Forums of the Megaverse®

Posted: **Fri Jul 03, 2015 10:44 pm**

Well, I think this was debated long ago, but I feel like bringing it up again. The Rates of Fire for melee weapons are all jacked up. The Longbowman description (Main book, p83) has the rate of fire as 2 shots at level 1, then +1 at levels 2,3,4,5,6,8,10,12, and 14. That ends up with a lot of attacks pretty quickly, although only with the longbow. The rate of Fire for Non-longbows is just regular, which is the same # of attacks as you normally have. (boxing doesn't count per the Palladium Combat Rules).

That seems like a better deal, especially to start. At first level a Longbowman will have 2 attacks with a longbow and 4 with a regular bow. Assuming the Longbowman stays with H2H Basic, then he'll finally catch up having the same number of attacks at level 3, and will finally overtake at 4. But why would you start out with fewer attacks with your main weapon of choice? The answer is because Palladium decided to give everyone the two attacks for living and didn't add it to ranged attacks.

Then again, those ranges attack numbers seem really high. At first level, with a WP Archery, you can attack accurately 4 times in 15 seconds with a bow. That's pretty good. I suppose it's believable. However, I don't see it with a crossbow. There are just no rules for rates of fire with ranged weapons. I know someone mentioned having attacks per melee governed by the type of weapon in melee and it does make a dagger with a strength bonus pretty deadly. However, that seems like it would be much more balancing with ranged weapons. I do see that no one would ever use a crossbow when it limits the # of attacks per melee, assuming there isn't a huge increase in damage or accuracy.

-Vek
"I'm fully prepared to be chagrined when someone links to a post where this was already discussed."

Posted: **Fri Jul 03, 2015 11:18 pm**

The cumulative rate of fire you've put out there is ridiculous. I don't know second edition by heart, so I assume you're correct.

It's part of the whole unbalancing of the game to align with the S.D.C. standards. So, I suppose that the potential damage isn't totally insane (although it sure sounds close), but the realism of attacks per round is certainly out the window...

Posted: **Sat Jul 04, 2015 2:32 am**

Damage could be insane with magic arrows, though...

Posted: **Sat Jul 04, 2015 11:29 am**

Veknironth wrote:Well, I think this was debated long ago, but I feel like bringing it up again. The Rates of Fire for melee weapons are all jacked up. The Longbowman description (Main book, p83) has the rate of fire as 2 shots at level 1, then +1 at levels 2,3,4,5,6,8,10,12, and 14. That ends up with a lot of attacks pretty quickly, although only with the longbow. The rate of Fire for Non-longbows is just regular, which is the same # of attacks as you normally have. (boxing doesn't count per the Palladium Combat Rules).

That seems like a better deal, especially to start. At first level a Longbowman will have 2 attacks with a longbow and 4 with a regular bow. Assuming the Longbowman stays with H2H Basic, then he'll finally catch up having the same number of attacks at level 3, and will finally overtake at 4. But why would you start out with fewer attacks with your main weapon of choice? The answer is because Palladium decided to give everyone the two attacks for living and didn't add it to ranged attacks.

Then again, those ranges attack numbers seem really high. At first level, with a WP Archery, you can attack accurately 4 times in 15 seconds with a bow. That's pretty good. I suppose it's believable. However, I don't see it with a crossbow. There are just no rules for rates of fire with ranged weapons. I know someone mentioned having attacks per melee governed by the type of weapon in melee and it does make a dagger with a strength bonus pretty deadly. However, that seems like it would be much more balancing with ranged weapons. I do see that no one would ever use a crossbow when it limits the # of attacks per melee, assuming there isn't a huge increase in damage or accuracy.

-Vek
"I'm fully prepared to be chagrined when someone links to a post where this was already discussed."

Greetings and Salutations. That's not entirely accurate. Those simply with W.P. Archery will start with a Rate of Fire (RoF) of 2 (see page 59, after bonuses, after movement penalty, and see Archery Rate of Fire), same as the Long Bowman. Since the Long Bowman has W.P. Archery (all bows), that means that with a regular bow they'll only have a RoF of 2 as well, and increase even slower than with the long bow. Note: I'm using Third Printing. So if this is different in an earlier printing (or later one), let me know.

Now when we look at W.P. Archery closer, we see that if you're trained in Archery, but NOT a Long Bowman (or Ranger) then you use your Attacks per Melee. PF2 main book is NOT written with the two attacks for living built in. As written, a Mercenary Warrior would start with 2 attacks per melee (3 with boxing) and by level 15 only have 5 attacks per melee (6 with boxing). This means that the Long Bowman (or any other archer) will quickly out pace them with their Rate of Fire. So, with the rules of the main book, using Attacks Per Melee means you're actually firing slower than a trained character. However, some of the later books start including the 2 attacks for living in NPC stats. This is where things can get weird, depending on the rules you're using. So if you include them (via Rifts, or HU, or via the more recent NPC), you can get a standard archer firing a long bow faster than a trained Long Bowman. This would be a result of a rule change that took affect after the main book rule was implemented. Note: I actually play with the extra 2 attacks for melee fighters. This starts an archer off as slower but with the advantage of range, and then a speed demon at higher levels still with the ranged advantage. The APM issue of a standard archer using a long bow never came up, but I'd have adjusted as necessary (either ruling half the attacks per melee or coming up with an extra table that reflected the original APM rate).

I'll be willing to provide more information as needed. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

Posted: **Sat Jul 04, 2015 1:15 pm**

Veknironth wrote:Well, I think this was debated long ago, but I feel like bringing it up again. The Rates of Fire for Bows are all jacked up. The Longbowman description (Main book, p83) has the rate of fire as 2 shots at level 1, then +1 at levels 2,3,4,5,6,8,10,12, and 14. That ends up with a lot of attacks pretty quickly, although only with the longbow. The rate of Fire for Non-longbows is just regular, which is the same # of attacks as you normally have. (boxing doesn't count per the Palladium Combat Rules).

That seems like a better deal, especially to start. At first level a Longbowman will have 2 attacks with a longbow and 4 with a regular bow. Assuming the Longbowman stays with H2H Basic, then he'll finally catch up having the same number of attacks at level 3, and will finally overtake at 4. But why would you start out with fewer attacks with your main weapon of choice? The answer is because Palladium decided to give everyone the two attacks for living and didn't add it to ranged attacks.

Then again, those ranges attack numbers seem really high. At first level, with a WP Archery, you can attack accurately 4 times in 15 seconds with a bow. That's pretty good. I suppose it's believable. However, I don't see it with a crossbow. There are just no rules for rates of fire with ranged weapons. I know someone mentioned having attacks per melee governed by the type of weapon in melee and it does make a dagger with a strength bonus pretty deadly. However, that seems like it would be much more balancing with ranged weapons. I do see that no one would ever use a crossbow when it limits the # of attacks per melee, assuming there isn't a huge increase in damage or accuracy.

-Vek
"I'm fully prepared to be chagrined when someone links to a post where this was already discussed."

Lets see...2 APM for melee attacks via h2h vs 2 Bow attacks via Archery hummmm Seams the same to me.
According to the PF RPG 2nd ed book a char's starting APM is 2 for three out of the four h2h (discounting any boxing modifications).

There are no 2 APM 'for living' in the PF2 MB combat text. In fact, the h2h text says "starts with two attacks per melee round" for each h2h basic expert & MA, while h2h assassin says "starts with one attack per melee round..." and from No-h2h "Character with no combat training get only one attack per melee at levels one, six, and 12."

At level 15 the Longbowman gets just 3 more RoF then what can be acquired from the Archery WP.

Printing note: My PF2 MB is of the 1st printing.

Posted: **Sun Jul 05, 2015 10:25 pm**

Well, yeah, I know the rule was made before the 2 for living rule was implemented into all Palladium games. But, if you use it then you have the issue and the newer books will all be using it. Personally, I prefer the H2H from the 1st edition where every man-at-arms has a different H2H skill.

What about the crossbow/short bow conundrum?

-Vek
"Let's just go back to 1st Edition H2H skills!"

Posted: **Mon Jul 06, 2015 12:14 am**

Veknironth wrote:-Vek
"Let's just go back to 1st Edition H2H skills!"

Motion seconded and passed

Posted: **Mon Jul 06, 2015 1:23 pm**

PF2 still does not have Specific text saying that there are "2 APM for living" in the setting. (Unless it is in the Byzantium book which is not yet a part of my collection.) Yes, I know some NPCs have been, as per the setting rules, incorrectly made with the 2APMfL.

Bow crossbow...as in the Bow/Archery RoF is too much for when firing crossbows? Go with crossbow RoF rules in the weapons compendium.

Posted: **Mon Jul 13, 2015 1:24 am**

Veknironth wrote:Well, I think this was debated long ago, but I feel like bringing it up again. The Rates of Fire for melee weapons are all jacked up. The Longbowman description (Main book, p83) has the rate of fire as 2 shots at level 1, then +1 at levels 2,3,4,5,6,8,10,12, and 14. That ends up with a lot of attacks pretty quickly, although only with the longbow.

Not bad for PF but Megaversally am unimpressed cuz:
*play mutant frog in TMNT & Other Strangeness (page 39)
*be born in a frogspawn of 20 000 eggs
*have your 19,999 siblings all be Mutants too, everyone buy Human Hands (and Leaping Ability too, if you can manage it)
*use Team Character rules (page 11), everyone buy WP Bow (page 25 left) and WP Targetting (page 25 right) these can't be bought as secondary skills so you need 2 WP available as scholastic.
**This is possible for the majority of mutants via random education, exactly 56.8%. Specifically 36% (60% of 60%) who roll Random Mutation or Accidental Exposure) Wild Animal ('adopted by a mentor' gives 3 WP; 'goes public' via Ancient Weapons Program as 1 of your 3) and 20.8% (52% of the 40%) Deliberate Experimentation (all of the 40% of the adopted/educated/highly-trained, 12% (60% of the 20%) wild (raised in the home + raised as a caged)
**Acrobatics (page 22-23) via a physical program (also not available as secondary) if you have it available
**secondary skills? Everyone should get Revolver, Automatic Pistol, Rifle, and Sub-Machinegun. Enjoy your +6666 to strike.
*20 000 siblings = level 20 000 in all skills held in common
*perfect sense of balance, tightrope/highwire, climb rope, general climbing, back flips and prowl
*they can all jump 80 010 feet long
*they can all fire 10 001 shots per round
*they all get +10 005 to strike
*they all get +400 000 feet to the bow's range

Posted: **Mon Jul 13, 2015 7:10 am**

I like the idea of a Bowman sending 20 arrows in thirty seconds. Almost realistic.
Until the invention of the Henry Repeater the native american longbow was the supreme ranged weapon.

Posted: **Tue Jul 14, 2015 4:57 pm**

Tor wrote:
Veknironth wrote:Well, I think this was debated long ago, but I feel like bringing it up again. The Rates of Fire for melee weapons are all jacked up. The Longbowman description (Main book, p83) has the rate of fire as 2 shots at level 1, then +1 at levels 2,3,4,5,6,8,10,12, and 14. That ends up with a lot of attacks pretty quickly, although only with the longbow.

Not bad for PF but Megaversally am unimpressed cuz:
*play mutant frog in TMNT & Other Strangeness (page 39)
*be born in a frogspawn of 20 000 eggs
*have your 19,999 siblings all be Mutants too, everyone buy Human Hands (and Leaping Ability too, if you can manage it)
*use Team Character rules (page 11), everyone buy WP Bow (page 25 left) and WP Targetting (page 25 right) these can't be bought as secondary skills so you need 2 WP available as scholastic.
**This is possible for the majority of mutants via random education, exactly 56.8%. Specifically 36% (60% of 60%) who roll Random Mutation or Accidental Exposure) Wild Animal ('adopted by a mentor' gives 3 WP; 'goes public' via Ancient Weapons Program as 1 of your 3) and 20.8% (52% of the 40%) Deliberate Experimentation (all of the 40% of the adopted/educated/highly-trained, 12% (60% of the 20%) wild (raised in the home + raised as a caged)
**Acrobatics (page 22-23) via a physical program (also not available as secondary) if you have it available
**secondary skills? Everyone should get Revolver, Automatic Pistol, Rifle, and Sub-Machinegun. Enjoy your +6666 to strike.
*20 000 siblings = level 20 000 in all skills held in common
*perfect sense of balance, tightrope/highwire, climb rope, general climbing, back flips and prowl
*they can all jump 80 010 feet long
*they can all fire 10 001 shots per round
*they all get +10 005 to strike
*they all get +400 000 feet to the bow's range

*claps* Bravo. That's pretty crazy.

Posted: **Tue Jul 14, 2015 10:24 pm**

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:PF2 still does not have Specific text saying that there are "2 APM for living" in the setting. (Unless it is in the Byzantium book which is not yet a part of my collection.) Yes, I know some NPCs have been, as per the setting rules, incorrectly made with the 2APMfL.

Bow crossbow...as in the Bow/Archery RoF is too much for when firing crossbows? Go with crossbow RoF rules in the weapons compendium.

Why assume that they have been made incorrectly?
Why not just assume that they are like the vast number of NPCs through out all the various books who, being NPCs simply have skills/abilities/classes/whatever that do not conform to the regular rules that PCs have to use.

Posted: **Sun Jul 19, 2015 5:58 pm**

Mark Hall wrote:That's pretty crazy.

Also, since N&SS has notes on 165 that allow TMNT chars to be Worldly Martial Artists and other stuff...
*most of the Arts of Invisibility are described as skills (the only one I can't find call that is Mystic Invisibility)
**have perfect chance of vanishing if you are detected
**have perfect chance of staying undetected
**have perfect chance of staying behind someone and criticalling them from the rear constantly, with them often unable to target you
*pretty sure somewhere that Body Hardening is called some kind of physical skill, so:
**utter immunity to alcohol from Yung chin
**absolute ability to intimidate others even if your MA is 3 from Laugh at Pain
**automatic save vs any chi attacks from Resist Chi Influence
**not-as-uber but.. start with AR 18 from max Chi Gung, resist epic pain from Ah Dah Jong, be great at pinning/rolling from Demon Wrestling

Also imagine the chaos if the 20 000 frog siblings all manage to be some kind of Hardware or Natural Genius or Super Sleuth and can progress skills past 100.

Posted: **Sun Jul 19, 2015 6:18 pm**

eliakon wrote:
drewkitty ~..~ wrote:PF2 still does not have Specific text saying that there are "2 APM for living" in the setting. (Unless it is in the Byzantium book which is not yet a part of my collection.) Yes, I know some NPCs have been, as per the setting rules, incorrectly made with the 2APMfL.

Bow crossbow...as in the Bow/Archery RoF is too much for when firing crossbows? Go with crossbow RoF rules in the weapons compendium.

Why assume that they have been made incorrectly?
Why not just assume that they are like the vast number of NPCs through out all the various books who, being NPCs simply have skills/abilities/classes/whatever that do not conform to the regular rules that PCs have to use.

I did reference to what standard I was talking about.

Posted: **Sun Jul 19, 2015 11:02 pm**

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
eliakon wrote:
drewkitty ~..~ wrote:PF2 still does not have Specific text saying that there are "2 APM for living" in the setting. (Unless it is in the Byzantium book which is not yet a part of my collection.) Yes, I know some NPCs have been, as per the setting rules, incorrectly made with the 2APMfL.

Bow crossbow...as in the Bow/Archery RoF is too much for when firing crossbows? Go with crossbow RoF rules in the weapons compendium.

Why assume that they have been made incorrectly?
Why not just assume that they are like the vast number of NPCs through out all the various books who, being NPCs simply have skills/abilities/classes/whatever that do not conform to the regular rules that PCs have to use.

I did reference to what standard I was talking about.

Which still requires us to presume that they are incorrectly made instead of that they were correctly made. After all we only have their APM, not a specific '+2 for living' statement thus it is only by presuming that the +2 APM come from this source instead of any other source that they would be incorrectly made.
Thus the burden of proof is on the person making the claim that they are incorrectly made (the affirmative claim) rather than the status quo assumption that they are indeed correctly made.

Posted: **Mon Jul 20, 2015 12:07 am**

Veknironth wrote:Well, I think this was debated long ago, but I feel like bringing it up again. The Rates of Fire for melee weapons are all jacked up. The Longbowman description (Main book, p83) has the rate of fire as 2 shots at level 1, then +1 at levels 2,3,4,5,6,8,10,12, and 14. That ends up with a lot of attacks pretty quickly, although only with the longbow. The rate of Fire for Non-longbows is just regular, which is the same # of attacks as you normally have. (boxing doesn't count per the Palladium Combat Rules).

That seems like a better deal, especially to start. At first level a Longbowman will have 2 attacks with a longbow and 4 with a regular bow. Assuming the Longbowman stays with H2H Basic, then he'll finally catch up having the same number of attacks at level 3, and will finally overtake at 4. But why would you start out with fewer attacks with your main weapon of choice? The answer is because Palladium decided to give everyone the two attacks for living and didn't add it to ranged attacks.

Then again, those ranges attack numbers seem really high. At first level, with a WP Archery, you can attack accurately 4 times in 15 seconds with a bow. That's pretty good. I suppose it's believable. However, I don't see it with a crossbow. There are just no rules for rates of fire with ranged weapons. I know someone mentioned having attacks per melee governed by the type of weapon in melee and it does make a dagger with a strength bonus pretty deadly. However, that seems like it would be much more balancing with ranged weapons. I do see that no one would ever use a crossbow when it limits the # of attacks per melee, assuming there isn't a huge increase in damage or accuracy.

-Vek
"I'm fully prepared to be chagrined when someone links to a post where this was already discussed."

R.O.F. isn't number of actions per round. With Archery you get a ROF of 2 and 1/2 that for a longbow if you aren't a longbowman. I haven't seen the 2 attacks per living enter palladium fantasy from the books, and the main book specifically says those that don't have a hth style onle has 1 attack per round, but even if you automatically start with 2 hand to hand attacks for being alive (and you are alive before you learn archery so it doesn't go back the other way), all the hth styles say you start with 2 attacks per round, not you get +2 attacks per round like it does at the other levels (one additional attack), so with the rule that governs having multiple skills the same, you get to pick the one that is higher, so you still only have 2 attacks per round.

ROF is number of attacks with a bow, so it supersedes apm, I have always played it that if you want to use your ROF (which is normally higher then your apm) you can only shoot for the round, if you want to punch someone then shoot then it goes off you apm. I think of ROF as basically rapid shot, you either use it all round or you don't use it.

Posted: **Mon Jul 20, 2015 2:58 pm**

eliakon wrote:
drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
eliakon wrote:
drewkitty ~..~ wrote:PF2 still does not have Specific text saying that there are "2 APM for living" in the setting. (Unless it is in the Byzantium book which is not yet a part of my collection.) Yes, I know some NPCs have been, as per the setting rules, incorrectly made with the 2APMfL.

Bow crossbow...as in the Bow/Archery RoF is too much for when firing crossbows? Go with crossbow RoF rules in the weapons compendium.

Why assume that they have been made incorrectly?
Why not just assume that they are like the vast number of NPCs through out all the various books who, being NPCs simply have skills/abilities/classes/whatever that do not conform to the regular rules that PCs have to use.

I did reference to what standard I was talking about.

Which still requires us to presume that they are incorrectly made instead of that they were correctly made. After all we only have their APM, not a specific '+2 for living' statement thus it is only by presuming that the +2 APM come from this source instead of any other source that they would be incorrectly made.
Thus the burden of proof is on the person making the claim that they are incorrectly made (the affirmative claim) rather than the status quo assumption that they are indeed correctly made.

If the char has two APM for living then they do not conform to the PF2 RAW, since they were ""supposedly"" made with the PF2 char creation rules, then it is very correct to say they were made incorrectly.

If PB wishes to change that there are no 2 APM For Living in the PF2 setting by publishing canon text that does that. They just published a PF2 book. I don't have it yet so those that have the Bizantium book will have to bring up their finds on this for all of us on this topic.

Posted: **Mon Jul 20, 2015 7:43 pm**

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:If the char has two APM for living then they do not conform to the PF2 RAW, since they were ""supposedly"" made with the PF2 char creation rules, then it is very correct to say they were made incorrectly.

That IS how Palladium introduced the rule into Rifts--they just started making NPCs that way.

Posted: **Tue Jul 21, 2015 1:35 am**

The 1st text supporting the 2 APM for living was in rifts was in the RMB.... in the psychic combat in the reminder says that all chars start off with 2 APM and that additional APM are gained through h2h & boxing.
Yes, this conflicts with the h2h leveling tables that are on the same page.

It is just with the RGMG that the two APM for living were included into the rest of the combat text.
---
The PF2 psi combat text says that more APM are gained through level advancement of the h2h and boxing.

Posted: **Tue Jul 21, 2015 3:46 am**

I again reference the Kevin statement of "You are the GM- do whatever works for your group."

Posted: **Tue Jul 21, 2015 9:27 am**

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:The 1st text supporting the 2 APM for living was in rifts was in the RMB.... in the psychic combat in the reminder says that all chars start off with 2 APM and that additional APM are gained through h2h & boxing.

That text doesn't support the TAFL.

Spoiler:

http://palladium-megaverse.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2670321#p2670321

Killer Cyborg wrote:
kaid wrote:I know it was like that in rifts when it first came out

No, it was not.

Here's how I broke it down in a previous post on the subject:
Killer Cyborg wrote:
Preacher wrote:The statement that has been quoted several times now is a pretty straight forward and clear statement. All players automatically start with two attacks. How does that not come across clearly to you and why?
Additonal attacks are gained from Hand to Hand skills and boxing. Again how is it you or anyone can say it has not been there since day one in Rifts?

I have first printings of the RMB & Conversion Book and there it is.

HOW do you misintrepret "ALL PLAYERS START WITH 2 ATTACKS?" Main Book first printing 1990. Where is the room for error? All Players? Start? With 2 Attacks?

I honestly do not see how you can misunderstand that?

I'll explain.

First of all, the statement itself is likely a mistake. For one thing, it's in the psychic combat section; NOT the normal combat section.
For another, it is directly contradicted on p. 28 under the physical skills section, in the description of hand to hand skills.
"Characters without combat training have one hand to hand attack per melee at levels one and two, but get a second attack at level three and a third attack at level nine."

Also, under the HTH skill descriptions (p. 37), HTH Basic says "Two attacks per melee" at level one. Not "+2 attacks per melee," like it says everywhere else that bonus attacks are described just "Two attacks per melee."

And on the same page, HTH Expert and Martial Arts both say; "Two attacke per melee to start."
I don't see how that's unclear. A first level character with HTH Expert/MA gets Two Attacks Per Melee to start.... NOT two bonus attacks, not +2 attacks, just two attacks per melee to start.
This is clearly describing a base number of attacks.

Furthermore, the writers themselves (Meaning KS) never use the TAFL (Two Attacks For Living) in the Rifts book.

p. 39, under "Determining the Number of Attacks Per Melee and Combat Bonuses"
"This is how it works. Players will find two skills that exclusively determine the pilot's number of attacks when piloting a high-tech robot or power armor:
1) The pilot's normal, hand to hand combat skill, and 2) The pilot's Robot Combat skill. Simply combine the number of attacks gained from each skill. The total number indicates the total attacks per melee possible."

No mention of any free two attacks for living.
Only two factors; HTH skill, and Robot Combat skill.

Furthermore, "Most first level pilots, with both skills, will have a total of four attacks per melee."
That's 4 attacks; two from HTH skill, and two from Robot/PA combat skill.
NOT 6 attacks, which is what would be common if KS was using the TAFL.

p. 40 (discussing characters with Pilot: Robots & Power Armor skill, but no Robot Combat skill)
"A first level character will usuall have two attacks per melee."
"If a pilot does not have hand to hand combat training, he or she is limited to one attack per melee and NO special bonuses."

p. 40
"For Example: A character piloting a Coalition Urban Assault bot (Enforcer UAR-1) has five attacks per melee."
Why 5?
If KS was using TAFL, then he'd have at least 6 attacks; 2 for living, 2 from HTH, and 2 from Robot Combat.

p. 42-44
"An Example of Combat"
Portrays a battle between a UAR-1 and some bandits.
The UAR-1 has 5 attacks. The rebel SAMAS pilot only has 4.
If KS was using TAFL, then the UAR-1 would have 6+ attacks, and so would the SAMAS (unless he had no robot combat skill, in which case he'd only have 1-2 attacks according to the rules cited above).

p. 249
Animalistic supernatural predators have 1d4 attacks per melee.
This makes sense if the average is assumed to be 2-3 attacks per melee... the animals might be a bit slower or a bit faster than the normal human. At worst, they'd be just as slow as an untrained human (1 attack).
It does NOT make sense if the average number of attacks for a human is 4-5... that would mean that even an untrained human would be twice as fast as 25% of the supernatural predators, and that the fastest supernatural predators would only be as fast as a normal 1st level human with HTH: Basic.

p. 251
Intelligent Supernatural Monsters also get only 1d4 attacks per melee.
So ditto all the above for predators, only more-so.

p. 256
A Typical Coalition Grunt is first level, has HTH: Expert, and has 2 attacks per melee.
A Typical Coalition SAMAS has HTH Expet + Elite Power Armor Combat for a total of 4 attacks per melee.
A Typical High-Tech Bandit has HTH: Expert and 2 attacks per melee.

So if you have any explanation for how KS meant to include the TAFL in the main book, but neglected to ever use it or mention it outside of that one passage under psychic combat, and somehow neglected to edit out all the rules contradicting the TAFL... let's hear it!

Personally, I don't think he's that incompetent.
I can buy him making a single mistake in the psychic combat section more easily than I can buy him making 8+ mistakes spread out all through the book.

The statements in the RMB that are along the lines of "all player characters start with two attacks" are based on an assumption that all PCs are going to have HTH combat skills, and that their HTH combat skill is NOT going to be Assassin (as Assassin is reserved for Evil characters, and there is an assumption that PCs won't be Evil).
The references to gaining attacks from HTH combat skills are referring to the fact that characters with HTH skills gained attacks as they leveled up, NOT to stacking the base attacks from the forms to a mythical 2 attacks that "everybody" always gets.

Now, some people usually pop up to claim that the TAFL was intended for PCs only, and that's why NPCs don't have them.
But that still skips over the references to the average PC having only 2 attacks at first level (or 4 attacks if they're robot pilots), and it ignores the sentence from Rifts, p. 37
(Right after the mention that all PCs get two attacks to start):
"A typical non-player character gets only two attacks per melee plus hand to hand combat and/or boxing skill additions."
That's the same description of attacks as when it describes PCs.
NPCs and PCs work the same way when it comes to determining attacks per melee.

Here's another recounting that I did.
There's some overlap with the other recounting, but there's some additional references as well:
Vrykolas2k wrote:Two attacks for living are in the core rules...

1. No, they weren't.
2. If they were, then please enlighten me on the following things:
p. 35:
"Characters without combat training have only one attack per melee and have no automatic parry."

p. 37 Under Hand to Hand: Expert and Martial Arts
"Level 1 Two attacks per melee to start"
Under HTH: Assassin
"one attack per melee"
Any time a character gets bonus attacks, they are listed as "+1 Attack(s)." Never as just "x attacks per melee" and definitely not "x attacks to start."

p. 39 under "Determinign the Number of Attacks per Melee and Combat Bonuses"
"Players will find two skills that exclusively determine the pilot's number of attacks when piloting a high-tech robot or power armor: 1) The pilot's normal, hand to hand comabt skill, and 2) The pilot's Robot Combat skill. Simply combine the number of attacks gained from each skill. the total number indicates the total attacks per melee possible. Most first level pilots, with both skills, will have a total of FOUR attacks per melee."

p. 40
"For Example: A character piloting a Coalition Urban Assault bot (Enforcer UAR-1) has five attacks per melee."
This can make sense if the pilot has 2 attacks from his HTH skill, one attack from boxing, and two from his Robot Combat skill.

Also on p. 40 (emphasis added):
"For example: A Coalition Urban Assault Bot is up against four bandit robots. The pilot decides to launch four of his missiles at one enemy. That's one attack, leaving three more that melee. He can not fire the four missiles simultaneously at all four of the enemy. To strike all four, the pilot must fire at each individual target seperately. However, this will take up all four of the pilot's attacks that melee."
Again, this only makes sense if he has 2 attacks from HTH and 2 attacks from Robot Combat.
No 2 attacks for living.

p. 42-44 "An Example of Combat"
The SAMAS pilots only have 4 attacks each, and the UAR-1 Enforcer pilot only has 5 attacks each. Again, no Two Attacks For Living (TAFL, for short).

p. 194 SAMAS armor.
The C-40R has an ROF of "Equal to number of combined hand to hand attacks (usually 4-6)."
2 for HTH, 2 for Robot Combat Elite, and another 1 or two from boxing and/or high level.
If you include the TAFL, then the minimum number of attacks for a CS SAMAS Pilot would be 6.

p. 196 The UAR-1 Enforcer
The C-50R rail gun has an ROF of "Equal to number of combined hand to hand attacks (usually 4-6)."
2 for HTH, 2 for Robot Combat Elite, and another 1 or two from boxing and/or high level.
If you include the TAFL, then the minimum number of attacks for a CS Enforcer Pilot would be 6.

p. 198 The Spider-Skull Walker
The C-100R rail guns has an ROF of "Equal to number of combined hand to hand attacks (usually 4-6)."
2 for HTH, 2 for Robot Combat Elite, and another 1 or two from boxing and/or high level.
If you include the TAFL, then the minimum number of attacks for a CS Skull-Walker Pilot would be 6.

The CR-4T Laser Turrets have an ROF of "Equal to number of combined hand to hand attacks (usually 4-6)."
2 for HTH, 2 for Robot Combat Elite, and another 1 or two from boxing and/or high level.
If you include the TAFL, then the minimum number of attacks for a CS Skull-Walker Pilot would be 6.

p. 223 The Glitter Boy
The Boom Gun has an ROF of "Equal to number of combined hand to hand attacks (usually 4-6)."
2 for HTH, 2 for Robot Combat Elite, and another 1 or two from boxing and/or high level.
If you include the TAFL, then the minimum number of attacks for a Glitter Boyr Pilot would be 6.

p. 249
A randomly rolled Animalistic Predator only has 1d4 attacks.
If the PCs have the TAFL, then this means that the very fastest of these wupernatural predators will be only as fast as a low-end level 1 character.

P. 251
The Intelligent Supernatural Monsters have the same number of attacks; 1d4.

p. 256
-The Typical CS Grunt has HTH Expert and only 2 attacks per melee. No TAFL.
-The Typical CS SAMAS has HTH Expert + Elite Power Armor Combat training for a total of 4 attacks per melee.
No TAFL.
-All listed dinosaurs have 2 attacks per melee. If PCs had TAFL, then a first level scholar with HTH basic would be twice as fast as any dinosaur.
-A Typical High Tech Bandit or Headhunter has HTH: Expert and has 2 attacks per melee.
No TAFL.

Edit:
And here's ANOTHER old post where I address the issue:
Killer Cyborg wrote:When I went to Gen-Con and talked to Kevin Siembieda, I asked him about it.
He said that they were an addition to the rules, made after the first few books were released. He's a boxing fan, and he noticed that people can get of a LOT more than 2 attacks per 15 seconds of melee. So he changed the rules.

I ran the idea by him that PCs got more attacks than NPCs, and he said No.

After I got home from Gen-Con, I looked through the copy of CB1 Revised that I bought there. Guess what I found...

CB1R, p. 12-13
"Characters with no hand to hand combat traingin get one attack/action per melee round at levels 1, 6, and 12...."
"Note: It is rare for most characters not to have at least the Hand to Hand: Basic combat skill, but civilian NPCs like a child, high school student, housewife, white collar worker, or game designer, are probably only going to have one or two attacks per round..."

Which explains a bit of the reasoning going on in assuming that all PCs get 2 attacks per melee. It is assuming that they're going to have at least HTH Basic (and apparently forgets HTH Assassin, or assumes that PCs are going to be Good aligned).

More importantly, and I apparantly cannot emphasize this enough:
"Characters with any kind of formal hand to hand combat training (HTH Basic, Expert, Assassin, etc. automatically starts with two attacks per melee, in addition to those provided from their actual hand to hand combat skill. That means a first level character typically starts with FOUR attacks per melee round- two to begin and two from a specific Hand to Hand skill. Game Designer Note: This was not originally the case when I first designed the game system. Back then the character only got the number of attacks provided by the Hand to Hand skill (2), plus those gained from experience in that skill and any possible O.C.C. bonus. A lot of people seem to prefer fewer attacks per round tha more. That's okay. If that's what you like, start with only two from Hand to Hand skills and forget about the other two. Role-Playing is flexible, go with what you, as GM, feel most comfortable with. I only increased the starting number (four instead of two) because it seemed more realistic for characters who are trained in combat (including adventurers who need to know how to handle themselves in the wild)."

So not only do I have it from KS himself, I have it in writing, in canon text.
The TAFL were NOT originally in Rifts.
They were added in later.

Posted: **Tue Jul 21, 2015 12:20 pm**

Killer Cyborg wrote:
drewkitty ~..~ wrote:The 1st text supporting the 2 APM for living was in rifts was in the RMB.... in the psychic combat in the reminder says that all chars start off with 2 APM and that additional APM are gained through h2h & boxing.

That text doesn't support the TAFL.

My first game experience with the PB system was with a group of gamers that pointed directly to that section in the RMB to support the addition of the 2APMFL. So even if it was not intended to support it, it ended up supporting it because it had the idea is in it. You know, that POV that says that 'the text say something different to each that read it it'. Or that 'people see what they want to see'.

I've been on the boards long enough to have participated in the 2APMFL debate for rifts here so it was more then just one or two people pushing it back then....in the here and now....nope there is no-one really pushing the issue to change the PF2 canon.

Posted: **Tue Jul 21, 2015 5:53 pm**

zyanitevp wrote:I again reference the Kevin statement of "You are the GM- do whatever works for your group."

This is probably the best rule out there.

It might not stop arguments, but you can use the random dice roll rule to sort them if they don't stop after a few minutes.
Some people use the rule and some people don't and I know both, and neither of the games have broken down from the lack, or usage of the rule.
I personally don't think it applies because I can still read in the book where it says 1 attack if you don't have a hth, and I'm biased as I don't like a massive number off attacks per round anyway. If 2 people are fighting and they both have 5 attacks they are both attacking each other every 3 seconds with aimed full strength blows, that is some pretty epic sword swinging right there, but it does make more sense with guns but no guns here.
Not to mention the boredom that the (1-2) mages get when they get their ~2 magical attacks, while the (2-4) fighters have their 5-6 actions.

Posted: **Tue Jul 21, 2015 6:00 pm**

I allow sharpshooters to fire a bow volley equal to the rate of fire in one attack.
1/2 bonuses but only one attack roll for the volley to hit. Cannot make a called shot using a volley.

Posted: **Tue Jul 28, 2015 1:52 am**

My RoF 10 001 trick likes this option.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:in the psychic combat in the reminder says that all chars start off with 2 APM and that additional APM are gained through h2h & boxing.

Kinda what KC quoted, but my own words...

You can gain attacks at higher levels with all the hand to hand skills.

They are worded as + (plus), in line with the concept of 'gain'.

This in contrast with the level 1 attacks which are not described as a plus.

So you don't necessarily gain additional attacks at FIRST level, but rather, from later ones.

Heck, in the case of Asassin, you actually lose 1 attack at first level before you gain 2 later to make up for it

Posted: **Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:36 am**

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:The 1st text supporting the 2 APM for living was in rifts was in the RMB.... in the psychic combat in the reminder says that all chars start off with 2 APM and that additional APM are gained through h2h & boxing.
Yes, this conflicts with the h2h leveling tables that are on the same page.

It is just with the RGMG that the two APM for living were included into the rest of the combat text.
---
The PF2 psi combat text says that more APM are gained through level advancement of the h2h and boxing.

My 2nd ed book says this in the psychic combat reminder.
"A reminder: Most player characters start off with two attacks per 15 second melee round. Additional attacks may be acquired as one advances
in hand to hand combat experience and from the boxing skill, special bonuses or magic. The average person, not trained in combat, will only have one attack per melee round. Experienced fighters will have an average of three to six attacks per melee, sometimes more."

So the living +2 attacks rule must be just a rifts things

Posted: **Tue Jul 28, 2015 5:37 pm**

kiralon wrote:
drewkitty ~..~ wrote:The 1st text supporting the 2 APM for living was in rifts was in the RMB.... in the psychic combat in the reminder says that all chars start off with 2 APM and that additional APM are gained through h2h & boxing.
Yes, this conflicts with the h2h leveling tables that are on the same page.

It is just with the RGMG that the two APM for living were included into the rest of the combat text.
---
The PF2 psi combat text says that more APM are gained through level advancement of the h2h and boxing.

My 2nd ed book says this in the psychic combat reminder.
"A reminder: Most player characters start off with two attacks per 15 second melee round. Additional attacks may be acquired as one advances
in hand to hand combat experience and from the boxing skill, special bonuses or magic. The average person, not trained in combat, will only have one attack per melee round. Experienced fighters will have an average of three to six attacks per melee, sometimes more."

So the living +2 attacks rule must be just a rifts things

I was referencing the RMB not PFRPG2nd ed MB.
Since the discussion brought up what happened in Rift long ago about whether or not Rifts char got 2 APM "for living" or not.

Posted: **Tue Jul 28, 2015 9:34 pm**

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
kiralon wrote:
drewkitty ~..~ wrote:The 1st text supporting the 2 APM for living was in rifts was in the RMB.... in the psychic combat in the reminder says that all chars start off with 2 APM and that additional APM are gained through h2h & boxing.
Yes, this conflicts with the h2h leveling tables that are on the same page.

It is just with the RGMG that the two APM for living were included into the rest of the combat text.
---
The PF2 psi combat text says that more APM are gained through level advancement of the h2h and boxing.

My 2nd ed book says this in the psychic combat reminder.
"A reminder: Most player characters start off with two attacks per 15 second melee round. Additional attacks may be acquired as one advances
in hand to hand combat experience and from the boxing skill, special bonuses or magic. The average person, not trained in combat, will only have one attack per melee round. Experienced fighters will have an average of three to six attacks per melee, sometimes more."

So the living +2 attacks rule must be just a rifts things

I was referencing the RMB not PFRPG2nd ed MB.
Since the discussion brought up what happened in Rift long ago about whether or not Rifts char got 2 APM "for living" or not.

Untrained people get 1 attack per melee AND 2 non-combat actions per melee. I tend to think if the untrained get 2 free non-combat actions then the trained get 2 free combat actions.

Posted: **Tue Jul 28, 2015 10:06 pm**

SittingBull wrote:Untrained people get 1 attack per melee AND 2 non-combat actions per melee. I tend to think if the untrained get 2 free non-combat actions then the trained get 2 free combat actions.

That is a way to look at it.

With my own chars I add in two APM after asking the GM how his house rules govern how many combat actions a char has. Cause most GMs just say add them in.

Posted: **Wed Jul 29, 2015 11:38 pm**

I tend to stick with Palladium's universal rule that PCs tend to be a little better than the norm and start with 2 attacks plus those provided by combat training (often giving them 4 at 1st level) regardless of which particular game I may be running/playing.

To be honest, it really does help simplify transitions between world when dealing with games that can cross dimensions (from PF to Rifts to HU to NB to 3G/PW and back). To have to recalculate such things when changing worlds (of which PF is the only one where such a change would happen) seems a little over complicating something that should be relatively simple.

Besides... it was probably an editing oversight when converting 1st Ed to 2nd Ed not to give all characters 2 attacks as a base.

Posted: **Thu Jul 30, 2015 9:24 am**

This is some of why I just rewrote the combat rules.

Posted: **Thu Jul 30, 2015 12:14 pm**

Razorwing wrote:I tend to stick with Palladium's universal rule that PCs tend to be a little better than the norm and start with 2 attacks plus those provided by combat training (often giving them 4 at 1st level) regardless of which particular game I may be running/playing.

To be honest, it really does help simplify transitions between world when dealing with games that can cross dimensions (from PF to Rifts to HU to NB to 3G/PW and back). To have to recalculate such things when changing worlds (of which PF is the only one where such a change would happen) seems a little over complicating something that should be relatively simple.

Besides... it was probably an editing oversight when converting 1st Ed to 2nd Ed not to give all characters 2 attacks as a base.

Except that that is Not a 'megavercial rule'....not all settings have two APM for living as a part of their canon.

PF2 does not.
NB does not.
Macross 2 does not.

What is so hard about just acknowledging what the canon says and then just adding a couple APM to a char as a house rule?

Posted: **Thu Jul 30, 2015 8:15 pm**

Mark Hall wrote:This is some of why I just rewrote the combat rules. Mr. Uber-deathly-killing-machine, has spent 4 skills on combat, plus learned every special maneuver he can at 1st level", the hope is that said character will be so widely incompetent at anything that doesn't have an initiative roll attached that he won't be played.

Mr Uber death killing machine would be played by at least a third of the people I have dm'd, and they would make most of the encounters fights. I cant talk to him to buy his stuff, ill just kill him and take it, wow it took 10 police to kill mr uber, well heres his brother to get revenge, heres his cousin to get revenge but he managed to kill 12 people yes, maybe the 70th times the charm, no damn he only killed 6 people. 71 .. 72 . . 73

I have found that a lot of people are very happy to take mr uber death killing machine with the negative of no skills, because when they get into a tight spot that doesn't involve killing they can say, not my problem, I don't have the skills for it.

Posted: **Thu Jul 30, 2015 8:32 pm**

kiralon wrote:
Mark Hall wrote:This is some of why I just rewrote the combat rules. Mr. Uber-deathly-killing-machine, has spent 4 skills on combat, plus learned every special maneuver he can at 1st level", the hope is that said character will be so widely incompetent at anything that doesn't have an initiative roll attached that he won't be played.

Mr Uber death killing machine would be played by at least a third of the people I have dm'd, and they would make most of the encounters fights. I cant talk to him to buy his stuff, ill just kill him and take it, wow it took 10 police to kill mr uber, well heres his brother to get revenge, heres his cousin to get revenge but he managed to kill 12 people yes, maybe the 70th times the charm, no damn he only killed 6 people. 71 .. 72 . . 73

I have found that a lot of people are very happy to take mr uber death killing machine with the negative of no skills, because when they get into a tight spot that doesn't involve killing they can say, not my problem, I don't have the skills for it.

Sadly that is far truer than I wish....

Forums of the Megaverse®

Rates of Fire

Rates of Fire

Re: Rates of Fire

Re: Rates of Fire

Re: Rates of Fire

Re: Rates of Fire

Re: Rates of Fire

Re: Rates of Fire

Re: Rates of Fire

Re: Rates of Fire

Re: Rates of Fire

Re: Rates of Fire

Re: Rates of Fire

Re: Rates of Fire

Re: Rates of Fire

Re: Rates of Fire

Re: Rates of Fire

Re: Rates of Fire

Re: Rates of Fire

Re: Rates of Fire

Re: Rates of Fire

Re: Rates of Fire

Re: Rates of Fire

Re: Rates of Fire

Re: Rates of Fire

Re: Rates of Fire

Re: Rates of Fire

Re: Rates of Fire

Re: Rates of Fire

Re: Rates of Fire

Re: Rates of Fire

Re: Rates of Fire

Re: Rates of Fire

Re: Rates of Fire

Re: Rates of Fire