Psi-Warriors, Psi-Swords, and Cyber Knights

[Dog_O_War]

We don't purposefully exploit game mechanics in our games. Or 'abuse' or what ever you want to call it.

Oh, so you don't do what is to your advantage? Does that mean that you do everything then that is not to your advantage, or do you just choose your actions randomly, regardless of the outcome?

No. As I said we don't -purposefully exploit game mechanics in our games, or 'abuse' them-. If it's a clear attempt to exploit the mechanics, it's deemed cheating. That doesn't mean we don't do things to our advantage. We just don't purposefully cheat to do so.

And by exploit, I mean to purposefully take advantage of a flaw.

That's another big lie on your part; you've willfully admitted to taking advantage of a flaw; the game-system is flawed, and you've taken it upon yourself to otherwise modify the game, even in areas where flaws do not exist. That is a prime example of exploitation.

Here's a verbal diagram:
person A "man, this rules-set has numerous flaws, we should fix them".
person B "yeah we should. Let's make the Wilk's laser sword able to parry".
person A "but that isn't a rules-flaw; the weapon states that it's not able to, on-purpose".
person B "yeah, but I see an opportunity here to take advantage of the situation".

Person B in this diagram is doing what you said you were doing, and as you can plainly see, they're taking advantage of the game via exploitation.

In our games that's cheating and not welcome at the table.

It's also an opinion of yours, and not a fact as far as the boards are concerned.

That may be why I put 'In our games'. In that statement. I also stated that many people do such. Which means you're just pointing out what I already said in both cases.

Actually, what I'm pointing out is that you're not arguing facts, and instead have resorted to saying, "well I don't cheat".

I know. Lots of players read every written word of the game mechanics for ways to abuse or exploit poorly worded entries. Our game we go by the intent of the things. Not the writer's poorly executed explanation. (If it is indeed poorly worded)

"the intent of things"
Did you not read the first four reasons as to why the Wilk's laser sword is is inferior? None of those are a fault of the rules. I do note though that you're not addressing them; I am assuming it's because you have no factual counters to them, and instead are intent on just saying, "well I don't cheat" - which I will point out as to why that is a lie, below*.

No. I pointed out why they aren't viable in our games.

Since you didn't high-light or address which portion of the quoted text you were referring to, I can only infer that you are saying that 'no, you did not read the first four reasons' and you're lying again by saying that you didn't say (paraphrased) "well I don't cheat", when you inferred above ("In our games that's cheating and not welcome at the table." which includes you), but as I've pointed out, you're just as guilty of exploiting as everyone else, possibly more-so given that you're doing it blatantly.

Again. I know alot of players try that stuff. It's common. At our table it'd get you in trouble. If you continued you'd either get twacked with the RUE, or not invited back.

Well at our table we don't punish people for playing the game presented,

There's a difference between playing the game presented, and purposefully exploiting and abusing the game.

You're right, there is.
But just so as we're clear on understanding each-other, I'll offer an example.

In the game "Rifts", there is an item called the Wilk's Laser Sword. This item is clearly an unequivocally stated as not being able to be used for parrying. Cheating/exploiting then can and would include modifying the weapon so that it could be used to parry, and then presenting it as able to do so on say, a forum on the internet, during a discussion as to why it's better than another particular melee weapon.

and instead choose to correct apparent mistakes instead of excluding people because they don't happen to hold to our particular traditions.

I choose to correct apparent mistakes as well. Case in point, the weak psi swords of the Cyberknights, and the 'wilks laser sword'. Both have been corrected in our games via house rules.

Those "mistakes" you're pointing out are opinion and not based on factual evidence. That isn't called a "mistake"; that's called "something you do not agree with".

And yet you seem unable to tell the difference. At least, that is the evidence you've presented thus-far.

More over the Laser sword parries just fine in our games. It's a light saber. Light sabers parry just fine. Sure they call it a "laser sword' (So do they in Star Wars from time to time, depending on who's describing it) So they don't get sued. We understand not wanting to get a lawsuit over a fictional weapon in an RPG, but it's a light saber. lol

Really? Because the book flat-out states that the intention was that this weapon cannot be used to parry. *Doing otherwise is just the same as cheating; you're creating a rules exploit that did not otherwise exist, and that is not the intent of the game. Literally, there is no better example within the game.

Not at all. We created a house rule to give the item in question, the abilities of what it was clearly an.... homage. The Wilks laser sword couldn't be written up as a 'Light saber' least there be legal matters at hand. Still. It is what it is. Calling it by a different name and changing the stats enough so Palladium doesn't get taken to court doesn't change that.

So without your house-rule, is it somehow better to use the weapon in melee combat, given that you cannot avoid damage unless you give up an attack dodging, because otherwise you take damage even on a parry?

Because the skewed interpretation you offered as to why it was better was based on damage; when you use this weapon in melee, you're taking damage more often than if you had a weapon you could parry with. I noticed that you didn't bother to include this fact of the game; did you not know this rule, or simply chose to ignore it, in favour of your own opinion in the matter?

I ask because holding your favour over facts is a very, very poor argument and not knowing all the rules means your view on the matter is ignorant.

But assuming that it is because of neither, then it must be a skewed example; this is a fallacious argument then and automatically falls short of any truth of the matter.

For example, saying that the Q-102 Ion Stopper pistol is better than the JA-9 because its damage is 4d6+4(?) versus the JA-9's 2d6 fails to consider that there is 3800 feet where the Q-102 does no damage and the JA-9 continues to do damage.

Because that's how your example and reasoning is presented; flawed and ignoring numerous important factors.

[ShadowLogan]

You're not wrong that it 'could' just be all those things. It's just not how it's presented in the books. It's not presented as a ceremonial badge and nothing more. It's presented as their primary weapon. And a signifigant and major one at that. Not the equivalent of any city rat with a vibro knife.

While I agree that the books do not present the CK-Psi-Sword as a ceremonial badge, and it is hinted at later (post-RMB writings) it is their primary weapon.

However the books are very clear that that CK- Psi-Sword IS NOT AS POWERFUL as the Super Psionic Power:
"Lastly, the cyber-knight's psi-sword is not quite as powerful as the mind melter's, but it is still a weapon to be feared."-RMB pg63
"If there is any downside, it is that the Cyber-Knight's Psi-Sword is note quite as powerful as the Mind Melter's, but it is still a weapon to be feared."-SoT4 pg24 AND RUE pg64

The text is also clear that there are differences between the two Psi-Swords in terms of creation time, ISP expenditure (which can limit how often one can summon it), and duration limits. So there is no reason with the way they are stated/presented that would require changing the various Psi-Swords in the ways you suggest to make them more playable.

The Cyber-Knight's Psi-Sword by RAW is not the equivalent of a City Rat w/a Vibro-knife/blade. Some one drawing a Vibro-blade does not have the same effect as someone drawing a Psi-Sword (CK or not). To match the versatility of the Psi-Sword (Ck or not) just can not be done with a Vibro-blade (they can not change the shape/size/color on a whim) and would require one to carry multiple examples to get the size/shape range. Even in terms of damage, they aren't equivalent given that the Psi-Sword is level dependent where the tech blade isn't.

They're shown as useing the Psi sword as their primary weapon. Even against superior armed people. Again back to Sir Thorpe(Sp?) Using his Psi tomahawk in a fight with multiple CS troops in full MD armor (100 min) And a glitter boy killer. he didn't whip out grenades or a heavy plasma rifle. He used his psi sword (Tomahawk, same thing) , and he won. Including a one shot, beheading of a CS officer in md armor. (Which technically he had no way to do. CS Armor has 100md main body and 70 md in the head. Thorpe is lvl 10 as of CWC (If there's more recent stats. please tell me) and his psi sword does 4D6, and he does not have fencing.)

If we look at Palladium adaptions of Robotech (both 1E and 2E) and Macross 2 for a moment we can see numerous examples* where the game stats don't reflect well with their animated depictions. That would indicate that story depictions, even in Rifts, are not going to match up with game mechanics resulting in compromises like Thorpe doing damage that seems inconsistent by RAW.

*examples (and this is by no means complete as i'm sure there is stuff I'm not thinking of):
-Macross 2 OVA, the Metal Siren (mecha size) is shown to have an attack that destroyed a large enemy cruiser (stat wise this attack isn't listed, nor is it possible by the rules)
-Robotech, we see Breetai ripp off the chest armor plating from a VF-1 in Battloid mode (in one section) exposing the internals/cockpit. No allowances by the rules (1E or 2E)
-gunpods of various mecha are shown to be just as lethal to their intended targets in terms of one-shotting them, but by the rules you can't do it
-ROF of the VHT-1 main cannon is shown to be much higher than the 1E or 2E writeups would have one believe is possible.
-the Logan was shown to parry incoming fire w/its wings, something was relatively well done in 1E, but not 2E
-Scott is shown to use melee attacks from his Alpha to drop various Invid mecha, something that the rules mechanically would not allow
-in 1E Robotech, the Beta was way off base with its animated depiction (it had 5 sets of guns in the animation, 4 or which where absent)
-in 1E Robotech, the Invid RCB was missing a head cannon depicted in use
-in 2E Robotech, they stat out Lunk's "Armor Piercing Cannon" from the show as a Railgun though no indication from the show that it is a railgun
-in 2E Robotech, they eventually stat out Louie's Pupil Pistol system and mechanically it does not operate the way it is described in the show
-in 1E Robotech (corrected in 2E) the VR-052 Cyclones have GR-103s that they never are shown to use in the animation
-Invid Bionic experiment Dusty Ares is unique compared to what the books allows/examples (might not work in other ways to, really depends on how partial cyborgs deal with explosions)
-mechanically Scott's use of the H-90 to single-shot Dinosaurs doesn't work, even a bursting fire from him and Rand to drop a T-Rex doesn't work (w/# of shots fired) in either edition

[Killer Cyborg]

the psi-sword doesn't have to be their strongest weapon to be a symbol of their organization.

civil war officers carried swords as a sign of their office. while it was possible they might need to use it, it wasn't used because they needed a sword, it was used as a symbol of their authority. they might also have a pistol as a sidearm... again, not because it was more effective than a rifle, which they were not expected to use anyways because they were supposed to be too busy commanding troops.

the cavalry saber is another iconic weapon. and yet, how often do you think that was their weapon of choice? certainly, it was useful in the right situation, but they carried guns and used them most of the time.

even today, some military officers have swords as part of their dress uniform because it is a symbol of their office. not because it's better to have a sword than an assault rifle.

the psi-sword is a symbol of the cyber-knights. it does not have to be their most powerful weapon to do that. it can be a purely situational weapon and do that job just fine. it can be a weapon that they never expect to have to use and which is drastically inferior to just about any weapon they have and still do that job just fine (though the psi-sword is generally speaking not *that* bad).

also, remember that level 1 is pretty much gigantic noob status. at level 1, you're barely out of training, if that... you can very realistically go from level 1 to level 2 in under a month just from using your skills (~2000 xp for level 2, at 25 xp per skill use you're looking at ~80 uses, and it's not too hard to fit in 3+ uses per day. depending on skill, you may use it far more often in fact). in cyberknight terms, a level 1 cyber-knight is someone who was pretty much a squire yesterday and just now finally learned how to create a psi-sword after years of training and practice.

Agreed.

There's nothing in the RMB indicating that the Psi-Sword was intended to be a primary weapon for CKs.
They don't even have to be proficient with it.

[Whiskeyjack]

They're shown as useing the Psi sword as their primary weapon. Even against superior armed people. Again back to Sir Thorpe(Sp?) Using his Psi tomahawk in a fight with multiple CS troops in full MD armor (100 min) And a glitter boy killer. he didn't whip out grenades or a heavy plasma rifle. He used his psi sword (Tomahawk, same thing) , and he won. Including a one shot, beheading of a CS officer in md armor. (Which technically he had no way to do. CS Armor has 100md main body and 70 md in the head. Thorpe is lvl 10 as of CWC (If there's more recent stats. please tell me) and his psi sword does 4D6, and he does not have fencing.)

If we look at Palladium adaptions of Robotech (both 1E and 2E) and Macross 2 for a moment we can see numerous examples* where the game stats don't reflect well with their animated depictions. That would indicate that story depictions, even in Rifts, are not going to match up with game mechanics resulting in compromises like Thorpe doing damage that seems inconsistent by RAW.

*examples (and this is by no means complete as i'm sure there is stuff I'm not thinking of):
-Macross 2 OVA, the Metal Siren (mecha size) is shown to have an attack that destroyed a large enemy cruiser (stat wise this attack isn't listed, nor is it possible by the rules)
-Robotech, we see Breetai ripp off the chest armor plating from a VF-1 in Battloid mode (in one section) exposing the internals/cockpit. No allowances by the rules (1E or 2E)
-gunpods of various mecha are shown to be just as lethal to their intended targets in terms of one-shotting them, but by the rules you can't do it
-ROF of the VHT-1 main cannon is shown to be much higher than the 1E or 2E writeups would have one believe is possible.
-the Logan was shown to parry incoming fire w/its wings, something was relatively well done in 1E, but not 2E
-Scott is shown to use melee attacks from his Alpha to drop various Invid mecha, something that the rules mechanically would not allow
-in 1E Robotech, the Beta was way off base with its animated depiction (it had 5 sets of guns in the animation, 4 or which where absent)
-in 1E Robotech, the Invid RCB was missing a head cannon depicted in use
-in 2E Robotech, they stat out Lunk's "Armor Piercing Cannon" from the show as a Railgun though no indication from the show that it is a railgun
-in 2E Robotech, they eventually stat out Louie's Pupil Pistol system and mechanically it does not operate the way it is described in the show
-in 1E Robotech (corrected in 2E) the VR-052 Cyclones have GR-103s that they never are shown to use in the animation
-Invid Bionic experiment Dusty Ares is unique compared to what the books allows/examples (might not work in other ways to, really depends on how partial cyborgs deal with explosions)
-mechanically Scott's use of the H-90 to single-shot Dinosaurs doesn't work, even a bursting fire from him and Rand to drop a T-Rex doesn't work (w/# of shots fired) in either edition

You're comparing two very different things here. One is a cartoon series adapted into a roleplaying game where things had to be changed to allow for game balance versus just telling a story. The other is a character class in a game that has individuals of that class doing things that it's stats shouldn't allow.

If I remember correctly as well, the PS bonus isn't added to Psi-swords, but it is to a vibro knife, making the knife a potentially far more powerful weapon. Personally, I add damage bonuses to all physical attacks since that makes sense to me.

In my current campaign I'm going to increase the damage done by the psi-sword of our CK so that it adds +2D6 at each increase. It will still come in less powerful than the mind-melter version, but it will make it a weapon of choice for the player.

[Killer Cyborg]

PS damage bonus isn't added to a vibro-knife, unless you're in an SDC world/setting.

[Alrik Vas]

a duel happens with weapons drawn when both combatants are prepared. The knight and warrior wouldn't have a 15 second wrestling match while one tries to summon their psi-sword. fair play in a duel of honor demands you allow your enemy to prepare themselves. besides, there are far better ways to cheat if you're going to be a scoundrel about it.

the psi-sword is the symbol of the knighthood, I can agree with that, however a sword is never a primary weapon for a soldier really. it's a sidearm. Spears, lances, flails, maces...things like that are primary weapons because they're anti-armor, because people wear armor in battles. you see knights/samurai/musketeers carrying swords while off the battlefield because...well, people aren't generally armored off the battlefield.

but back to psi-warrior vs cyberknight...

I'm confused on the no save vs Super TK thing. Doesn't the power have a strike bonus? wouldn't you need to hit your opponent? by the rules, they'd get a chance to defend, eh?

Fighting up close is fine for both. They'll both have sword and shield, the psi-warrior's will do slightly more average damage but he'll hit way less often, even with his extra strike bonuses because this game gives way better defense bonuses than it does offense, AND the cyberknight actually has paired weapons.

and a psi-sword is better than a city rat with a vibro-knife because the knight does it with style.

[Prysus]

a duel happens with weapons drawn when both combatants are prepared. The knight and warrior wouldn't have a 15 second wrestling match while one tries to summon their psi-sword. fair play in a duel of honor demands you allow your enemy to prepare themselves. besides, there are far better ways to cheat if you're going to be a scoundrel about it.

Greetings and Salutations. As a lot of this addresses things I said in my last post, I'll reply to said topics (even though it may not be directed at my specifically).

That depends on how you're going to define a duel.

du·el (do͞o′əl, dyo͞o′-)
n.
1. A prearranged, formal combat between two persons, usually fought to settle a point of honor.
2. A struggle for domination between two contending persons, groups, or ideas.

Taken from: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/duel ((Though most online dictionaries will have similar definitions from what I saw, and I just posted the one as I happened to have up at the time.))

The first represents more of what you're saying. The latter represents a more general conflict between two people. In the more classic concept of a duel (definition one), combat tends to be with chosen weapons (such as Psi-Sword and Psi-Shield), yet the original post also goes on to indicate the two combatants are just slinging every psionic at their disposal with no particular penchant towards weaponry.

Now you could go to argue that the chosen weapon is psionics in general, plus physical combat. This of course, only slants the duel all the more to the dedicated psychic (as opposed to the fighter who happens to have a couple psionics as well). Furthermore, if you look at my post, you'll notice that I mentioned various scenarios. The one regarding the "wrestling match" (as you describe it), I stated this is a non-duel of honor and aimed more for a general fight (second definition). It's only "cheating" if you try to take it out of the guidelines that I stated and then put it into the guidelines you feel they need to be in.

I went into this scenario for two reasons. 1: The scenario in the original post is set up to negate the advantages of the Cyber-Knight Psi-Sword, and then show how it's not as good as another version. Since this may not be the original poster's intent, I believe it's important to show other factors. 2: A personal pet peeve is the misconception people tend to have that Cyber-Knights need to twiddle their thumbs while opponents gain an advantage. For some reason people think it's only "fair" if the Cyber-Knight sits around until an opponent declares he's ready, and the opponent has additional advantages (such as psioincs) that the Cyber-Knight doesn't.

"Okay, so I need to stand back and do nothing while I let you form a more powerful weapon?"
"Uh huh."
"And after that you're going to get to use a whole bunch of other psionics that I don't have against me as well?"
"Uh huh."
"Any other advantages you need?
"Well, you have paired weapons and I don't, so maybe you should tie one hand behind your back as well."
"And then it'll be fair?"
"Uh huh."
"Well, if you say so, I wouldn't want someone to think me a scoundrel otherwise."

Now don't get me wrong, if a Cyber-Knight DOES agree to have every advantage stacked against him (either out of the stupidity most attribute to them, or just out of sheer arrogance), then the Cyber-Knight deserves to get his face driven into the ground and the world is probably better off without such stupidity in it. However I find this scenario highly unlikely, and that's why I addressed an array of options in my post (including more general conflict).

I'm confused on the no save vs Super TK thing. Doesn't the power have a strike bonus?

Well, if you can find a Saving Throw listed for the power, feel free to quote me a book and page number. Otherwise, there's no saving throw (except via house rule).

The power does have a strike bonus. As I'd read it (and based at least on part on the more in depth description in the parry bonus) that the strike bonus would be to actually ... well, hit something either with blunt telekinetic force (which I don't think you can do with a strike as there's no damage listed for it) or by manipulating an object (such as a sword) to hit your opponent with. I think it would be a stretch to say that the psychic must roll to strike to pick up a vase off the table, and then roll to strike again to throw it at someone. In my experiences, people only roll to throw the vase, not to pick it up. In this case though, instead of picking up a vase it's an opponent, and instead of throwing it you're just holding it in place. However, if we are going to go with the interpretation that you need to roll to strike to pick up a vase off the table (will continue this in the next quote) ...

wouldn't you need to hit your opponent? by the rules, they'd get a chance to defend, eh?

Well, you're not rolling to hit your opponent, you're rolling to using TK on the person to pick them up. You don't roll to strike with Bio-Manipulation for instance, or any number of other psionics. But, let's say that you need to roll ...

The psychic gets a +3 to strike. We'll call this a Ranged Attack, so needs an 8 or higher to succeed. That means all the psychic needs to roll is a 5 or higher (75% chance of success). Even with bad luck, the Cyber-Knight should be manipulated via TK in 2 or 3 actions at most (exceptionally bad luck could result in more, but relatively unlikely).

As for defense ... how do you think the Cyber-Knight will be defending against an invisible attack (to the point even See the Invisible shouldn't register it), that requires no body motions to even indicate the attack is happening? A relatively small number of Cyber-Knights have Sixth Sense (which shouldn't help in a duel as this expected danger), and even fewer have access to Intuitive Combat (which would stop them from using any other psionics). Allowing the Cyber-Knight a dodge might help make it fair, but not really in the rules or even logical.

[Killer Cyborg]

The +3 to strike is for TK hurld/wielded objects, not the power itself.
You don't need a strike roll to pick something up with TK.
You only need to roll a strike to hit something with the object that you picked up.

So if you want to use TK to pick up an enemy, you don't need to roll to strike to pick up that enemy.
You only need that roll to strike (and the +3 bonus) if you use TK to hurl that enemy at another enemy, or a specific spot on the ground, or whatever.

[Mack]

From the FAQ.

9. My role-playing friends and I have found a loophole of sorts concerning the Super Psionic power "Super Telekinesis".

Using our way of interpreting its abilities, one could lift a non-psionic NPC hundreds of feet into the air then drop the poor sap to a nice rocky death without even the benefit of a psionics save. This interpretation seems unfair and at the very least unbalancing. Did we totally misconstrue the abilities of this power or is this possible?

Answer: If Super TK is used as an attack, an attack roll is required and the intended victim should receive a saving throw.

From a rules/mechanics point of view, the defender should have some way to avoid the attack.
From an in-game point of view, people tend to wiggle around and they may slip out of a TK-grip.

Your mileage may vary.

[Tor]

How fast will a credit bill for recharging eclipse wrack up if someone is using this laser sword? Guessing it might burn more energy than a vibroblade, although I don't recall where is that rate was elaborated upon.

[Killer Cyborg]

From the FAQ.

9. My role-playing friends and I have found a loophole of sorts concerning the Super Psionic power "Super Telekinesis".

Using our way of interpreting its abilities, one could lift a non-psionic NPC hundreds of feet into the air then drop the poor sap to a nice rocky death without even the benefit of a psionics save. This interpretation seems unfair and at the very least unbalancing. Did we totally misconstrue the abilities of this power or is this possible?

Answer: If Super TK is used as an attack, an attack roll is required and the intended victim should receive a saving throw.

From a rules/mechanics point of view, the defender should have some way to avoid the attack.
From an in-game point of view, people tend to wiggle around and they may slip out of a TK-grip.

Your mileage may vary.

My mileage isn't very high with that answer.

The psychic rolls to strike... and, what? Does that mean that the defender gets to dodge? Or parry? How?
And does it count as a ranged weapon attack, needing an 8 to strike? Or a melee attack, needing a 4 to strike?
Either way, if the +3 bonus is included, that's still a 75% hit chance at best.

Then there's a savings throw, presumably against psionics, but that's not clear. Maybe it's a savings throw against the Strike roll? If so, it's the only one that I'm aware of. What bonuses would count? Bonuses vs. psionics?
And where do Borgs and Bots fit into this kind of thing?

Overall, that kind of answer is one reason why the FAQ has never been taken seriously except when it points to an in-the-book answer. When the FAQ goes off-book (which is often), it's usually worse than the problem it's trying to resolve.

[Shark_Force]

personally, i would house rule a strike roll to grab a resisting target* with super TK (iirc stabbing a vampire with a stake using TK is considered melee, so i'd consider this use to also be TK). of course, the strike roll itself isn't much of a protection (if my memory is correct about the TK vampire stake thing, that means we're looking at "don't roll a 1"), but a strike roll comes with the option to dodge as well... if the enemy is aware, that is. also, seeing as how they're dodging an invisible force and have no idea which way it's coming from (if it even has to come from any direction at all), you're looking at total blindness penalty of -10.

so still pretty devastating as i would rule it. but not completely unopposed.

of course, that's just my personal houserule.

*another house rule: if a target has no PPE or potential ability to gain psionics, it has no "psychic presence" to resist with and cannot be a resisting target. note that this does allow some machines, such as transferred intelligences and ARCHIE 3, to resist, but any machine race that does not have PPE and cannot gain psionics, such as a standard neural intelligence (eg shemarrians that don't use any of the homebrew in the thread about them) does not require a strike roll to grasp.