus both depictions are correct and saying 'this one way only' in this case is not completely correct.

Another easy explanation is that 165 is a transparent/translucent shot while 156 is an opaque shot.

The psi-sword when activated may prevent direct visibility of the core, but it's clearly there. It's a psi-blade not a psi-handle.

Anyway the core issue is whether lack of PS addition indicates a lack of climbing capability, parrying ability and parryableness would be a distinct secondary issue.

Tor wrote:Another easy explanation is that 165 is a transparent/translucent shot while 156 is an opaque shot.

The psi-sword when activated may prevent direct visibility of the core, but it's clearly there. It's a psi-blade not a psi-handle.

Anyway the core issue is whether lack of PS addition indicates a lack of climbing capability, parrying ability and parryableness would be a distinct secondary issue.

165 could also be a blast sword..*shrugs*
And I would say that Parrying Ability is a primary issue. Since you would have to have something physical to parry with, ergo if you can parry there is something physically there to do the parry. The conclusion to me seems to be "if you can parry, then there is an actual blade. That blade can be used to climb, or not as your GM rules"

A physical object isn't necessary for parrying, people can use the Bend Light superpower to parry lasers. It's possible that holding energy fixed in space to intercept other energy could deflect other energies.

Some energy weapons do stack with PS/punch damage (Viracocha's energy blades in Rifts SA2), those are the types I think of as 'solid energy'. If it doesn't convey PS then how can PS be used in conjunction with it to lift its wielder?

Tor wrote:A physical object isn't necessary for parrying, people can use the Bend Light superpower to parry lasers. It's possible that holding energy fixed in space to intercept other energy could deflect other energies.

Without any such stated restriction, though, such restriction does not exist.
If the Bend Light power simply stated that the person with the power received a "+2 to parry" bonus, then they'd get a +2 bonus to parry. Period.
Any restrictions that are not specified cannot be assumed.

Tor wrote:A physical object isn't necessary for parrying, people can use the Bend Light superpower to parry lasers. It's possible that holding energy fixed in space to intercept other energy could deflect other energies.

The power to 'parry lasers' =/= Parry(no qualifiers)

Tor wrote:Some energy weapons do stack with PS/punch damage (Viracocha's energy blades in Rifts SA2), those are the types I think of as 'solid energy'. If it doesn't convey PS then how can PS be used in conjunction with it to lift its wielder?

By this logic a Vibroblade can't be used to climb since PS doesn't add to MD weapons. Some physical weapons stack with PS, and some don't it still doesn't mean you cant use them to climb, or that the physical weapons where PS doesn't add are some how actually intangible.
Basically I am saying that if you want to add a restriction (not physical) to something you will need either to make a house rule changing the RAW, or find something in the RAW that says that what you want is how things are. Otherwise its just saying "I don't like how X is actually written so I want to change it, and I think everyone should agree with me on this change."

Thinyser wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:

Tor wrote:I guess I'm wondering though: since the PS bonus is not added to the energy weapons (concentrated light or damaging energies) then even if they can parry or be parried I still don't know if that means you could climb with them.

You're back full-circle with arbitrary reasoning.

Vibro-weapons don't use strength either; so what does it matter if you can add strength to your melee attack when in regards to climbing with a weapon that has some kind of physical aspect?

RGMG p.32 says that vibro weapons do use added damage bonuses (however the consensus is that its just SDC which is pointless to add.)

Does it say that in R:UE?

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:There is some ambiguity about how the Amaki TW Psi-Blade works. While Tor is definitely talking the depiction on page 165, however...... on page 156 the picture shows it projecting the blade of Psi-energy from just the hilt as a physical component.
The easy explanation for the differences would be that different Amaki (Psi) Gizmoteers build their Psi-Sword Enhancers differently and thus both depictions are correct and saying 'this one way only' in this case is not completely correct.

That would be citing a picture as canon; clearly it wouldn't matter how it was drawn since none of the drawings are accurate.

Tor wrote:A physical object isn't necessary for parrying, people can use the Bend Light superpower to parry lasers. It's possible that holding energy fixed in space to intercept other energy could deflect other energies.

Some energy weapons do stack with PS/punch damage (Viracocha's energy blades in Rifts SA2), those are the types I think of as 'solid energy'. If it doesn't convey PS then how can PS be used in conjunction with it to lift its wielder?

What are you talking about? PS has nothing to do with your ability to climb; you need a high IQ in order to have a better climb skill.

Strength has nothing to do with it in Palladium games.

Dog_O_War wrote:

Thinyser wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:

Tor wrote:I guess I'm wondering though: since the PS bonus is not added to the energy weapons (concentrated light or damaging energies) then even if they can parry or be parried I still don't know if that means you could climb with them.

You're back full-circle with arbitrary reasoning.

Vibro-weapons don't use strength either; so what does it matter if you can add strength to your melee attack when in regards to climbing with a weapon that has some kind of physical aspect?

RGMG p.32 says that vibro weapons do use added damage bonuses (however the consensus is that its just SDC which is pointless to add.)

Does it say that in R:UE?

Ahh cool. So MORTALS (normal PS) can climb with vibrobaldes (since they add PS), but Superanturals (SNPS) and Robots (RPS) Can't since they don't get to add their strength to them. Got it.
Or perhaps all that matters is if something is physical or not. Damage Bonus =/= Physical so, using Damage Bonus as the criteria for if something is physical seems...flawed at best, and a strawman at worst.

Dog_O_War wrote:

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:There is some ambiguity about how the Amaki TW Psi-Blade works. While Tor is definitely talking the depiction on page 165, however...... on page 156 the picture shows it projecting the blade of Psi-energy from just the hilt as a physical component.
The easy explanation for the differences would be that different Amaki (Psi) Gizmoteers build their Psi-Sword Enhancers differently and thus both depictions are correct and saying 'this one way only' in this case is not completely correct.

That would be citing a picture as canon; clearly it wouldn't matter how it was drawn since none of the drawings are accurate.

Tor use a picture as the base for the statements in his arguments not the text. All I did was point at another picture to say that his statement was not entirely correct.

Dog_O_War wrote:

Thinyser wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:

Tor wrote:I guess I'm wondering though: since the PS bonus is not added to the energy weapons (concentrated light or damaging energies) then even if they can parry or be parried I still don't know if that means you could climb with them.

You're back full-circle with arbitrary reasoning.

Vibro-weapons don't use strength either; so what does it matter if you can add strength to your melee attack when in regards to climbing with a weapon that has some kind of physical aspect?

RGMG p.32 says that vibro weapons do use added damage bonuses (however the consensus is that its just SDC which is pointless to add.)

Does it say that in R:UE?

Don't know. It was an answer to a fan (or fictional fan) question in the Q&A section of RGMG. Don't think those got reprinted in RUE.

eliakon wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:

Thinyser wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:

Tor wrote:I guess I'm wondering though: since the PS bonus is not added to the energy weapons (concentrated light or damaging energies) then even if they can parry or be parried I still don't know if that means you could climb with them.

You're back full-circle with arbitrary reasoning.

Vibro-weapons don't use strength either; so what does it matter if you can add strength to your melee attack when in regards to climbing with a weapon that has some kind of physical aspect?

RGMG p.32 says that vibro weapons do use added damage bonuses (however the consensus is that its just SDC which is pointless to add.)

Does it say that in R:UE?

Ahh cool. So MORTALS (normal PS) can climb with vibrobaldes (since they add PS), but Superanturals (SNPS) and Robots (RPS) Can't since they don't get to add their strength to them. Got it.
Or perhaps all that matters is if something is physical or not. Damage Bonus =/= Physical so, using Damage Bonus as the criteria for if something is physical seems...flawed at best, and a strawman at worst.

exactly.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:There is some ambiguity about how the Amaki TW Psi-Blade works. While Tor is definitely talking the depiction on page 165, however...... on page 156 the picture shows it projecting the blade of Psi-energy from just the hilt as a physical component.
The easy explanation for the differences would be that different Amaki (Psi) Gizmoteers build their Psi-Sword Enhancers differently and thus both depictions are correct and saying 'this one way only' in this case is not completely correct.

That would be citing a picture as canon; clearly it wouldn't matter how it was drawn since none of the drawings are accurate.

Tor use a picture as the base for the statements in his arguments not the text. All I did was point at another picture to say that his statement was not entirely correct.

I know - I didn't mean to single you out; you just happened to best high-light the basis on which the premise was flawed. Or at least, one of the premises (premisi?) of the question.

Lotta people here not understanding that damage bonuses apply to MD attacks, just ignored when 1-99.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Without any such stated restriction, though, such restriction does not exist.
If the Bend Light power simply stated that the person with the power received a "+2 to parry" bonus, then they'd get a +2 bonus to parry. Period.
Any restrictions that are not specified cannot be assumed.

I'm really not sure what you're going on about here KC.

I was using Bent Light as an example that you can parry things without physically touching those things with something.

I wasn't specifying anything about what bonuses apply to the power.

eliakon wrote:The power to 'parry lasers' =/= Parry(no qualifiers)

What are you going on about? Parrying lasers is an example of parrying.

What's next, parrying arrows isn't parrying? Parrying nets isn't parrying?

You're arguing against something non-existent here. I'm providing an example of parrying, not saying that parrying lasers lets you parry plasma.

eliakon wrote:By this logic a Vibroblade can't be used to climb since PS doesn't add to MD weapons.

Incorrect, PS does add to MD weapons, but since it adds a "damage" bonus, it needs to be +100 to damage 1 MD, so it is ignored except in extreme cases.

The PS attribute bonus is added to anything you would add supernatural punch damage to.

eliakon wrote:Some physical weapons stack with PS, and some don't it still doesn't mean you cant use them to climb

There are no explicit statements to that effect, I am making the argument that it is a sensible thing to believe, due to them both being conveyences of force and physical strength.

eliakon wrote:or that the physical weapons where PS doesn't add are some how actually intangible.

Intangibility comes in a variety of degrees. Clearly it's possible for things to be relatively intangible to some things but not others. The question is what is and isn't.

eliakon wrote:if you want to add a restriction (not physical) to something you will need either to make a house rule changing the RAW

Are there any RAW saying that HU/AU energy weapons can be used as climbing tools?

If not, then I'm not changing anything, I'm trying to figure out a judgment call for something rules don't exist for.

eliakon wrote:Otherwise its just saying "I don't like how X is actually written so I want to change it, and I think everyone should agree with me on this change."

Except we're not told anything one way or another in regard to climbing.

Dog_O_War wrote:That would be citing a picture as canon; clearly it wouldn't matter how it was drawn since none of the drawings are accurate.

I consider pictures canon except where conflict occurs with text in which case text trumps. I believe pictures give us information to supplement the text.

Unless you can source 'none of the drawings are accurate' or 'pictures aren't canon' there is no backing against the bias.

If we have no answer and a picture gives it, we ought to take it.

Dog_O_War wrote:PS has nothing to do with your ability to climb; you need a high IQ in order to have a better climb skill.

Strength has nothing to do with it in Palladium games.

IQ influences choosing a proper grip and course and all that. It doesn't determine how much you can carry. We can apply some common sense here: a person with a PS of 0 could not climb.

eliakon wrote:Superanturals (SNPS) and Robots (RPS) Can't since they don't get to add their strength to them.

Where do you get the impression that the PS damage bonus does not apply to robotic or supernatural PS?

eliakon wrote:Damage Bonus =/= Physical so, using Damage Bonus as the criteria for if something is physical seems...flawed at best, and a strawman at worst.

You're not using 'strawman' correctly.

We're discussing PS damage bonuses, so dropping the PS criteria would be a proper example of the word you abused though.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:All I did was point at another picture to say that his statement was not entirely correct.

156/165 could each be either the blast-sword or the psi-blade so it is ambiguous.

That said, the picture that doesn't show a core doesn't indicate an absent core so much as an invisible one. Which I mean in the sense that Tony Stark is invisible when all you can see is the outer casing.

Tor wrote:Lotta people here not understanding that damage bonuses apply to MD attacks, just ignored when 1-99.

Maybe...do you have an EXPLICIT source that says it is or is not applied?

Tor wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:Without any such stated restriction, though, such restriction does not exist.
If the Bend Light power simply stated that the person with the power received a "+2 to parry" bonus, then they'd get a +2 bonus to parry. Period.
Any restrictions that are not specified cannot be assumed.

I'm really not sure what you're going on about here KC.

I was using Bent Light as an example that you can parry things without physically touching those things with something.

I wasn't specifying anything about what bonuses apply to the power.

Except that the power doesn't say you can parry with out physically touching (the non-solid) laser. So this is a strawman.

Tor wrote:

eliakon wrote:The power to 'parry lasers' =/= Parry(no qualifiers)

What are you going on about? Parrying lasers is an example of parrying.

What's next, parrying arrows isn't parrying? Parrying nets isn't parrying?

You're arguing against something non-existent here. I'm providing an example of parrying, not saying that parrying lasers lets you parry plasma.

I am saying that the power to parry lasers (which may, or may not involve actually having to use your hands to parry....unless the power SAYS you can do it at range) does not prove that parrying lasers (and by extension ALL PARRIES) does not need a physical object to provide that parry.

Tor wrote:

eliakon wrote:By this logic a Vibroblade can't be used to climb since PS doesn't add to MD weapons.

Incorrect, PS does add to MD weapons, but since it adds a "damage" bonus, it needs to be +100 to damage 1 MD, so it is ignored except in extreme cases.

The PS attribute bonus is added to anything you would add supernatural punch damage to.

Source? No seriously, this could be relevant, if there is a source that says that its applied, but ignored. But this still doesn't help a person with supernatural strength (who has no damage bonus....)

Tor wrote:

eliakon wrote:Some physical weapons stack with PS, and some don't it still doesn't mean you cant use them to climb

There are no explicit statements to that effect, I am making the argument that it is a sensible thing to believe, due to them both being conveyences of force and physical strength.

Except that your doing so only when convenient. Your ignoring that psi-sword for instance has no different rules on damage, or parrying than a vibro blade, so assuming that it some how lacks other properties is not a direct inference, but choosing to make an (Unwarranted in my opinion) assumption.

Tor wrote:

eliakon wrote:or that the physical weapons where PS doesn't add are some how actually intangible.

Intangibility comes in a variety of degrees. Clearly it's possible for things to be relatively intangible to some things but not others. The question is what is and isn't.

Again, source? Since your the one claiming that the energy weapons are intangible....what is your source for that claim?

Tor wrote:

eliakon wrote:if you want to add a restriction (not physical) to something you will need either to make a house rule changing the RAW

Are there any RAW saying that HU/AU energy weapons can be used as climbing tools?

I am saying that there is nothing in the RAW about it either way, since its not spelled out if the weapons are tangible (Can climb) or intangible (Can not climb). That said, I would personally think that yes, they can be used unless the weapon is explicitly said to be intangible.

Tor wrote:If not, then I'm not changing anything, I'm trying to figure out a judgment call for something rules don't exist for.

The rules don't cover if they are tangible, but there is no reason to assume that they are intangible, so then the rules would work for them like any other blade.

Tor wrote:

eliakon wrote:Otherwise its just saying "I don't like how X is actually written so I want to change it, and I think everyone should agree with me on this change."

Except we're not told anything one way or another in regard to climbing.

We are not told anything about any object in regard to climbing. Does this mean that you cant climb with any object since, nothing is explicitly said 'you can climb with this?'

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:That would be citing a picture as canon; clearly it wouldn't matter how it was drawn since none of the drawings are accurate.

I consider pictures canon except where conflict occurs with text in which case text trumps. I believe pictures give us information to supplement the text.

Unless you can source 'none of the drawings are accurate' or 'pictures aren't canon' there is no backing against the bias.

If we have no answer and a picture gives it, we ought to take it.

Even if you choose not to accept the statement that Kevin has said that art isn't canon as true, the picture in question proves nothing since there is no way to know what it is a picture OF.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:PS has nothing to do with your ability to climb; you need a high IQ in order to have a better climb skill.

Strength has nothing to do with it in Palladium games.

IQ influences choosing a proper grip and course and all that. It doesn't determine how much you can carry. We can apply some common sense here: a person with a PS of 0 could not climb.

So? DoW's point still stands, the relevance of a PS damage modifier to a climbing tools suitability as a tool is...flawed.

Tor wrote:

eliakon wrote:Superanturals (SNPS) and Robots (RPS) Can't since they don't get to add their strength to them.

Where do you get the impression that the PS damage bonus does not apply to robotic or supernatural PS?

Where do you get the impression that it does? It has a listed damage, and with out a statement that its really 'listed plus PS' then...its not.

Tor wrote:

eliakon wrote:Damage Bonus =/= Physical so, using Damage Bonus as the criteria for if something is physical seems...flawed at best, and a strawman at worst.

You're not using 'strawman' correctly.

We're discussing PS damage bonuses, so dropping the PS criteria would be a proper example of the word you abused though.

No I used it correctly. Your making a strawman (That having a PS damage bonus is the defining characteristic of being physical) to prove your other premise (this is not physical so it cant be used to climb), by demolishing the false premise (since there is not actually any rule that says that you must have a PS damage bonus to be physical.)

Tor wrote:

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:All I did was point at another picture to say that his statement was not entirely correct.

156/165 could each be either the blast-sword or the psi-blade so it is ambiguous.

That said, the picture that doesn't show a core doesn't indicate an absent core so much as an invisible one. Which I mean in the sense that Tony Stark is invisible when all you can see is the outer casing.

Except that the absent core sword does appear to not be straight....which would make it hard to have a core, unless that core is flexible....in which case its not really a sword now is it....

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:That would be citing a picture as canon; clearly it wouldn't matter how it was drawn since none of the drawings are accurate.

I consider pictures canon except where conflict occurs with text in which case text trumps. I believe pictures give us information to supplement the text.

Unless you can source 'none of the drawings are accurate' or 'pictures aren't canon' there is no backing against the bias.

If we have no answer and a picture gives it, we ought to take it.

I can site a source; all of the books.
All of the books are my source. Not a single entry anywhere within the books states that the pictures contained within are rule-worthy, nor contain an official ruling themselves. We otherwise have plenty of text entries which state whether what is written is a rule or fluff, but in the case of pictures, a reader must err on the side of caution.

As for a source as to whether the drawings are accurate or not, I'll site all of the drawings that do not match their description. I mean, if a picture is worth a thousand words, then I guess ones like the Iron Bolt Missile vehicle are screaming "I'm not canon" at us, right?

Also, I guess it's a good thing that you don't get to decide what is and is not canon anymore than anyone else.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:PS has nothing to do with your ability to climb; you need a high IQ in order to have a better climb skill.

Strength has nothing to do with it in Palladium games.

IQ influences choosing a proper grip and course and all that. It doesn't determine how much you can carry. We can apply some common sense here: a person with a PS of 0 could not climb.

I wasn't talking about how much or little a person can carry; I was talking about whether or not PS otherwise gives you a bonus to your climb skill. That is what my statement you quoted directly says; don't muddle a point with a non-point.

eliakon wrote:Maybe...do you have an EXPLICIT source that says it is or is not applied?

I believe the basic rules to be explicit enough, but in regard to this particular situation it's been addressed in answers to the Comabt Rules Questions:
53. I was wandering if someone has a supernatural strength of 54 is the damage bonus sdc or mdc since a restrained punch still does mdc damage
Answer: The damage bonus remains SDC.

If a damage bonuses remains SDC for MD attacks, that means it still remains to be something at all, rather than just not applying.

Rifts Game Master Guide page 24 "P.S. damage bonuses are always added to the physical damage done by melee weapons". Not "SDC weapons" or "except MDC weapons" in there. Vibro-blades are melee weapons, so this statement targets them. RGMGp26 also says the bonus applies.

RGMGp32:
Do Hand to Hand P.S. damage bonuses apply to energy melee weapons?
"No damage bonuses apply to the use of energy melee weapons unless there is a physical damage component to the weapon involved"
"with a Psi-Sword, Flaming Sword or Energy Sword, only the weapon damage applies, any P.S. damage (supernatural or otherwise) is not added."
"a Vibro-Sword uses a physical core and so damage bonuses can be applied to this weapon."

eliakon wrote:Except that the power doesn't say you can parry with out physically touching (the non-solid) laser. So this is a strawman.

Firstly: you're mis-using the term straw-man (which refers to mis-representing other people's arguments and then arguing them) which does not encapsulate any argument made on a false basis, straw-mans are a particular form of falseness-based argument, and misinterpreting data would not fall under that.

Secondly: you clearly missed the "bending the light around him, or a 10ft area". Since the power mentions nothing about growing 5-foot long arms, it clearly means that you can parry the lasers without touching them, to protect teammates in your immediate space.

eliakon wrote:I am saying that the power to parry lasers (which may, or may not involve actually having to use your hands to parry....unless the power SAYS you can do it at range) does not prove that parrying lasers (and by extension ALL PARRIES) does not need a physical object to provide that parry.

I'm really not sure what you're arguing against here. I have indeed proven that parrying does not always require physical contact. Obviously in most situations it does though, as to do so without physical contact requires some kind of power. In this case we're discussing powered energy weapons though, which could fall into that realm.

eliakon wrote:Source? No seriously, this could be relevant, if there is a source that says that its applied, but ignored.

The ignoring is what players will do when it's not relevant. Since 2 MD destroys a 299 SDC object, getting +99 to damage wouldn't matter.

Something KC pointed out in a 2011 thread I was checking, Sourcebook 1 page 5 "if you are inflicting mega-damage on an S.D.C. structure the megadamage is inflicting such a degree of damage that it is probably destroyed in one or two strikes and counting a few extra S.D.C. is probably a wasted effort."

eliakon wrote:But this still doesn't help a person with supernatural strength (who has no damage bonus....)

People with supernatural PS can still have damage bonuses, not sure where you're getting this. In SDC worlds, the PS damage bonus is added to the enhanced base dice of all attacks. In MDC worlds, it makes a difference for the restrained punches.

eliakon wrote:your doing so only when convenient. Your ignoring that psi-sword for instance has no different rules on damage, or parrying than a vibro blade

Actually, psi-swords and vibro-blades do have different rules. A rifter FAQ clarified that supernatural PS punch damage is added to physical weapons like vibro blades but not energy weapons like psi-swords. Psi-swords are also, per CB1, capable of parrying energy blasts, something you can't normally do with a vibro-blade unless you're a member of certain enhanced OCCs/equipment like Crazy/Juicer/Borg/Simvan/Dragon/bots/non-GB-PA

eliakon wrote:your the one claiming that the energy weapons are intangible....what is your source for that claim?

My claim is that some energy weapons are intangible, and that they can have relative intangibility to some forces but not others. I consider an inability to add strength to a melee weapon a form of intangibility since it doesn't convey force. It can convey other energy though, which is why it burns/electrocutes/etc.

eliakon wrote:there is no reason to assume that they are intangible

I disagree, not adding PS to a melee weapons means it is kinetically intangible to me. This doesn't mean I'm saying it would go through things like the super-power, of course, since it's a lesser degree of intangibility.

Using something like a flame-thrower as an analogy, it projects a stream of fire that might look a bit like a blade to us, but if something interrupts its path, the thing's shape will change a bit, but if you continue pulling past the object and it can extend out again, it will regain its form, giving the sense of it having passed through the object.

I might term this pseudo-intangibility, still not sure of the best thing to term this concept.

eliakon wrote:We are not told anything about any object in regard to climbing. Does this mean that you cant climb with any object since, nothing is explicitly said 'you can climb with this?'

If an object has a physical form then we don't need to be told that. If something calls the form into question, that's when I look for statements.

eliakon wrote:the statement that Kevin has said that art isn't canon

I'd just like to read the original statement. Furthermore, I can opt to consider such a statement a retcon. In the universe established prior to that statement, the art would still be canon.

eliakon wrote:there is no way to know what it is a picture OF

In this situation, it's placement does draw into question which of the 2 swords it is. Possibly if SA2 ever gets reprinted they could put some captions clarifying what's what.

eliakon wrote:DoW's point still stands, the relevance of a PS damage modifier to a climbing tools suitability as a tool is...flawed.

The relevance is whether or not kinetic force can be conveyed through the tool. You can't climb a mountain by sticking the flame from a torch into the side to hang on, for example. The flame just burns, it doesn't grip the wall or the wood of the torch. Think of other situations where PS damage bonuses don't apply when utilizing a swung attack. You're basically just flinging fireballs.

eliakon wrote:It has a listed damage, and with out a statement that its really 'listed plus PS' then...its not.

We don't have to be continually reminded that damage bonuses apply under every single physical attack. They apply unless we're explicitly told otherwise.

eliakon wrote:Your making a strawman (That having a PS damage bonus is the defining characteristic of being physical) to prove your other premise (this is not physical so it cant be used to climb), by demolishing the false premise (since there is not actually any rule that says that you must have a PS damage bonus to be physical.)

Using a false premise to support your idea isn't a strawman. A straw-man is when you deliberately set up an easily defeated counter-argument to knock down for an easy win. You begin by accusing me of setting up a false idea to support my argument, and then jump to accusing me of setting up a false idea to demolish. Why would I demolish a false idea that supports my viewpoint? You have not established what separate false idea you think I'm aiming to demolish.

A straw-man would be if I set up a wrong representation of YOUR argument so I could win by demolishing it, ignoring your actual argument. If THAT is what you think I'm doing (not making stuff up to support myself) then please apply the term to that and explain that accusation.

eliakon wrote:the absent core sword does appear to not be straight....which would make it hard to have a core, unless that core is flexible....in which case its not really a sword now is it....

You lost me here bro. Many swords are curved, flexible, or both. Never used a foil or saber have you?

Dog_O_War wrote:I can site a source; all of the books. All of the books are my source. Not a single entry anywhere within the books states that the pictures contained within are rule-worthy, nor contain an official ruling themselves.

Pictures are inherently canonical, just as the words are inherently canonical. They prove themselves by being there.

If something in a canonical book requires other text to label it as canonical, then the text itself could not be canonical, since you encounter an inter-reliability paradox.

Dog_O_War wrote:in the case of pictures, a reader must err on the side of caution.

I agree completely. After all, Rifts is a world full of illusions (spells create them) so we have no way of knowing if a picture we see is an actual representation of a real thing, or merely an illusion spell.

This is why I prioritize text over pictures in cases of conflict, and say that pictures which deviate are illusion spells.

But that doesn't mean pictures aren't canon. They're still a window into the world, if inferior to the narration of the text in reliability.

Dog_O_War wrote:As for a source as to whether the drawings are accurate or not, I'll site all of the drawings that do not match their description. I mean, if a picture is worth a thousand words, then I guess ones like the Iron Bolt Missile vehicle are screaming "I'm not canon" at us, right?

Cases like this only prove that drawings are not always accurate. It doesn't mean that we should ignore all the drawings.

Text is sometimes not accurate too. Books often contain typos and stuff. Do those errors mean that ALL text no longer counts?

Dog_O_War wrote:it's a good thing that you don't get to decide what is and is not canon anymore than anyone else.

'More' is relative, I certainly have more say in my concept of canon, just as you have more say in yours. Outside of the authority to 'decide' though, we are discussing how to interpret the published canon based on logic.

Dog_O_War wrote:I was talking about whether or not PS otherwise gives you a bonus to your climb skill. That is what my statement you quoted directly says

You are now misrepresenting yourself and moving the goalposts. You did not specify PS giving a bonus to climb. You said "PS has nothing to do with your ability to climb".

The 'ability to climb' is more than just your skill percentage in climbing, just as the ability to throw involves more than just your strike roll (factors like range and damage for example). Climbing ability also includes the inherent aspect of how much you carry while climbing, be it just yourself or added equipment, which PS would presumably affect.

Some common-sense reason can also be applied here, which GMs are encouraged to use. Someone with a PS of 3 who only has the grip strength to lift a 60-pound object who weighed 300 pounds would clearly lack the hand strength to climb a surface that sloped backward dramatically, since it would prevent adequate leg assistance.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:I can site a source; all of the books. All of the books are my source. Not a single entry anywhere within the books states that the pictures contained within are rule-worthy, nor contain an official ruling themselves.

Pictures are inherently canonical, just as the words are inherently canonical. They prove themselves by being there.

If something in a canonical book requires other text to label it as canonical, then the text itself could not be canonical, since you encounter an inter-reliability paradox.

You do know taking a post out of context is against the board rules, do you not?
Because I wasn't stating (nor is anyone else for that matter) that the pictures contained within are not works of Palladium's, I was stating that they aren't rules canon.
Which they aren't.

So you're either arguing a non-point here because somehow you didn't clue in that people are talking about rules canon when they type the word "canon" (because here everything that isn't a Palladium work is otherwise referred to as a conversion),

OR

You're willingly violating the board's code of conduct by purposefully taking people's posts out of context.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:in the case of pictures, a reader must err on the side of caution.

I agree completely. After all, Rifts is a world full of illusions (spells create them) so we have no way of knowing if a picture we see is an actual representation of a real thing, or merely an illusion spell.

You're delusional; we - ie: the people in real-life discussing this topic on the boards - do not live in a world where magic exists. Those pictures are just pictures; not some illusion misrepresenting the truth.
So you're either as I claimed above (re: delusional), or you're trolling. Again, you've taken my post out of context; did I happen to mention already that doing so is a violation of board rules?

Tor wrote:This is why I prioritize text over pictures in cases of conflict, and say that pictures which deviate are illusion spells.

That's... special.

Tor wrote:But that doesn't mean pictures aren't canon. They're still a window into the world, if inferior to the narration of the text in reliability.

Are they a window into the world when they exist outside of a Palladium context?

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:As for a source as to whether the drawings are accurate or not, I'll site all of the drawings that do not match their description. I mean, if a picture is worth a thousand words, then I guess ones like the Iron Bolt Missile vehicle are screaming "I'm not canon" at us, right?

Cases like this only prove that drawings are not always accurate. It doesn't mean that we should ignore all the drawings.

That is exactly what it means.
I invite you to cite a single current rule from any Palladium bookline that isn't rules canon ("canon"). Of course this is a rhetorical question, but still, try it.

Tor wrote:Text is sometimes not accurate too. Books often contain typos and stuff. Do those errors mean that ALL text no longer counts?

Typos and errors that are labelled official are all too canon. They are my primary complaint. And yeah, they all count because they're canon.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:it's a good thing that you don't get to decide what is and is not canon anymore than anyone else.

'More' is relative, I certainly have more say in my concept of canon, just as you have more say in yours.

No. And I am not sure what fantasy world you're living in because like science, canon exists whether or not we believe or interpret only certain parts. For example, it seems to be a consensus on the boards that Tolkeen was writer fiat, and that it should have "been different", but what we have is canon, whether or not we believe, ignore, or interpret the book differently.

Tor wrote:Outside of the authority to 'decide' though, we are discussing how to interpret the published canon based on logic.

There's nothing to interpret; your basic premise of questioning is flawed and your sources are bad. If an entry states that an energy weapon is solid enough to parry with, then it is only logical that such a specific weapon is also solid enough to do other things with.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:I was talking about whether or not PS otherwise gives you a bonus to your climb skill. That is what my statement you quoted directly says

You are now misrepresenting yourself and moving the goalposts. You did not specify PS giving a bonus to climb. You said "PS has nothing to do with your ability to climb".

I'm not. That thing, that ";" is known as a "semi-colon". It's used to separate things like ideas in a sentence, but not to the point that they are unrelated to on-another.
My sentence,"PS has nothing to do with your ability to climb; you need a high IQ in order to have a better climb skill." is one such instance of this phenomena. You certainly didn't bother to address the portion of the sentence where I stated that you need a high IQ to have a better skill. That and given the above is a single sentence, it would stand that they are together contextually.

In other words, you're taking a post out of context, yet again. Have I mentioned that doing so is against board policy?

Tor wrote:The 'ability to climb' is more than just your skill percentage in climbing, just as the ability to throw involves more than just your strike roll (factors like range and damage for example). Climbing ability also includes the inherent aspect of how much you carry while climbing, be it just yourself or added equipment, which PS would presumably affect.

Please point out in the entry for the climb skill where it mentions this.
Otherwise it stands as conjecture.

Tor wrote:Some common-sense reason can also be applied here, which GMs are encouraged to use. Someone with a PS of 3 who only has the grip strength to lift a 60-pound object who weighed 300 pounds would clearly lack the hand strength to climb a surface that sloped backward dramatically, since it would prevent adequate leg assistance.

Oh, so dragons can't climb now?
Or most everything else with a climb skill that weighs in at 5ish+ tons?

Allandnnn wrote:in a cyberknight or psi-slayer or a duelist from sa2 your gonna wanna hold your hat are trained to use thier psi abilities to thier advantace

Wanting your powers to be versatile doesn't mean the power can become versatile.

A cyber-knight being able to throw his psi-sword would be a HUGE advantage, giving him a ranged cost-free attack. But they can't. So if they can't do that much, I don't see why other options like climbing would become available just because they want them to be.

Dog_O_War wrote:You do know taking a post out of context is against the board rules, do you not?

If you'd like to cite the rules, please reference them verbatim. I am doubtful your broad statement is correct, as it is possible to take a post out of context without any malicious intentions. I understand you'd be irked if you thought someone was doing it intentionally, just as I often am. I don't know how to assure you that I am doing my best to interpret your post in proper context. If there's a miscommunication I'd prefer we focus on correcting it.

Dog_O_War wrote:I wasn't stating (nor is anyone else for that matter) that the pictures contained within are not works of Palladium's

By this, I take it you think I was portraying you as declaring the pictures are non-Palladium works? In what statement did I convey this attitude? A recap of our exchange:

Dog_O_War wrote:

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:Not a single entry anywhere within the books states that the pictures contained within are rule-worthy

Pictures are inherently canonical, just as the words are inherently canonical. They prove themselves by being there.

I'm not seeing where you get this impression.

Dog_O_War wrote:I was stating that they aren't rules canon. Which they aren't.

Could you explain the basis by which you determine what rulebook content is 'rules canon' and which is not? Also I'm not sure how 'rules' creeped in, I thought we were discussing the broader concept of canonicity.

Also let's keep in mind that many pictures have captions under them, or text within the image.

Dog_O_War wrote:So you're either arguing a non-point here because somehow you didn't clue in that people are talking about rules canon when they type the word "canon" (because here everything that isn't a Palladium work is otherwise referred to as a conversion),

Speaking of arguing non-points...

I'll merit your accusations with further discussion when you can point out to me where I was indicating you were "stating that the pictures contained within are not works of Palladium's".

Dog_O_War wrote:OR You're willingly violating the board's code of conduct by purposefully taking people's posts out of context.

So far the most likely candidate for that seems to be you. Please ascertain for me where this the pictures contained within are not works of Palladium idea originated from. You imply it came from me, I'm only seeing you introduce this accusation.

Dog_O_War wrote:

Tor wrote:Rifts is a world full of illusions (spells create them) so we have no way of knowing if a picture we see is an actual representation of a real thing, or merely an illusion spell.

You're delusional; we - ie: the people in real-life discussing this topic on the boards - do not live in a world where magic exists. Those pictures are just pictures; not some illusion misrepresenting the truth.

I really think you're misreading what I'm talking about. I'll leaf through my books to find an example of what I mean here...

Okay, time for some sexiness! Federation of Magic page 135 shows a lady covered in slimy tentacles. Viewed in a void, I might think "OMG REAL TENTACLES". I mean, it even looks like it's gently fondling what looks to be a C-10 Laser Pistol held in her left hand.

However, since this is clearly depicting the 'Armor Bizarre' spell which indicates that although it 'appears to be composed of .. writhing tentacles' that it is a "magical illusion".

Nothing in my idea implies that magic exists in the real world, so please apologize and withdraw your accusation of me being delusional, as your conclusion to that end is a result of you misinterpreting what I said.

Dog_O_War wrote:So you're either as I claimed above (re: delusional), or you're trolling.

Option C: you clearly misread what I was talking about regarding in-book illustrations depicting illusions, which can be caused by magic or psionics.

Dog_O_War wrote:Again, you've taken my post out of context; did I happen to mention already that doing so is a violation of board rules?

I'm doubtful there is a rule against taking a post out of context. If so, you've broken it numerous times. Unless there is evidence that it is intentional (and I'm willing to accept that this has been an honest mistake on your part) there is no reason to condemn the party for it.

Tor wrote:

Tor wrote:This is why I prioritize text over pictures in cases of conflict, and say that pictures which deviate are illusion spells.

That's... special.

And that, my forum peer, is an example of actual flame-baiting, from you.

Dog_O_War wrote:Are they a window into the world when they exist outside of a Palladium context?

We're talking about pictures in Palladium Books' books, that puts them within a Palladium context. It's not as if I'm using screenshots from 'Class of the Titans' or 'Disney's Hercules' to make judgments on Pantheons of the Megaverse.

Dog_O_War wrote:I invite you to cite a single current rule from any Palladium bookline that isn't rules canon ("canon"). Of course this is a rhetorical question, but still, try it.

I'm having trouble understanding your line of thinking here, I don't see how it relates to the authority dispute regarding book images.

Dog_O_War wrote:Typos and errors that are labelled official are all too canon. They are my primary complaint. And yeah, they all count because they're canon.

Okay so... you accept a typo as canon even if it's later understood to be a mistake by comparison to other contents, but don't accept an image as canon... I'm still left guessing at the basis by which you assign authority to varying presentations of book information.

Dog_O_War wrote:like science, canon exists whether or not we believe or interpret only certain parts.

Actually, science only exists if scientists exist. Science is the process of evaluating nature. Perhaps you mean 'nature exists'.

Dog_O_War wrote:it seems to be a consensus on the boards that Tolkeen was writer fiat, and that it should have "been different", but what we have is canon, whether or not we believe, ignore, or interpret the book differently.

I don't see this example as applicable to our conversation. I am pointing out that interpretation of canon, just like interpretation of nature, does exist in a person-dependent state even if the raw source is inflexible and impersonal.

You brought up who decides what is canon: the authority is the source, but the deciders of interpreting the source are all of us. You said I don't get to decide more, but I may, if someone held my interpretation higher. Just as I would have less comparative say if someone held me in lower regard.

Dog_O_War wrote:There's nothing to interpret

There is EVERYTHING to interpret. Interpretation is inherent to reading, which is how we absorb the books and form our understandings of canon.

Dog_O_War wrote:your basic premise of questioning is flawed and your sources are bad.

That is a completely different accusation.

Dog_O_War wrote:If an entry states that an energy weapon is solid enough to parry with, then it is only logical that such a specific weapon is also solid enough to do other things with.

That only applies if solid objects are required to do parries. I proved they are not by using the example of Bend Light. Should I look for more examples?

Dog_O_War wrote:

Tor wrote:You did not specify PS giving a bonus to climb. You said "PS has nothing to do with your ability to climb".

I'm not. That thing, that ";" is known as a "semi-colon". It's used to separate things like ideas in a sentence, but not to the point that they are unrelated to on-another.
My sentence,"PS has nothing to do with your ability to climb; you need a high IQ in order to have a better climb skill." is one such instance of this phenomena. You certainly didn't bother to address the portion of the sentence where I stated that you need a high IQ to have a better skill.

I didn't address the IQ bonus claim because that is a correct claim. I tend to focus on things I disagree with. I am pointing out that "ability to climb" and "climb skill" are different ideas.

For example, a character could have climbing at 98% and then a Gurgoyle eats both his arms and legs. They would still have a "climb skill", but they would not have an "ability to climb", unless they had some kind of super-jaw or tentacles or whatever to substitute.

Dog_O_War wrote:you're taking a post out of context, yet again. Have I mentioned that doing so is against board policy?

I'm not taking something out of context, I am pointing out that you are falsely representing your ideas with wrong statements.

PS does have something to do with climbing, just like having climbing implements (like limbs) factors into it.

You pointed out that IQ benefits the climbing skill, as if that was some form of counter-argument, it wasn't.

Perhaps you might explain why you introduced this observation?

Dog_O_War wrote:

Tor wrote:Climbing ability also includes the inherent aspect of how much you carry while climbing, be it just yourself or added equipment, which PS would presumably affect.

Please point out in the entry for the climb skill where it mentions this. Otherwise it stands as conjecture.

Reasonable conjecture. Palladium doesn't cover every single bit of common sense under the rules. Or did I miss rules on bladder capacity and sex? Not everything gets addressed. Although a foray into the fantastic, skills are meant to represent real-life ideas, and in real life, strength does influence climbing ability. How much you can carry while climbing (including oneself) is a factor of climbing ability. Palladium's climbing rules aren't particularly complex, but just because it omits recognition of the necessity of strength in climbing doesn't mean that it is absent.

Even if the skill doesn't say so, I can't pull myself up with a hand I don't have, or one too weak to hold me, just as I can't rappel without a rope.

Sometimes interpreting the rules requires understanding of what words mean. When you understand what a word means, the rules of a skill don't need to re-define it for you. Such is the case with climbing, people who understand the verb climb know that it involves the application of physical force.

Dog_O_War wrote:so dragons can't climb now?

A particularly fat and weak one without wings, on a difficult enough surface, yes.

Dog_O_War wrote:most everything else with a climb skill that weighs in at 5ish+ tons?

Yup, if the surface is difficult enough that it requires arm strength. Just like a de-limbed torso can't climb even if possessing the skill. Just like how a guy without legs can't run, and a guy without arms can't box. You need the required tools. Can we bring up some particular examples of creatures who would not be able to purchase certain areas?

Keeping in might that if we're just talking about a vertical climb or a forward-slope, that this allows leg-power to be used. The PS lifting ability is about weight in addition to one's body, held in the hands, apparently the ability to lift one's own weight with the legs is a given.

On bend light. Note that the power does NOT say you can parry light 10' away from you. It says you can parry light, OR that you can make a bubble that automatically bends all light. It does not say that you can make a ranged parry. Thus any statement that Bend Light is proof of intangible parry is using a house rule (that you can parry with out touch).

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:You do know taking a post out of context is against the board rules, do you not?

If you'd like to cite the rules, please reference them verbatim.

It's considered trolling/baiting. You ask a mod, or you can choose to continue to take posts out of context.

Tor wrote:I am doubtful your broad statement is correct, as it is possible to take a post out of context without any malicious intentions. I understand you'd be irked if you thought someone was doing it intentionally, just as I often am. I don't know how to assure you that I am doing my best to interpret your post in proper context. If there's a miscommunication I'd prefer we focus on correcting it.

If you'd prefer to correct it, then respond to the whole sentence, not just part of it.
Here, I'll give you an example of taking a post of of context; I'll quote your above quote, but like you did, I am not going to quote the entire thing (for science):

Tor wrote:I am doubtful it is possible to take a post out of context without any malicious intentions. I irked you intentionally. I know how to interpret your post in proper context.

So I've done what you did; I cut out part of your paragraph, the portion I am choosing to ignore and instead responding only to the idea I've now created; that is one of you admitting that you did it on purpose and maliciously.
Which is baiting and trolling, because you're changing the idea/statement the poster put forth and responding to it as if it were its new intention. Whether "on-purpose" or not, it's still trolling.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:I wasn't stating (nor is anyone else for that matter) that the pictures contained within are not works of Palladium's

By this, I take it you think I was portraying you as declaring the pictures are non-Palladium works?

If you were not, then your post would constitute spam, as it would explain nothing (which is against the board rules).

Tor wrote:In what statement did I convey this attitude? A recap of our exchange:

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:Not a single entry anywhere within the books states that the pictures contained within are rule-worthy

Pictures are inherently canonical, just as the words are inherently canonical. They prove themselves by being there.
I'm not seeing where you get this impression.

Your quoted portion is a prime example on where I am getting this impression.
To "recap" - I posted a fact, and you spouted belief without proof; I said that there was no label, blurb, statement, etc. ("entry") anywhere within the books stating that the pictures constituted an interpretable rule ("rule-worthy").
You then simply state without providing proof that they are "inherently canonical". Either you still do not understand the context canon is used here (an official rule, or "rules-canon"), or you're positing without proof (that's called "conjecture") that they are rules-canon, which in a debate-form (given that you didn't provide proof) amounts to you going, "nuh-uh!"

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:I was stating that they aren't rules canon. Which they aren't.

Could you explain the basis by which you determine what rulebook content is 'rules canon' and which is not? Also I'm not sure how 'rules' creeped in, I thought we were discussing the broader concept of canonicity.

I explained very succinctly above how 'rules' crept in. And the basis is the rules section of any and every Palladium book. As well as common sense.

Tor wrote:Also let's keep in mind that many pictures have captions under them, or text within the image.

Yeah.
So does a lot of modern art. Does that mean that art is a true representation of reality? That art otherwise conveys rules and laws of our real-world?
Naming your child "Emperor of Earth" does not make him his namesake, any more than calling a picture "Iron Bolt Missile Vehicle" makes it its namesake.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:So you're either arguing a non-point here because somehow you didn't clue in that people are talking about rules canon when they type the word "canon" (because here everything that isn't a Palladium work is otherwise referred to as a conversion),

Speaking of arguing non-points...

I'll merit your accusations with further discussion when you can point out to me where I was indicating you were "stating that the pictures contained within are not works of Palladium's".

The answer to that is in the question you didn't answer; either you're stating emphatically that pictures are rules-worthy canon (which you've offered no proof of, and which there is plenty of proof against), or you were assuming that when someone said "canon" they were referring to whether or not such a picture was the work of Palladiums'.
Or is there some other explanation you'd care to entertain us with?

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:OR You're willingly violating the board's code of conduct by purposefully taking people's posts out of context.

So far the most likely candidate for that seems to be you.

Given that I quote and respond to all points, it's unlikely.

Tor wrote:Please ascertain for me where this the pictures contained within are not works of Palladium idea originated from. You imply it came from me, I'm only seeing you introduce this accusation.

From the word 'canon', taken in the context of whether or not something was a Palladium creation. And I never implied the idea came from you, I asked you to which context you were adhering to with regards to canon.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:

Tor wrote:Rifts is a world full of illusions (spells create them) so we have no way of knowing if a picture we see is an actual representation of a real thing, or merely an illusion spell.

You're delusional; we - ie: the people in real-life discussing this topic on the boards - do not live in a world where magic exists. Those pictures are just pictures; not some illusion misrepresenting the truth.

I really think you're misreading what I'm talking about. I'll leaf through my books to find an example of what I mean here...

Okay, time for some sexiness! Federation of Magic page 135 shows a lady covered in slimy tentacles. Viewed in a void, I might think "OMG REAL TENTACLES". I mean, it even looks like it's gently fondling what looks to be a C-10 Laser Pistol held in her left hand.

However, since this is clearly depicting the 'Armor Bizarre' spell which indicates that although it 'appears to be composed of .. writhing tentacles' that it is a "magical illusion".

Armour Bizarre has more than one possible descriptor; the spell does not always look like that, making the picture at best, an interpretation only meant to give an idea of what the real thing might look like.
And we are not viewing any of these pictures in a void. And your previous statement implied real-world 'magical illusions' exist.

Tor wrote:Nothing in my idea implies that magic exists in the real world, so please apologize and withdraw your accusation of me being delusional, as your conclusion to that end is a result of you misinterpreting what I said.

As I said previously, your previous statement did. You said that because Rifts contains illusions, "...we have know way of knowing if a picture we see is an actual representation of a real thing..." which directly implies that the pictures in the Rifts books may possibly be "an actual representation of a real thing". The bloody foreword of the books state that it's fantasy. Which is why I stated you (you've quoted it below) were either delusional or trolling. You eliminated all the other options.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:So you're either as I claimed above (re: delusional), or you're trolling.

Option C: you clearly misread what I was talking about regarding in-book illustrations depicting illusions, which can be caused by magic or psionics.

No. You posted no form of context or clarity; you made a direct statement, with no implications that it would be a character viewing the pictures within the books, etc. or any other explanation.
If I were to start a post wherein I stated "I murder people on a regular basis" with not clarification or explanation, and the thread's topic was "stuff you do in real life" (which provides a context), then that statement would be me saying quite literally that I am a murderer.
The parallel here is that we were talking about a real company, their works, and how game rules were applied, with regards to pictures. That provides us a context that we are firmly talking from our own perspectives, not that of a character. Your statement indicates nothing about seeing things from a characters' perspective, and you even referenced a real-world object (not a fictional one) in that very statement.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:Again, you've taken my post out of context; did I happen to mention already that doing so is a violation of board rules?

I'm doubtful there is a rule against taking a post out of context. If so, you've broken it numerous times. Unless there is evidence that it is intentional (and I'm willing to accept that this has been an honest mistake on your part) there is no reason to condemn the party for it.

Okay then, I'll flag your post as you intentionally taking mine out of context, citing this portion of your post here as proof you're doubting there is a penalty for doing such. Additionally, posts are like rules; there is the post as written, and the post as intended. We are not here to discuss what you intended to write, only to discuss what you wrote.
So if you can't write what you intend, then you have the option simply to abstain.

Tor wrote:

Tor wrote:

Tor wrote:This is why I prioritize text over pictures in cases of conflict, and say that pictures which deviate are illusion spells.

That's... special.

And that, my forum peer, is an example of actual flame-baiting, from you.

The only example of that is here, with you mis-quoting me as you saying what I wrote. That's called plagiarism. But I'll let it pass.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:I invite you to cite a single current rule from any Palladium bookline that isn't rules canon ("canon"). Of course this is a rhetorical question, but still, try it.

I'm having trouble understanding your line of thinking here, I don't see how it relates to the authority dispute regarding book images.

Rules are their own declaration; they are defined that way. Pictures are not defined the same as rules, which means that there needs to be something else to go along with a picture to define their validity. What this means (and it would help if you quoted the portion of you stating that drawings are not always accurate) because your statement provides that "something else" to go along with pictures to state that they don't hold the same authority as a rule does, with examples.
Basically, it's evidence against your stance by your own admission.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:Typos and errors that are labelled official are all too canon. They are my primary complaint. And yeah, they all count because they're canon.

Okay so... you accept a typo as canon even if it's later understood to be a mistake by comparison to other contents, but don't accept an image as canon... I'm still left guessing at the basis by which you assign authority to varying presentations of book information.

Have you ever even looked at the definition of the word "rule"?
This is an earnest question because you're apparently guessing "at the basis by which I assign authority to varying presentations of book information."

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:like science, canon exists whether or not we believe or interpret only certain parts.

Actually, science only exists if scientists exist. Science is the process of evaluating nature. Perhaps you mean 'nature exists'.

No.
And you're wrong. Science is defined as systematic knowledge of facts or truths. It honestly does not matter who the person is doing the study.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:it seems to be a consensus on the boards that Tolkeen was writer fiat, and that it should have "been different", but what we have is canon, whether or not we believe, ignore, or interpret the book differently.

I don't see this example as applicable to our conversation.

I can only say to this that I've observed you as having difficulty with parallels.

Tor wrote:I am pointing out that interpretation of canon, just like interpretation of nature, does exist in a person-dependent state even if the raw source is inflexible and impersonal.

I'm saying it does not, and I've provided both proof and examples of such.
I've noted that you've done no such thing.

Tor wrote:You brought up who decides what is canon: the authority is the source, but the deciders of interpreting the source are all of us.

Interpretation does not equal authority.

Tor wrote:You said I don't get to decide more, but I may, if someone held my interpretation higher. Just as I would have less comparative say if someone held me in lower regard.

You don't seem to understand; your interpretation is not in, nor will it ever be in the same category as "authority on the matter". Your interpretation could be held in the highest regard, but if the book says the Iron Bolt Missile Vehicle has two rows of six launchers, then at no point will the picture next to it factually be an IBMV. It will only ever be an "interpretation" of it, not the actual product.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:There's nothing to interpret

There is EVERYTHING to interpret. Interpretation is inherent to reading, which is how we absorb the books and form our understandings of canon.

Amazingly (okay, not so), you've taken my statement out of context. Canon (again, "rules-canon") is the authority; the authority dictates what is, which is why there is nothing to interpret.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:your basic premise of questioning is flawed and your sources are bad.

That is a completely different accusation.

It is the same accusation I've been laying out since the beginning, only summarized.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:If an entry states that an energy weapon is solid enough to parry with, then it is only logical that such a specific weapon is also solid enough to do other things with.

That only applies if solid objects are required to do parries. I proved they are not by using the example of Bend Light. Should I look for more examples?

An exception to the general rule does not disprove the rule.
But beyond this, the inverse of your "proof" is also true; you can use solid objects to parry 'intangible', energy attacks.

That seems to indicate that it doesn't matter, or at the very least, is on a case-by-case basis, making a "hard" rule non-existent in regards to a blanket statement on whether or not you could use an object made out of energy to climb with.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:

Tor wrote:You did not specify PS giving a bonus to climb. You said "PS has nothing to do with your ability to climb".

I'm not. That thing, that ";" is known as a "semi-colon". It's used to separate things like ideas in a sentence, but not to the point that they are unrelated to on-another.
My sentence,"PS has nothing to do with your ability to climb; you need a high IQ in order to have a better climb skill." is one such instance of this phenomena. You certainly didn't bother to address the portion of the sentence where I stated that you need a high IQ to have a better skill.

I didn't address the IQ bonus claim because that is a correct claim. I tend to focus on things I disagree with. I am pointing out that "ability to climb" and "climb skill" are different ideas.

That's great; you're still responding to a quote taken out of context.
But let's take a step back for a moment; please cite the rule in any book which states a PS score is required to climb. Or that the ability to lift objects will otherwise adversely affect one's ability to climb. Or that an energy weapons' ability to parry solid objects is tied to its ability to climb solid objects.

Tor wrote:For example, a character could have climbing at 98% and then a Gurgoyle eats both his arms and legs. They would still have a "climb skill", but they would not have an "ability to climb", unless they had some kind of super-jaw or tentacles or whatever to substitute.

That was not the context I used "ability to climb" in; you're arguing (yes people, I'm going to say it) semantics.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:you're taking a post out of context, yet again. Have I mentioned that doing so is against board policy?

I'm not taking something out of context, I am pointing out that you are falsely representing your ideas with wrong statements.

Quote the passage under the climb skill and see if I'm "falsely representing my ideas with 'wrong statements'".

Tor wrote:PS does have something to do with climbing, just like having climbing implements (like limbs) factors into it.

Please provide proof of your claim.

Tor wrote:You pointed out that IQ benefits the climbing skill, as if that was some form of counter-argument, it wasn't.

It was. You'll note that it does not require a PS score to climb, nor is there a limb requirement for that matter. Only the skill is the requirement to climb, and IQ is inherently tied to that as a known factor regarding both ability and skill in the matter.

Tor wrote:Perhaps you might explain why you introduced this observation?

I introduced it because there is no logic you can apply to these rules. They are without logic. Even when I make a statement based on logic, it is only conjecture as the rules themselves often contradict what's logical.
Therefore, citing any argument for these rules based on a logical premise instead of a factual one is inherently wrong, flawed, and lacks knowledge regarding the subject matter.

It's why I brought it up; this is the primary reason any discussion on the subject matter that is not fact-based will grind to a halt. When you start spouting what you view as "logical", you're going to collide with what others view as logical, and that is conflict. Instead, I've posted facts regarding the premise; these facts state that strength does not play a part in climbing (sorta), that you cannot discount an object's material or use when determining whether or not you can climb with it, and you cannot under any circumstances "logic" your way out of a situation in regards to Palladium games.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:

Tor wrote:Climbing ability also includes the inherent aspect of how much you carry while climbing, be it just yourself or added equipment, which PS would presumably affect.

Please point out in the entry for the climb skill where it mentions this. Otherwise it stands as conjecture.

Reasonable conjecture.

There is no such thing as a "reasonable lack of proof" in an argument. Unless you're admitting that you're wrong or otherwise cannot provide proof to counter factual claims.

Tor wrote:Palladium doesn't cover every single bit of common sense under the rules.

Palladium didn't even cover reasonable rules. But that's not what is in-question here; see further.

Tor wrote:Or did I miss rules on bladder capacity and sex? Not everything gets addressed. Although a foray into the fantastic, skills are meant to represent real-life ideas, and in real life, strength does influence climbing ability. How much you can carry while climbing (including oneself) is a factor of climbing ability. Palladium's climbing rules aren't particularly complex, but just because it omits recognition of the necessity of strength in climbing doesn't mean that it is absent.

As I said previously; there are the rules as intended, and the rules as written. We can posit on the rules as intended all day as much as we like, but at the end of the day we must deal with the rules as written. I know for a fact that strength was meant to play some sort of factor in regards to skills like climb, but I also know for a fact that this intent was not written into the rules. Do you understand this difference?

Tor wrote:Even if the skill doesn't say so, I can't pull myself up with a hand I don't have, or one too weak to hold me, just as I can't rappel without a rope.

So you're readily admitting then that creatures like ancient dragons cannot climb? Because that's what the rules indicate if I'm to even entertain the idea that your statement is true.
To which I will ask you,"what sense does that make?"

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:so dragons can't climb now?

A particularly fat and weak one without wings, on a difficult enough surface, yes.

No.
You build the strongest ancient dragon you can; assume maximum rolls for your strength score. Then look at how much you can lift, and look at the weight of the monster.
It has nothing to do with being "weak" and "fat"; the rules do not support the combination of lift and climb together for the simple fact that creatures can eliminate their ability to perform said skills simply by existing. That is a high-light example of a system that does not use logic; which would make the logical assumption that strength was involved in the process and invalid answer - because logical answers in this game are shown to be consistently wrong.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:most everything else with a climb skill that weighs in at 5ish+ tons?

Yup, if the surface is difficult enough that it requires arm strength. Just like a de-limbed torso can't climb even if possessing the skill. Just like how a guy without legs can't run, and a guy without arms can't box. You need the required tools. Can we bring up some particular examples of creatures who would not be able to purchase certain areas?

Your lack of knowledge regarding the subject matter is showing here, so I'll clue you in.
Even with a 50 supernatural strength, heavy creatures cannot lift their own weight because their body mass is simply too high. If you are required to factor in one's own weight when determining the ability to perform tasks, these creatures should for all intents and purposes be considered paralyzed because they don't have the strength typically to even drag their own body mass.

But the game does not represent these creatures this way; that would give us the precedent that it is not that way and you should not consider it that way. These creatures otherwise function normally, despite not actually having enough strength to move. This gives us the basis to discount the statement that strength plays a factor in a skill like climb, especially given that there is also no factual statement that it does, and that as far as other factors go, only IQ seems to play a factor in the ability to perform physical skills.
However illogical that may be.

Tor wrote:Keeping in might that if we're just talking about a vertical climb or a forward-slope, that this allows leg-power to be used. The PS lifting ability is about weight in addition to one's body, held in the hands, apparently the ability to lift one's own weight with the legs is a given.

Wrong.
You cannot lift your own weight in addition to the listed amount.
From a factual stand-point, it does not state this.
From a real-world stand-point, a typical person cannot do this.
From a logical stand-point, nothing indicates this to be true, and nothing alludes to this being the case, and the other view-points do not allow or agree with that sentiment.
Only an illogical position on the matter supports your statement (bolded above); what does that say for your argument?

EDIT: fixed quote.