Do staves get W.P Blunt bonuses and W.P. Staff bonuses?

[dreicunan]

But let me once again cite RUE:

"Each W.P. provides combat training with a particular type of weapon. The result is hand to hand combat bonuses to strike and parry whenever that particular type of weapon is used. Bonuses that increase for that particular weapon are accumulative and are combined with the character's P.P attribute, O.C.C, and Hand to Hand Combat skill bonuses."

As I previously stated, the fact that it says "Bonuses with that particular weapon are accumulative and are combined with" those other three types of bonuses provides far more support to the view that multiple WPs stack than it does to the view that they don't, because it separately defines WP bonuses as accumulative in their own right and then separately states them as combining with other types as well.

As written, I think it means the opposite of that.
In order to mean what you think, then I believe that there would need to be a comma:
"Bonuses that increase for that particular weapon are accumulative, and are combined with the character's P.P attribute, O.C.C, and Hand to Hand Combat skill bonuses."

The presence of the comma would spit the sentence up into two independent clauses after "accumulative":
1. Bonuses that increase for that particular weapon are accumulative.
2. Bonuses that increase for that particular weapon are combined with the character's PP attribute (etc.).

Without a comma to split the sentence up, then the sentence is a single clause that says two things:
1. Bonuses that increase for that particular weapon are accumulative with the character's PP attribute (etc.).
2. Bonuses that increase for that particular weapon are combined with the character's PP attribute (etc.).

Both of which clauses simply mean the same thing: bonuses that increase for that particular weapon stack with the character's PP attribute (and the others listed).

The comma doesn't change the meaning there. The omission of a comma in a compound sentence in which the subject remains the same for both verbs is a longstanding convention as it allows you to use fewer words (and less ink and space, which mattered quite a bit when things were being set by hand). One could argue for either interpretation you suggested with or without a comma there. Arguing the latter point is essentially arguing the author is too wordy. The problem with the latter is the difficulty in proving that he was being too wordy here. Arguing the former is saying that the author was not just being too wordy here.

That said, I don't think that either of us deserve to be punched for our views on how to parse the sentence.

[Killer Cyborg]

But let me once again cite RUE:

"Each W.P. provides combat training with a particular type of weapon. The result is hand to hand combat bonuses to strike and parry whenever that particular type of weapon is used. Bonuses that increase for that particular weapon are accumulative and are combined with the character's P.P attribute, O.C.C, and Hand to Hand Combat skill bonuses."

As I previously stated, the fact that it says "Bonuses with that particular weapon are accumulative and are combined with" those other three types of bonuses provides far more support to the view that multiple WPs stack than it does to the view that they don't, because it separately defines WP bonuses as accumulative in their own right and then separately states them as combining with other types as well.

As written, I think it means the opposite of that.
In order to mean what you think, then I believe that there would need to be a comma:
"Bonuses that increase for that particular weapon are accumulative, and are combined with the character's P.P attribute, O.C.C, and Hand to Hand Combat skill bonuses."

The presence of the comma would spit the sentence up into two independent clauses after "accumulative":
1. Bonuses that increase for that particular weapon are accumulative.
2. Bonuses that increase for that particular weapon are combined with the character's PP attribute (etc.).

Without a comma to split the sentence up, then the sentence is a single clause that says two things:
1. Bonuses that increase for that particular weapon are accumulative with the character's PP attribute (etc.).
2. Bonuses that increase for that particular weapon are combined with the character's PP attribute (etc.).

Both of which clauses simply mean the same thing: bonuses that increase for that particular weapon stack with the character's PP attribute (and the others listed).

The comma doesn't change the meaning there. The omission of a comma in a compound sentence in which the subject remains the same for both verbs is a longstanding convention as it allows you to use fewer words (and less ink and space, which mattered quite a bit when things were being set by hand). One could argue for either interpretation you suggested with or without a comma there. Arguing the latter point is essentially arguing the author is too wordy. The problem with the latter is the difficulty in proving that he was being too wordy here. Arguing the former is saying that the author was not just being too wordy here.

That said, I don't think that either of us deserve to be punched for our views on how to parse the sentence.

I'll admit that past a certain point of sentence dissection, things become a bit vague.
Also, since the writer didn't necessarily have the same understanding of language that you or I have, that it cannot be clearly assumed which way the sentence was intended.

[Blue_Lion]

Well this is a bit odd because on like allot of other possible WP combinations listed this is one of the few(rare times) a weapon is listed in multiple WP as a listed weapon.(the other time is with the targeting skill) So while you could argue the trident uses the spear WP as well as the fork only the fork list it as a weapon.

I would have to disagree that the multiple possible WP imply a difference of how it used. Staff could be be in blunt do to poor cut and past left over from when rifts did not have a staff skill.

Perhaps lets take a different point of view.
Lets say Shooter McBot is shooting from a robot, the robot using a laser "cannon" that does 5d6 MD
Shooter McBot has the fallowing skills.
Weapon system +1 to strike.
Heavy weapon (WP for mounted weapons) lets say he has a + 1 strike.
The book never says the + 1 strike from weapon system stacks with the +1 to strike from the WP.

Does shooter McBot get a +1 strike because you are not told to add the two skills together or does he get a +2 because the bonuses stack?
If they do not stack what is the point of the skill weapon system?

*sigh* That is streching logic to support an unreasonable point, you are not making an arguement, you trying to use a statement in purse of a goal.

However, those are bonus that are not of the same source, and can be added together much the sighting bonus on some weapons. Look I point out there isn't a nice all case example. if there was it look something like this:

Melee: HtH + WP + weapon bonus [if any] - called shot - other penalities
Missle: WP Aiming or wild + WP targeting + weapon Bonus + Misc bonus - called Shot
Modern: WP Aiming/Burst/Wild + Sniper [If aimed and right WP]+ Weapon Bonus + Misc bonus - called shot - other penalities
Robot Melee Weapon: HtH + Robot HtH + WP + weapon bonus [if any] - called shot - other penalities
Robot Missle weapon: WP [if applicable]+ Weapon system [skill] bonus + Weapon Bonus - called shot - other penalities

How was it stretching logic to an unreasonable point.
This is about if bonuses from different skills stack.
If they only stack when told to stack then what about a skill that does not say.

Both WP blunt and WP staff are skills. The claim that two skills do not stack unless you told they do was made. I am simply applying the same logic a crossed the board to all skill as we are not told of any special limit when it comes to wp skills to just one per weapon.

What you just demonstrated was a double standard treating skills from 1 list different than how skills are being treated from another.
If they do not need to tell you the +1 from a skill is added to the bonus of a skill then then why would a weapon skill have a requirement to tell you they stack?
If they need to tell you they stack then the skill Weapon systems bonus can not be combined with WP.

Robot combat tends to say all bonuses are in addition to pilots hand to hand so we are told they stack.

A demand of constant logic is not a stretch of logic to an unreasonable point. Use of a unstated double standard seams more about a bias than a mechanical rule.

[eliakon]

Well this is a bit odd because on like allot of other possible WP combinations listed this is one of the few(rare times) a weapon is listed in multiple WP as a listed weapon.(the other time is with the targeting skill) So while you could argue the trident uses the spear WP as well as the fork only the fork list it as a weapon.

I would have to disagree that the multiple possible WP imply a difference of how it used. Staff could be be in blunt do to poor cut and past left over from when rifts did not have a staff skill.

Perhaps lets take a different point of view.
Lets say Shooter McBot is shooting from a robot, the robot using a laser "cannon" that does 5d6 MD
Shooter McBot has the fallowing skills.
Weapon system +1 to strike.
Heavy weapon (WP for mounted weapons) lets say he has a + 1 strike.
The book never says the + 1 strike from weapon system stacks with the +1 to strike from the WP.

Does shooter McBot get a +1 strike because you are not told to add the two skills together or does he get a +2 because the bonuses stack?
If they do not stack what is the point of the skill weapon system?

*sigh* That is streching logic to support an unreasonable point, you are not making an arguement, you trying to use a statement in purse of a goal.

However, those are bonus that are not of the same source, and can be added together much the sighting bonus on some weapons. Look I point out there isn't a nice all case example. if there was it look something like this:

Melee: HtH + WP + weapon bonus [if any] - called shot - other penalities
Missle: WP Aiming or wild + WP targeting + weapon Bonus + Misc bonus - called Shot
Modern: WP Aiming/Burst/Wild + Sniper [If aimed and right WP]+ Weapon Bonus + Misc bonus - called shot - other penalities
Robot Melee Weapon: HtH + Robot HtH + WP + weapon bonus [if any] - called shot - other penalities
Robot Missle weapon: WP [if applicable]+ Weapon system [skill] bonus + Weapon Bonus - called shot - other penalities

How was it stretching logic to an unreasonable point.
This is about if bonuses from different skills stack.
If they only stack when told to stack then what about a skill that does not say.

Both WP blunt and WP staff are skills. The claim that two skills do not stack unless you told they do was made. I am simply applying the same logic a crossed the board to all skill as we are not told of any special limit when it comes to wp skills to just one per weapon.

What you just demonstrated was a double standard treating skills from 1 list different than how skills are being treated from another.
If they do not need to tell you the +1 from a skill is added to the bonus of a skill then then why would a weapon skill have a requirement to tell you they stack?
If they need to tell you they stack then the skill Weapon systems bonus can not be combined with WP.

Robot combat tends to say all bonuses are in addition to pilots hand to hand so we are told they stack.

A demand of constant logic is not a stretch of logic to an unreasonable point. Use of a unstated double standard seams more about a bias than a mechanical rule.

Its not logic though.
Targeting explicitly tells us that stacking of WPs is rare
The other skills are explicitly told to stack
Hmmm
Thus you can combine any skills... that are not the same skill
You CAN combine boxing, wrestling, sports and a H2H
You CAN NOT combine boxing, H2H Basic, and H2H Martial arts
similarly
you CAN combine W.P. + Boxing
You can NOT combine W.P. + W.P. + W.P. + W.P. (unless the W.P. says, specifically, that it stacks with another skill. This is why some of them say this... because otherwise there would be no need to be told of those rare occasions we would just assume that they always do)

[Blue_Lion]

Oh but it is logic, any thing you use to reason or understand something is logic.

The number of weapons skills that list weapons found in other skills is some what rare only targeting and blunt-staff seam to list weapons covered by other skills with a chance of multiple weapon.

Wait skills stack as long as they are not the same skill, and each WP is its own skill. That would mean two different WP are two different skills and thus stack. Hand to hand is a progressive skill line the skill is hand to hand you just different levels of it. (also Ninjas and super spies and faq both cover what happens with multiple hand to hand styles.) You are using a double standard that different skills stack as long as they are not the same skill, but two different WP that apply to a weapon do not stack even though they are different skills.

But hey please give the quote where it says if WP stack they will tell you. (I have yet to see any quote that says such a thing.)

[Saitou Hajime]

Oh but it is logic, any thing you use to reason or understand something is logic.

The number of weapons skills that list weapons found in other skills is some what rare only targeting and blunt-staff seam to list weapons covered by other skills with a chance of multiple weapon.

Wait skills stack as long as they are not the same skill, and each WP is its own skill. That would mean two different WP are two different skills and thus stack. Hand to hand is a progressive skill line the skill is hand to hand you just different levels of it. (also Ninjas and super spies and faq both cover what happens with multiple hand to hand styles.) You are using a double standard that different skills stack as long as they are not the same skill, but two different WP that apply to a weapon do not stack even though they are different skills.

But hey please give the quote where it says if WP stack they will tell you. (I have yet to see any quote that says such a thing.)

I hate using real life when talking about game stuff because games are a reflection of real life and generally also very cinamatic in nature but you can't use a stave as a blunt weapon and a Staff at the same time the grips are totally different, you use one at the time!

What I really hating about this discution is that people are talking at me without even really addressing the points I have made I made the bolded point is a couple of ways only to have it ignored and have people come back to me about logic and other arguement that are not being logical dispite what posters are claiming.

Swearing, threatening violence against your adversaries; you clearly don't even believe your own arguments, else you'd not resort to such things.

Also, of course I'm mentioning the text of the rules in a debate about what the rules say. That would, of course, be the first place to start. To make my point extra clear, my argument is that as written there are arguments to be made on both sides, and thus those who disagree with you, Saitou, do not merit being threatened with violence nor being accused of any kind of mental or moral defect.

Finally, the supposed "benefit" of being able to switch in Palladium's system isn't represented very well if you don't stack WP bonuses. The closest you would get is that one WP may be better at a given level than another. Unless they are even, one of the two styles would ALWAYS be worse than the other for a given level of WPs. Perhaps you were thinking of a different rules system when you made that argument.

No it is born from reading that so illogical that it hurts, I been playing Palladium games since 1990, never until now have I ever heard a player or GM ever take the stance you can add WP Blunt to WP Staff. EVER!

The Switch allows your to go from Offensive to Defensive, is it really game breaking powerful, no but it is an advantage over someone than can't. Not every advanage is going to "super powerful" even in RIFTS.

Are you also going to arge that Bokken from RIFTS Japan should stack WP Sword and WP Blunt!
That the C-14 should add WP Energy Rifle and WP Heavy together because the logic of the other side following along would suggest that those should stack too!

[dreicunan]

Swearing, threatening violence against your adversaries; you clearly don't even believe your own arguments, else you'd not resort to such things.

Also, of course I'm mentioning the text of the rules in a debate about what the rules say. That would, of course, be the first place to start. To make my point extra clear, my argument is that as written there are arguments to be made on both sides, and thus those who disagree with you, Saitou, do not merit being threatened with violence nor being accused of any kind of mental or moral defect.

Finally, the supposed "benefit" of being able to switch in Palladium's system isn't represented very well if you don't stack WP bonuses. The closest you would get is that one WP may be better at a given level than another. Unless they are even, one of the two styles would ALWAYS be worse than the other for a given level of WPs. Perhaps you were thinking of a different rules system when you made that argument.

No it is born from reading that so illogical that it hurts, I been playing Palladium games since 1990, never until now have I ever heard a player or GM ever take the stance you can add WP Blunt to WP Staff. EVER!

The Switch allows your to go from Offensive to Defensive, is it really game breaking powerful, no but it is an advantage over someone than can't. Not every advanage is going to "super powerful" even in RIFTS.

Are you also going to arge that Bokken from RIFTS Japan should stack WP Sword and WP Blunt!
That the C-14 should add WP Energy Rifle and WP Heavy together because the logic of the other side following along would suggest that those should stack too!

Well, you clearly have a definition of "logic" that differs from the standard, then, as there is nothing inherently illogical about the position that WPs apply to all the weapons that they name, and that if two WPs name the weapon then both should apply.

Your having heard it before or not is also irrelevant to whether or not it is logical. Do you normally threaten violence upon people who make arguments with which you are unfamiliar?

That said, what is completely illogical is your position that being able to switch between WP Blunt and WP Staff provides any kind of advantage at any point. WP Blunt provides bonuses to strike and parry at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12. WP staff provides bonuses to strike at 1, 3, 7, 10, and 13, and bonuses to parry at 2, 5, 8, 11, and 14. At any point before level 14, the bonuses provided by WP staff are clearly inferior to WP blunt, and after level 14 they are equal. Thus, at no point is there EVER any supposed offensive versus defensive trade-off, nor any advantage gained from switching between styles. Once again, perhaps you confused Palladium's system with a different one.

Also, if you are going to claim that no one has refuted your point that you can't use them at the same time because the grips are different, I'd direct you to my previous post where I pointed out that allowing WPs to stack is a way to mechanically represent the advantage provided by knowing how to use a weapon in two different ways and switch between them would provide.

One could also point out that you are assuming that WP Blunt and WP staff provide training in different styles. Nothing about the WPs actually requires that to be the case. The staff was under WP Blunt long before there was a WP staff, after all. That point could, of course, also be used to argue against allowing WPs to stack, but I don't see it as definitive in either way.

[Saitou Hajime]

I am done! allowing Blunt and Staff to stack for Staves gives a mechanical advantagage that was never intended as cleary make Staves very powerful when compared to other melee weapons, not even Palladium is that unaware of game balance to have done so.

The level of Frustration because cause by this is far greater than any meaningful discusion here.

[dreicunan]

I am done! allowing Blunt and Staff to stack for Staves gives a mechanical advantagage that was never intended as cleary make Staves very powerful when compared to other melee weapons, not even Palladium is that unaware of game balance to have done so.

The level of Frustration because cause by this is far greater than any meaningful discusion here.

It doesn't make them any more powerful in a damage sense. Also, there are other weapons that could fall under multiple WPs if you allow them to stack. One could easily write up a WP Slashing and a WP Piercing if they felt that there needed to be a way to get the same stacking for other weapons.

Or just say that at your table you only allow one WP to apply at a time, because balance. The balance argument is a good one, it just happens to be undermined by Palladium clearly allowing some WPs to stack. If the argument is about balance, then I'd be surprised if people then turned around and allowed WP Targeting to stack with the WPs that it says it stacks with, because that gives those throwing weapons a serious advantage; knives end up with a +10 to strike (+11 if you are a Body Fixer), you can throw two of them at the same target, and they inflict double damage with a natural 19 or a 20. That is pretty potent. If allowing tridents or staffs to benefit from two WPs is unbalanced, then allowing WP targeting to stack with other WPs is even worse!

Either way, I pray that you discover a way to interact with people that don't agree with you without threatening violence against them.

[Blue_Lion]

Oh but it is logic, any thing you use to reason or understand something is logic.

The number of weapons skills that list weapons found in other skills is some what rare only targeting and blunt-staff seam to list weapons covered by other skills with a chance of multiple weapon.

Wait skills stack as long as they are not the same skill, and each WP is its own skill. That would mean two different WP are two different skills and thus stack. Hand to hand is a progressive skill line the skill is hand to hand you just different levels of it. (also Ninjas and super spies and faq both cover what happens with multiple hand to hand styles.) You are using a double standard that different skills stack as long as they are not the same skill, but two different WP that apply to a weapon do not stack even though they are different skills.

But hey please give the quote where it says if WP stack they will tell you. (I have yet to see any quote that says such a thing.)

I hate using real life when talking about game stuff because games are a reflection of real life and generally also very cinamatic in nature but you can't use a stave as a blunt weapon and a Staff at the same time the grips are totally different, you use one at the time!

What I really hating about this discution is that people are talking at me without even really addressing the points I have made I made the bolded point is a couple of ways only to have it ignored and have people come back to me about logic and other arguement that are not being logical dispite what posters are claiming.

Swearing, threatening violence against your adversaries; you clearly don't even believe your own arguments, else you'd not resort to such things.

Also, of course I'm mentioning the text of the rules in a debate about what the rules say. That would, of course, be the first place to start. To make my point extra clear, my argument is that as written there are arguments to be made on both sides, and thus those who disagree with you, Saitou, do not merit being threatened with violence nor being accused of any kind of mental or moral defect.

Finally, the supposed "benefit" of being able to switch in Palladium's system isn't represented very well if you don't stack WP bonuses. The closest you would get is that one WP may be better at a given level than another. Unless they are even, one of the two styles would ALWAYS be worse than the other for a given level of WPs. Perhaps you were thinking of a different rules system when you made that argument.

No it is born from reading that so illogical that it hurts, I been playing Palladium games since 1990, never until now have I ever heard a player or GM ever take the stance you can add WP Blunt to WP Staff. EVER!

The Switch allows your to go from Offensive to Defensive, is it really game breaking powerful, no but it is an advantage over someone than can't. Not every advanage is going to "super powerful" even in RIFTS.

Are you also going to arge that Bokken from RIFTS Japan should stack WP Sword and WP Blunt!
That the C-14 should add WP Energy Rifle and WP Heavy together because the logic of the other side following along would suggest that those should stack too!

The grips being different is not stated in the skill write up. Using a reason that you made up to justify your stance as a reason that the other stance is wrong is some what flawed logic. The book does not say the grip is different so a difference in grip can not be presented as the reason the book does not allow it.

Basically you are upset because I did not address a point that is not cannon but something you made up. State it all you want your theory on grips is irrelevant to if the rules allow it as the theory is not part of the rules.

I could point out the section on WP states all bonuses are accumulative.(context is the description of the WP skill selection)
It also says that bonuses that increase for (ancheint) weapon are added to PP and hand to hand skill.

WP blunt provides bonuses that increase for a staff.
WP staff provides bonuses that increase for a staff.

All bonuses are said to be accumulative in WP so why would the two different WP not be accumulative?

Mostly people are just saying they just don't or it does not say to add them however it says all bonuses are accumulative so it does kind of say to add them. People seam to be fine using a double standard for skills from WP.

Most staffs are sdc weapons the ones that are MDC are kind of rare.

[eliakon]

Is anyone going to address the fact that the book says stacking like this is rare?
Or do we just ignore that because it disagrees with the idea that you should be able to min-max every skill

[Blue_Lion]

Is anyone going to address the fact that the book says stacking like this is rare?
Or do we just ignore that because it disagrees with the idea that you should be able to min-max every skill

I have already addressed that (flavor) text in ways multiple ways. But again because you asked.

Besides the fact it is a flavor text statement with no mechanical rules attached to what is rare. By the books there are very few WP that list the same weapon as another. Most cases people are bringing up is not the book saying multiple WP apply but a "GM call" saying multiple WP apply. Most weapons do not tell you what skill to use, and people tend to use their judgment. Lets take the weapon trident, is only by the book used by the WP forked however some people think WP spear applies to it making use of WP a GM call.

In the case of modern weapons just having the word rifle in the name does not always mean it is really a rifle. The weapon recoiless rifle was more of a bazooka or rocket launcher not a true rifle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recoilless_rifle
So in modern weapons the GM should be ruling which WP covers a weapon. The controls of a heavy weapon might be similar to a rifle but that does not make it a rifle, any more than a pistol grip makes a rifle a pistol.(the pistol grip is the name for the handle with a trigger found in most assault rifles.)

Staff being in two WP is some what rare as the only other time I see a weapon being listed in two categories is WP targeting. So going by the book I see targeting combined with X and the weapon staff in blunt and staff. (It could be left over in WP blunt from a time when there was no WP staff and just missed by bad editing.)

This is not about min-max every skill but weather skills work together, and weather some one that spends extra training for a weapon should be rewarded for spending the effort of specialization. It does not affect any skill that does not over lap so it not all skills but limited. Min max is getting the max bonus with minimal down side in this case some one devoted twice the resources for a limited chance to get increased bonus. (It could be seen as increased effort for specialized in the use of staff beyond the norm of a single WP skill)

[eliakon]

Is anyone going to address the fact that the book says stacking like this is rare?
Or do we just ignore that because it disagrees with the idea that you should be able to min-max every skill

I have already addressed that (flavor) text in ways multiple ways. But again because you asked.

Besides the fact it is a flavor text statement with no mechanical rules attached to what is rare. By the books there are very few WP that list the same weapon as another. Most cases people are bringing up is not the book saying multiple WP apply but a "GM call" saying multiple WP apply. Most weapons do not tell you what skill to use, and people tend to use their judgment. Lets take the weapon trident, is only by the book used by the WP forked however some people think WP spear applies to it making use of WP a GM call.

In the case of modern weapons just having the word rifle in the name does not always mean it is really a rifle. The weapon recoiless rifle was more of a bazooka or rocket launcher not a true rifle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recoilless_rifle
So in modern weapons the GM should be ruling which WP covers a weapon. The controls of a heavy weapon might be similar to a rifle but that does not make it a rifle, any more than a pistol grip makes a rifle a pistol.(the pistol grip is the name for the handle with a trigger found in most assault rifles.)

Staff being in two WP is some what rare as the only other time I see a weapon being listed in two categories is WP targeting. So going by the book I see targeting combined with X and the weapon staff in blunt and staff. (It could be left over in WP blunt from a time when there was no WP staff and just missed by bad editing.)
This is not about min-max every skill but weather skills work together.

This is just as much 'flavor text' as the statement that everything stacks

If it was just "targeting plus archery and staff plus blunt and no other" that might be a valid case for claiming that it was rare (and to be honest I could buy this specific line of argument)

But the argument seems to be that any combination stacks.
Katana? Sword + Katana
Bokan? Sword + Blunt
Plasma Pistol? Heavy (because its a plasma ejector) + Energy Pistol
Trident? Forked + Polearm + Spear
Any weapon at all ? Any and all WPs that can conceivably apply to allow for the most plusses possible.
That is the opposite of rare, that is 'universal'
And the argument that the text doesn't really apply, because the rule wasn't really meant to be there and should be ignored seems to be... questionable.

[Blue_Lion]

All bonuses stacking is a direct reference to a mechanic while rare is a undifned from a rule stand point.\

many of the cases you are presenting are not what you claim.

Lets take a look at your claim for trident. It is only listed as a weapon covered by WP fork and is not among the weapons listed in spear or pole arms. So this is not a case of the rule book listing a weapon in multiple WP but you rulling that it is in multiple WP.

I do not see wooden sword of any kind listed as part of WP sword so this is not a case of a book listing a weapon in multiple WP but you rulling that it is in multiple WP.

Katana is not a WP I am familiar with or listed in RUE, I do not see katana listed as a sword so if it has its own skill it is not part of WP sword making it again so this is not a case of a book listing a weapon in multiple WP but you ruling that it is in multiple WP.

So what you posted as examples of chances being common was more your personal calling that it happens more often than the book says it does.

[Natasha]

"I don't see much sense in that," said Rabbit.

"No," said Pooh humbly, "there isn't. But there was going to be when I began it. It's just that something happened to it along the way."

Originally staves were not considered blunt weapons. But now there's text that says they are.
Palladium's lack of attention to detail leaves us argueing whether it's a 6 or a 9. Just take your pick.

[Prysus]

Lets take a look at your claim for trident. It is only listed as a weapon covered by WP fork and is not among the weapons listed in spear or pole arms. So this is not a case of a book listing a weapon in multiple WP but you rulling that it is in multiple WP.

Greetings and Salutations. Rifts Main Book, page 243 lists Trident as a Spear (this listing is repeated in many of Palladium's various products). This is listed in the Conventional Weapons section, not the W.P. Now, in RGMG, there's the W.P. Trident. And in RUE they included it in W.P. Forked. On top of that, W.P. Targeting adds to spears (which we have references of Tridents being included as). That's just using Rifts, with my very limited knowledge of Rifts books (if I knew Rifts better, I could probably find more references).

If we extend this outside of Rifts (yes, this is a Rifts forums, but the "All bonuses are accumulative" is rather universal across it's game line), we can include things like: Beaked Axe (listed as Pole Arm and Spear by Palladium, and though not listed as such one could make an argument for Axe as it's in the name). Trident is listed as Forked/Trident, as well as listed as a Spear in the weapons section. Lance (Lance is a W.P. as well as listed under Spear).

Many of the other skills eliakon mentioned are in Ninjas & Superspies, and Rifts Conversion Book (One) does make that part of the Rifts setting.

Also, while I'm here, lines such as "Most staffs are sdc weapons the ones that are MDC are kind of rare" tends to be based solely on attempts of justification, not on actual logic. "All bonuses are accumulative" expands beyond just Rifts, and with the possible exception of Ninjas & Superspies, none of the books give any indication that the ruling should be different. Let's apply that same logic to an S.D.C. setting though. Staves can now be extremely common, but the ruling would be the same.

Also, you're condemning others for personal calls when you make comments like ...

In the case of modern weapons just having the word rifle in the name does not always mean it is really a rifle. The weapon recoiless rifle was more of a bazooka or rocket launcher not a true rifle.

You're advocating to ignore what the book wrote and insert your personal opinions to try and prove that something is otherwise rare, as long as someone ignores the wording of the book and makes the house rules you tell them to. "Um ... Ancient Weapons helps my case. Follow only by the book! Uh oh ... Modern Weapons hurts my case. Ignore the book and house rule it! The book says 'All bonuses,' and that helps my case. We have to follow what's written! But the book says stacking is 'rare' and that hurts my case. Ignore the book as just fluff text."

We don't all have to agree on the ruling (the books contradict themselves enough), but can we at least try to stay consistent in our own applications of the rules? Farewell and safe journeys.[/justify]

[Blue_Lion]

Lets take a look at your claim for trident. It is only listed as a weapon covered by WP fork and is not among the weapons listed in spear or pole arms. So this is not a case of a book listing a weapon in multiple WP but you rulling that it is in multiple WP.

Greetings and Salutations. Rifts Main Book, page 243 lists Trident as a Spear (this listing is repeated in many of Palladium's various products). This is listed in the Conventional Weapons section, not the W.P. Now, in RGMG, there's the W.P. Trident. And in RUE they included it in W.P. Forked. On top of that, W.P. Targeting adds to spears (which we have references of Tridents being included as). That's just using Rifts, with my very limited knowledge of Rifts books (if I knew Rifts better, I could probably find more references).

If we extend this outside of Rifts (yes, this is a Rifts forums, but the "All bonuses are accumulative" is rather universal across it's game line), we can include things like: Beaked Axe (listed as Pole Arm and Spear by Palladium, and though not listed as such one could make an argument for Axe as it's in the name). Trident is listed as Forked/Trident, as well as listed as a Spear in the weapons section. Lance (Lance is a W.P. as well as listed under Spear).

Many of the other skills eliakon mentioned are in Ninjas & Superspies, and Rifts Conversion Book (One) does make that part of the Rifts setting.

Also, while I'm here, lines such as "Most staffs are sdc weapons the ones that are MDC are kind of rare" tends to be based solely on attempts of justification, not on actual logic. "All bonuses are accumulative" expands beyond just Rifts, and with the possible exception of Ninjas & Superspies, none of the books give any indication that the ruling should be different. Let's apply that same logic to an S.D.C. setting though. Staves can now be extremely common, but the ruling would be the same.

Also, you're condemning others for personal calls when you make comments like ...

In the case of modern weapons just having the word rifle in the name does not always mean it is really a rifle. The weapon recoiless rifle was more of a bazooka or rocket launcher not a true rifle.

You're advocating to ignore what the book wrote and insert your personal opinions to try and prove that something is otherwise rare, as long as someone ignores the wording of the book and makes the house rules you tell them to. "Um ... Ancient Weapons helps my case. Follow only by the book! Uh oh ... Modern Weapons hurts my case. Ignore the book and house rule it! The book says 'All bonuses,' and that helps my case. We have to follow what's written! But the book says stacking is 'rare' and that hurts my case. Ignore the book as just fluff text."

We don't all have to agree on the ruling (the books contradict themselves enough), but can we at least try to stay consistent in our own applications of the rules? Farewell and safe journeys.[/justify]

At the time the original book was written the WP fork did not exist. In RUE trident was removed from the listing of spear and placed in WP fork. The skill was updated in RUE using a outdated version of a rule from before the trident got moved to a new WP does not prove the old WP still has to apply in currant version of rules. (As the number of WP have changed over time adding new ones it is best to stick to the most updated version of the skill.)

I did not advocate ignoring what the book wrote I was pointing out some times in modern weapons the word rifle might appear in weapons not what you might think of or classify as a riffle. With any weapon you have to look at what the weapon is and the skills then decide on the skill it uses. So it is a matter of is the plasma riffle, is it a riffle, is it a plasma ejector. You must decide what the type of weapon it is when you look at what skill is used. In most cases only more than one weapon applies to a it if you decide it is in more than 1 type of weapon.(rifle is actually a reference to the groves in the barrel a smooth boar musket is not classified as a riffle)

That is also the case with ancient weapons they list types of weapons however ancient weapons list weapon types that fall under the skill. So if you found a vibro trident you would look at the weapon and skill and decide if it is a spear, pole arm or large fork weapon they are might be similar in use but that does not mean it is more than one. Only one weapon skill says it has apply to tridents, you can rule other skill applies but the currant book does not say more than one WP has to apply to the trident.

So my point stands WP staff and WP blunt over lap with the same type of weapon being stated is some what rare in all the skills. The only other common Rifts WP that lists the weapon types found in other is in WP targeting. That was my point in all other WP found in rue there is no stated over lap by the book. It seams what you are doing is trying to use outdated printed of a skill and skills not common(you might say rare) in currant rifts cannon to make it seam more common. As this was about how common it is use of rare nonstandard skills does not make it common.
(Of the what 27 WP in RUE there are only 3 skills that list weapons found in other skills so only 11.1% of skills over lap. If something only happens 11.1% of the time with common skills that means to me it is rare for it to come up in common skills.)

[Blue_Lion]

"I don't see much sense in that," said Rabbit.

"No," said Pooh humbly, "there isn't. But there was going to be when I began it. It's just that something happened to it along the way."

Originally staves were not considered blunt weapons. But now there's text that says they are.
Palladium's lack of attention to detail leaves us argueing whether it's a 6 or a 9. Just take your pick.

ok I pick 69.

[HWalsh]

This discussion has clearly run its course.

The Pro-Stack crowd will not back down to any assertion that they don't stack unless the book says specifically they don't.

They will refute every opposition argument with claims that flavor text and balance shouldn't come around these parts.

The Anti-Stack crowd will likewise refute any argument.

Though I do, personally, find the Anti-Stack crowd more logical.

So... In my games... WPs don't stack unless the WP explicitly says it stacks with another WP. Such as in the case of targeting.

I can't help but feel, true or not, that those pushing for stacking are doing so out of a desire to somehow gain an advantage via loophole.

So, with that, I'm out of this topic.

[Natasha]

"I don't see much sense in that," said Rabbit.

"No," said Pooh humbly, "there isn't. But there was going to be when I began it. It's just that something happened to it along the way."

Originally staves were not considered blunt weapons. But now there's text that says they are.
Palladium's lack of attention to detail leaves us argueing whether it's a 6 or a 9. Just take your pick.

ok I pick 69.

There'd be a lot less arguing if everybody did

But going all the way back to PFRPG 1E W.P. and the original weapons list, what's what is apparent. The confusion, imo, enters through bad editing.

[dreicunan]

This discussion has clearly run its course.

The Pro-Stack crowd will not back down to any assertion that they don't stack unless the book says specifically they don't.

They will refute every opposition argument with claims that flavor text and balance shouldn't come around these parts.

The Anti-Stack crowd will likewise refute any argument.

Though I do, personally, find the Anti-Stack crowd more logical.

So... In my games... WPs don't stack unless the WP explicitly says it stacks with another WP. Such as in the case of targeting.

I can't help but feel, true or not, that those pushing for stacking are doing so out of a desire to somehow gain an advantage via loophole.

So, with that, I'm out of this topic.

To paraphrase: "I'll get in one last attack on the motivations of those arguing that they stack, then take off before anyone can fire back."

Like several other issues in Palladium's "system," there is no definitive answer, which lends itself to this kind of back and forth. For example, you claim those pushing for stacking do so out of a desire to exploit a loophole. Well, in that case, why are you letting Targeting stack? It is by far the most potent of the stacking combos, especially in an sdc setting. When someone says that they allow it because the rules explicitly say that they do, but you don't allow others because it is supposedly an exploit, how is that any more logical? You only allow the exploits the authors explicitly approved?

[HWalsh]

This discussion has clearly run its course.

The Pro-Stack crowd will not back down to any assertion that they don't stack unless the book says specifically they don't.

They will refute every opposition argument with claims that flavor text and balance shouldn't come around these parts.

The Anti-Stack crowd will likewise refute any argument.

Though I do, personally, find the Anti-Stack crowd more logical.

So... In my games... WPs don't stack unless the WP explicitly says it stacks with another WP. Such as in the case of targeting.

I can't help but feel, true or not, that those pushing for stacking are doing so out of a desire to somehow gain an advantage via loophole.

So, with that, I'm out of this topic.

To paraphrase: "I'll get in one last attack on the motivations of those arguing that they stack, then take off before anyone can fire back."

Like several other issues in Palladium's "system," there is no definitive answer, which lends itself to this kind of back and forth. For example, you claim those pushing for stacking do so out of a desire to exploit a loophole. Well, in that case, why are you letting Targeting stack? It is by far the most potent of the stacking combos, especially in an sdc setting. When someone says that they allow it because the rules explicitly say that they do, but you don't allow others because it is supposedly an exploit, how is that any more logical? You only allow the exploits the authors explicitly approved?

Not at all.

Hence why I used the phrase, "Can't help but feel" rather than this is what is going on.

As to why allow targeting... Something isn't an exploit if it is explicitly stated it does something.

Staff and Blunt stacking is an exploit. It is a not-clearly-allowed game mechanic that leads to bonuses that are literally twice what other weapons can do.

People claim, "Well not for damage!"

There is more to combat than damage. Sir Adam, the Cyber-Knight, my character in our group, is nicknamed the Knight of a thousand cuts. He doesn't throw out the damage but he has an insane defense and can, and has, beaten foes that way outweighed him. Giving a defense minded character twice the WP bonuses can be downright game breaking.

[Blue_Lion]

This discussion has clearly run its course.

The Pro-Stack crowd will not back down to any assertion that they don't stack unless the book says specifically they don't.

They will refute every opposition argument with claims that flavor text and balance shouldn't come around these parts.

The Anti-Stack crowd will likewise refute any argument.

Though I do, personally, find the Anti-Stack crowd more logical.

So... In my games... WPs don't stack unless the WP explicitly says it stacks with another WP. Such as in the case of targeting.

I can't help but feel, true or not, that those pushing for stacking are doing so out of a desire to somehow gain an advantage via loophole.

So, with that, I'm out of this topic.

To paraphrase: "I'll get in one last attack on the motivations of those arguing that they stack, then take off before anyone can fire back."

Like several other issues in Palladium's "system," there is no definitive answer, which lends itself to this kind of back and forth. For example, you claim those pushing for stacking do so out of a desire to exploit a loophole. Well, in that case, why are you letting Targeting stack? It is by far the most potent of the stacking combos, especially in an sdc setting. When someone says that they allow it because the rules explicitly say that they do, but you don't allow others because it is supposedly an exploit, how is that any more logical? You only allow the exploits the authors explicitly approved?

Not at all.

Hence why I used the phrase, "Can't help but feel" rather than this is what is going on.

As to why allow targeting... Something isn't an exploit if it is explicitly stated it does something.

Staff and Blunt stacking is an exploit. It is a not-clearly-allowed game mechanic that leads to bonuses that are literally twice what other weapons can do.

People claim, "Well not for damage!"

There is more to combat than damage. Sir Adam, the Cyber-Knight, my character in our group, is nicknamed the Knight of a thousand cuts. He doesn't throw out the damage but he has an insane defense and can, and has, beaten foes that way outweighed him. Giving a defense minded character twice the WP bonuses can be downright game breaking.

Parry is rather easy to beat.
You can take the hit and strike back at the same time(does not allow a dodge or parry) or just pull out a gun and shoot, you also forget the what the players can pull so can the GM. So a good parry is not game breaking like you claim giving that the staff is two handed a person with paired weapon still has a chance to parry and hit. (really any defense monkey can be beat with the hit for hit approach if they lack the damage output.)

If the foe does more damage per hit and has the same or more armor than your CK simply going the route to take the hit and strike back with a counter attack as you take the hit will result in your charter loosing most fights, as it negates all your defense. If the GM has not pulled such a stunt it is because he is being nice.

In my games I have done some cheep stunts as a gm to make players understand that any fight can go wrong. Such as a demon grabbing a party member and using him as a shield when the GB shoots at him.

[HWalsh]

Parry is rather easy to beat.
You can take the hit and strike back at the same time(does not allow a dodge or parry)

Unless you have WP. Paired Weapons. Then you also need it and you have to twin strike.

or just pull out a gun and shoot,

Entangle, which has very odd rules if you look at it.

you also forget the what the players can pull so can the GM.

Not at all.

So a good parry is not game breaking like you claim giving that the staff is two handed a person with paired weapon still has a chance to parry and hit. (really any defense monkey can be beat with the hit for hit approach if they lack the damage output.)

Depends on how smart the player is and how aware of the rules they are outside of simple strike, party, dodge, simul strike they are.

If the foe does more damage per hit and has the same or more armor than your CK simply going the route to take the hit and strike back with a counter attack as you take the hit will result in your charter loosing most fights, as it negates all your defense. If the GM has not pulled such a stunt it is because he is being nice.

Again. Learn the rules on things like entangle. I've had a GM try that. They where flabbergasted when I shut them down by opting for an entangle. Again... Read it.

In my games I have done some cheep stunts as a gm to make players understand that any fight can go wrong. Such as a demon grabbing a party member and using him as a shield when the GB shoots at him.

There ARE ways around character defenses. No claims that there aren't. However giving someone twice the bonuses to a weapon due to an obvious misprint isn't justified.

[Blue_Lion]

Doing a simo parry and strike with paired weapons as I understand it is done during the other person turn.

Entangle is another way to deal with an attacker but is done as a defense like a parry. It is not possible to entangle a simultaneous attack. The problem with entangling is that if you use your weapon or arm to do it you can not realistically use the same arm or weapon to attack. In the case of say a demon you entangle his right arm and he punches you with his left. The basic description is you are trapping the arm or weapon. It is not that I was unaware of things beyond strike parry dodge but what you presented as a lock down only works against certain types of foes.

Your opinion that it is an obvious misprint is not a proven fact just what you think so really is not relevant to the context(or the mechanics of the game) I was addressing. I was countering the claim that the double bonus was game breaking for defense charters. I merely had to prove that the game can shut down such things to prove they do not break the game. Regardless of how high your bonus to defend is they do you no good if the attack does not allow you to defend.

[HWalsh]

Doing a simo parry and strike with paired weapons as I understand it is done during the other person turn.

Entangle is another way to deal with an attacker but is done as a defense like a parry. It is not possible to entangle a simultaneous attack. The problem with entangling is that if you use your weapon or arm to do it you can not realistically use the same arm or weapon to attack. In the case of say a demon you entangle his right arm and he punches you with his left. The basic description is you are trapping the arm or weapon. It is not that I was unaware of things beyond strike parry dodge but what you presented as a lock down only works against certain types of foes.

Your opinion that it is an obvious misprint is not a proven fact just what you think so really is not relevant to the context(or the mechanics of the game) I was addressing. I was countering the claim that the double bonus was game breaking for defense charters. I merely had to prove that the game can shut down such things to prove they do not break the game. Regardless of how high your bonus to defend is they do you no good if the attack does not allow you to defend.

You don't understand the concept of game breaking if you think it is not game breaking if there is a workaround. Game breaking is ANYTHING that creates an alpha path toward any area of play.

Under your interpretation there are no game breaking things. Being able to take WP Sword twice to get double sword bonuses? Fine. Palladium doesn't say you can't take one twice after all. What about taking it 4-5 times? Is that game breaking for you?

In this case the game breaking aspect is in the frame that you create a weapon that is far superior in bonuses when compared to any similar weapon without any form of trade off.

[Killer Cyborg]

You don't understand the concept of game breaking if you think it is not game breaking if there is a workaround. Game breaking is ANYTHING that creates an alpha path toward any area of play.

Well put.

Being able to take WP Sword twice to get double sword bonuses? Fine. Palladium doesn't say you can't take one twice after all.

Actually, Palladium does say that you can't do that.
RGMG 32.

But I liked the point about Bokken that was brought up earlier.
It's listed as being in WP Category of "Sword" in Rifts Japan, but it's also a Blunt wooden weapon, and it's described as "a wooden version of the samurai's katana," so WP Katana would also apply.

Also, as has been brought up, Tridents are listed in WP Trident, WP Forked/Trident, WP Forked, and possibly Spear or Polearm somewhere.

In this case the game breaking aspect is in the frame that you create a weapon that is far superior in bonuses when compared to any similar weapon without any form of trade off.

And without any reason or logic. There's nothing in real-world fighting that would explain a decision to deliberately create the game this way, there's nothing in cinema that would explain it, and there's nothing in game mechanics that would explain it.

[HWalsh]

And without any reason or logic. There's nothing in real-world fighting that would explain a decision to deliberately create the game this way, there's nothing in cinema that would explain it, and there's nothing in game mechanics that would explain it.

Yes, historically there is no evidence to suggest that the staff is the greatest defensive weapon ever. That would probably be something like short sword (Roman style) and shield.

[Prysus]

At the time the original book was written the WP fork did not exist. In RUE trident was removed from the listing of spear and placed in WP fork. The skill was updated in RUE using a outdated version of a rule from before the trident got moved to a new WP does not prove the old WP still has to apply in currant version of rules. (As the number of WP have changed over time adding new ones it is best to stick to the most updated version of the skill.)

Greetings and Salutations. Okay, I'll put in more than the zero effort I put into the last one and put in about 2 minutes of research. W.P. that a Trident can fall in using just RGMG. Yes, Rifts is currently at RUE, but RUE references RGMG, as well as the fact the quote about being "rare" is found in RGMG.

RGMG, page 81: Trident falls under W.P. Trident (obviously).
RGMG, page 80: Trident falls under W.P. Pole Arm (it's specifically listed).
RGMG, page 115: Trident is included as a spear within the Australian Weapons, which means W.P. Spear applies. Of course, RGMG predates RUE and was created to be compatible with RMB (which includes the Trident as a Spear as well), but I said I'd use just RGMG.
RGMG, page 79: Spears (which a Trident is included as, per Rifts) gain bonuses from W.P. Archery and Targeting.

That's four different Weapon Proficiencies using one book, for just one weapon. I can't speak for everyone, but I know I don't even come close to calling that "rare." Farewell and safe journeys.

[dreicunan]

This discussion has clearly run its course.

The Pro-Stack crowd will not back down to any assertion that they don't stack unless the book says specifically they don't.

They will refute every opposition argument with claims that flavor text and balance shouldn't come around these parts.

The Anti-Stack crowd will likewise refute any argument.

Though I do, personally, find the Anti-Stack crowd more logical.

So... In my games... WPs don't stack unless the WP explicitly says it stacks with another WP. Such as in the case of targeting.

I can't help but feel, true or not, that those pushing for stacking are doing so out of a desire to somehow gain an advantage via loophole.

So, with that, I'm out of this topic.

To paraphrase: "I'll get in one last attack on the motivations of those arguing that they stack, then take off before anyone can fire back."

Like several other issues in Palladium's "system," there is no definitive answer, which lends itself to this kind of back and forth. For example, you claim those pushing for stacking do so out of a desire to exploit a loophole. Well, in that case, why are you letting Targeting stack? It is by far the most potent of the stacking combos, especially in an sdc setting. When someone says that they allow it because the rules explicitly say that they do, but you don't allow others because it is supposedly an exploit, how is that any more logical? You only allow the exploits the authors explicitly approved?

Not at all.

Hence why I used the phrase, "Can't help but feel" rather than this is what is going on.

As to why allow targeting... Something isn't an exploit if it is explicitly stated it does something.

Staff and Blunt stacking is an exploit. It is a not-clearly-allowed game mechanic that leads to bonuses that are literally twice what other weapons can do.

People claim, "Well not for damage!"

There is more to combat than damage. Sir Adam, the Cyber-Knight, my character in our group, is nicknamed the Knight of a thousand cuts. He doesn't throw out the damage but he has an insane defense and can, and has, beaten foes that way outweighed him. Giving a defense minded character twice the WP bonuses can be downright game breaking.

"I can't help but feel that" is a matrix that introduces a declaration (or an affirmation, if you prefer; note that the terms are being used in a technical sense here); you don't use it to introduce the subordinate clause if you don't think that what follows is what is actually going on. To use that phrase if you DON'T think that what follows is what is going on would make no sense; you'd be saying the opposite of what you want to say!

Multiple weapon proficiencies naming a weapon as falling under their purview and then applying the bonus to the weapon is not an exploit; after all "Each WP provides training with a type of weapon. All bonuses are cumulative." Then it later says "Each W.P. provides combat training with a particular type of weapon. The result is hand to hand combat bonuses to strike and parry whenever that particular type of weapon is used. Bonuses that increase for that particular weapon are accumulative and are combined with the character's P.P. attribute, O.C.C., and Hand to Hand Combat skill bonuses." It makes perfect sense to conclude that if a weapon falls under more than one TYPE of weapon, the book means what it says and bonuses that increase for that particular weapon are accumulative. Thus, allowing weapon proficiencies to combine would not be a "not-clearly-allowed game mechanic" (and the bonuses are not twice what other weapons can do if you allow WP Targeting to stack); it is instead a logical consequence of the text on page 326 of RUE.

Does that jive with RGMG saying that stacking is rare? No, but they had the opportunity to make things do so with RUE and they didn't.

If someone wants to say "No, it can't mean that because weapon balance," that's fine, but I then find it incongruent to turn around and still allow WP Targeting to stack, because it creates what are by far the most "unbalanced" situations of any WP stacking (with the possible exception of Tridents; I'm still trying to recall exactly how that guy in the Fantasy campaign got a trident to fall under 3 WPs). You and KC just went back and forth about how WP stacking is "game-breaking." If that is the case, then I'd expect you to also argue that WP Targeting can't be allowed to stack. After all, there is no historical evidence to suggest that knives thrown by doctors are the most accurate offensive weapon ever, and there is nothing in real-world fighting that would explain a decision to deliberately create the game this way.

All that said, the more I look at the WP system the more that I think the whole thing was basically designed without any reason or logic applied to it anyways.

[Killer Cyborg]

At the time the original book was written the WP fork did not exist. In RUE trident was removed from the listing of spear and placed in WP fork. The skill was updated in RUE using a outdated version of a rule from before the trident got moved to a new WP does not prove the old WP still has to apply in currant version of rules. (As the number of WP have changed over time adding new ones it is best to stick to the most updated version of the skill.)

Greetings and Salutations. Okay, I'll put in more than the zero effort I put into the last one and put in about 2 minutes of research. W.P. that a Trident can fall in using just RGMG. Yes, Rifts is currently at RUE, but RUE references RGMG, as well as the fact the quote about being "rare" is found in RGMG.

RGMG, page 81: Trident falls under W.P. Trident (obviously).
RGMG, page 80: Trident falls under W.P. Pole Arm (it's specifically listed).
RGMG, page 115: Trident is included as a spear within the Australian Weapons, which means W.P. Spear applies. Of course, RGMG predates RUE and was created to be compatible with RMB (which includes the Trident as a Spear as well), but I said I'd use just RGMG.
RGMG, page 79: Spears (which a Trident is included as, per Rifts) gain bonuses from W.P. Archery and Targeting.

That's four different Weapon Proficiencies using one book, for just one weapon. I can't speak for everyone, but I know I don't even come close to calling that "rare." Farewell and safe journeys.

WP Trident @ level 1: +1 to strike and parry
@ level 15: +5 to strike and parry, +4 to Catch/Pin

WP Pole Arm @ level 1: +1 to strike and parry
@ level 15: +4 to strike, +5 parry, +4 to Throw

WP Spear @ level 1: +1 to strike and parry
@ level 15: +5 to strike and parry, +5 to Throw

WP Archery & Targeting @ level 1: +20' to range, +1 parry, ROF: 2
@ level 15: +300' to range, +1 parry, +6 to Throw

For a grand total of...
@ level 1: +3 strike, +4 parry, +20' range, and ROF: 2
@ level 15: +14 strike, +16 parry, +15 throw, +4 Catch/Pin, +300' range, and ROF: 8

(Not counting any bonuses from HTH, PP, etc.)

As of RUE, Tridents aren't restricted from WP Forked, so I think that (going with the notion that WPs stack as default), that should really be added in as well:
@ level 1: +1 strike, +1 parry, +1 entangle,
@ level 15: +6 strike, + 5 parry, +6 entangle

which would bring it up to:
@ level 1: +4 strike, +5 parry, +1 entangle, +20' range, ROF: 2
@ level 15: +20 strike, +21 parry, +15 throw, +6 entangle, +4 Catch/Pin, +300' range, and ROF: 8
(Again, not counting other relevant bonuses)

[HWalsh]

At the time the original book was written the WP fork did not exist. In RUE trident was removed from the listing of spear and placed in WP fork. The skill was updated in RUE using a outdated version of a rule from before the trident got moved to a new WP does not prove the old WP still has to apply in currant version of rules. (As the number of WP have changed over time adding new ones it is best to stick to the most updated version of the skill.)

Greetings and Salutations. Okay, I'll put in more than the zero effort I put into the last one and put in about 2 minutes of research. W.P. that a Trident can fall in using just RGMG. Yes, Rifts is currently at RUE, but RUE references RGMG, as well as the fact the quote about being "rare" is found in RGMG.

RGMG, page 81: Trident falls under W.P. Trident (obviously).
RGMG, page 80: Trident falls under W.P. Pole Arm (it's specifically listed).
RGMG, page 115: Trident is included as a spear within the Australian Weapons, which means W.P. Spear applies. Of course, RGMG predates RUE and was created to be compatible with RMB (which includes the Trident as a Spear as well), but I said I'd use just RGMG.
RGMG, page 79: Spears (which a Trident is included as, per Rifts) gain bonuses from W.P. Archery and Targeting.

That's four different Weapon Proficiencies using one book, for just one weapon. I can't speak for everyone, but I know I don't even come close to calling that "rare." Farewell and safe journeys.

So, under the theory that everything stacks I can make a mega deadly trident user by taking WP Trident, Spear, Polearm, archery, and targeting and make every staff user look like a beginner from the word go.

[dreicunan]

Stacking or not stacking, WP Forked is an amazingly powerful WP. Same bonus to strike and parry as swords, plus bonuses to entangle, and it gets to its bonuses faster than WP Sword as well.

Which leads one to wonder why forked weapons aren't more common. You'd think people would have noticed how much more effective they are.

[Killer Cyborg]

You and KC just went back and forth about how WP stacking is "game-breaking."

I don't recall using that term, but it's certainly broken.

If that is the case, then I'd expect you to also argue that WP Targeting can't be allowed to stack. After all, there is no historical evidence to suggest that knives thrown by doctors are the most accurate offensive weapon ever, and there is nothing in real-world fighting that would explain a decision to deliberately create the game this way.

Not sure what you're talking about there.
WP Targeting is designed specifically to stack. It mentions stacking.
Learning to knife fight includes some ability to throw the thing, but it's not as effective as training to specifically use them as thrown weapons.
I'm not seeing how Targeting is broken, nor how it breaks anything. Not when it comes to stacking, at least.

A guy with WP Knife @ 1st level is +1 to parry, and +1 to throw.
A guy with WP Knife & Targeting @ first level is +2 to parry, and has a ROF of 2. Oh, and +20' to range.
Not a big deal.

@ level 15?
The guy with just WP Knife is +5 to strike, +5 to parry, and +6 to throw.
The guy with WP Knife & Targeting is +5 to strike, +6 to parry, +10 to throw, has a ROF of 8, and has +300' range.
15 levels of Targeting doesn't net a whole lot. Throwing is increased by +4, which isn't a whole lot.
ROF... well, that depends on how you play it, and how many HTH attacks per melee the guy has. It can be a good boost.
The range IS a big boost... but the net result is still a weapon that has pretty crappy range compared to a bow, gun, etc.

WHY create the game in such a way that a person who's skilled at knives, who takes training to also be an expert thrower, can throw knives well and accurately?
Because that's pretty realistic, it's certainly cinematic, and it works out pretty well mechanically.

[Blue_Lion]

And without any reason or logic. There's nothing in real-world fighting that would explain a decision to deliberately create the game this way, there's nothing in cinema that would explain it, and there's nothing in game mechanics that would explain it.

Yes, historically there is no evidence to suggest that the staff is the greatest defensive weapon ever. That would probably be something like short sword (Roman style) and shield.

But is there historically evidence that some one that spends more time and effort to master a weapon such as staff and different fighting styles with it is better than some one that just learns the basics?

[Blue_Lion]

You and KC just went back and forth about how WP stacking is "game-breaking."

I don't recall using that term, but it's certainly broken.

If that is the case, then I'd expect you to also argue that WP Targeting can't be allowed to stack. After all, there is no historical evidence to suggest that knives thrown by doctors are the most accurate offensive weapon ever, and there is nothing in real-world fighting that would explain a decision to deliberately create the game this way.

Not sure what you're talking about there.
WP Targeting is designed specifically to stack. It mentions stacking.
Learning to knife fight includes some ability to throw the thing, but it's not as effective as training to specifically use them as thrown weapons.
I'm not seeing how Targeting is broken, nor how it breaks anything. Not when it comes to stacking, at least.

A guy with WP Knife @ 1st level is +1 to parry, and +1 to throw.
A guy with WP Knife & Targeting @ first level is +2 to parry, and has a ROF of 2. Oh, and +20' to range.
Not a big deal.

@ level 15?
The guy with just WP Knife is +5 to strike, +5 to parry, and +6 to throw.
The guy with WP Knife & Targeting is +5 to strike, +6 to parry, +10 to throw, has a ROF of 8, and has +300' range.
15 levels of Targeting doesn't net a whole lot. Throwing is increased by +4, which isn't a whole lot.
ROF... well, that depends on how you play it, and how many HTH attacks per melee the guy has. It can be a good boost.
The range IS a big boost... but the net result is still a weapon that has pretty crappy range compared to a bow, gun, etc.

WHY create the game in such a way that a person who's skilled at knives, who takes training to also be an expert thrower, can throw knives well and accurately?
Because that's pretty realistic, it's certainly cinematic, and it works out pretty well mechanically.

A staff is a fairly crappy weapon compared to a laser rifle even with this.
With the acceptation of rare staffs from things like Milliam trees they are sdc weapons and have shorter range than even the crappiest laser pistol.

Note: ROF is not part of targeting in RUE they defaulted back to hand to hand attacks(direct statement that each thrown item uses one action attack). They also appear to have removed the bonus to range bonus.

His point seamed more if stacking was inherently broken then the weapon skill targeting broaken.

Both WP targeting stacking and staff blunt provide a stacked bonus increase of +1 to strike at level one when they stack so if it is not a big deal for targeting why would it be for staff at level 1?

[HWalsh]

With the acceptation of rare staffs from things like Milliam trees they are sdc weapons and have shorter range than even the crappiest laser pistol.

Uh, rare?

Staff made out of MDC materials wielded by anyone with Supernatural Strength. Really easy to get. Beats the heck out of a vibro blade.

[Blue_Lion]

With the acceptation of rare staffs from things like Milliam trees they are sdc weapons and have shorter range than even the crappiest laser pistol.

Uh, rare?

Staff made out of MDC materials wielded by anyone with Supernatural Strength. Really easy to get. Beats the heck out of a vibro blade.

Really how many places have staffs made out of MDC materials made to be used as such?
Is there not rules in the books that a weapon can break if used by some one with a higher damage than it was made for?
Oh wait there it is page 286, it is listed as an opitional rule but it is there. (Likely it is the reason that most SN ps do not use weapons.)
With it a staff made of MDC would have a chance of breaking if it was used to inflict 1 mdc.

So yes as I said staffs are a SDC weapon. Something with SN PS might be able to inflict MD with it but the weapon is still generally made to inflict SDC not MDC. Your claim amounts to saying a board with a nail in it is a MDC weapon because anyone with Supernatural Strength can do MDC with it.

A MDC weapon is a weapon that inflicts MDC regardless of who uses it. A SDC weapon is a weapon that inflicts SDC when wielded by a normal user(non supernatural you might say).

[Killer Cyborg]

You and KC just went back and forth about how WP stacking is "game-breaking."

I don't recall using that term, but it's certainly broken.

If that is the case, then I'd expect you to also argue that WP Targeting can't be allowed to stack. After all, there is no historical evidence to suggest that knives thrown by doctors are the most accurate offensive weapon ever, and there is nothing in real-world fighting that would explain a decision to deliberately create the game this way.

Not sure what you're talking about there.
WP Targeting is designed specifically to stack. It mentions stacking.
Learning to knife fight includes some ability to throw the thing, but it's not as effective as training to specifically use them as thrown weapons.
I'm not seeing how Targeting is broken, nor how it breaks anything. Not when it comes to stacking, at least.

A guy with WP Knife @ 1st level is +1 to parry, and +1 to throw.
A guy with WP Knife & Targeting @ first level is +2 to parry, and has a ROF of 2. Oh, and +20' to range.
Not a big deal.

@ level 15?
The guy with just WP Knife is +5 to strike, +5 to parry, and +6 to throw.
The guy with WP Knife & Targeting is +5 to strike, +6 to parry, +10 to throw, has a ROF of 8, and has +300' range.
15 levels of Targeting doesn't net a whole lot. Throwing is increased by +4, which isn't a whole lot.
ROF... well, that depends on how you play it, and how many HTH attacks per melee the guy has. It can be a good boost.
The range IS a big boost... but the net result is still a weapon that has pretty crappy range compared to a bow, gun, etc.

WHY create the game in such a way that a person who's skilled at knives, who takes training to also be an expert thrower, can throw knives well and accurately?
Because that's pretty realistic, it's certainly cinematic, and it works out pretty well mechanically.

A staff is a fairly crappy weapon compared to a laser rifle even with this.

Not in melee.
Don't compare apples to oranges.

Note: ROF is not part of targeting in RUE they defaulted back to hand to hand attacks(direct statement that each thrown item uses one action attack). They also appear to have removed the bonus to range bonus.

Good move on their part.

(Of course, not everybody agrees that removal of text describing a rule means removal of the rule.)

His point seamed more if stacking was inherently broken then the weapon skill targeting broaken.

Stacking isn't inherently broken.
Stacking WPs that are not designed and designated specifically to stack is broken.

Both WP targeting stacking and staff blunt provide a stacked bonus increase of +1 to strike at level one when they stack so if it is not a big deal for targeting why would it be for staff at level 1?

The +1 to strike from WP Staff/Blung is not a big deal at level 1.

[Killer Cyborg]

With the acceptation of rare staffs from things like Milliam trees they are sdc weapons and have shorter range than even the crappiest laser pistol.

Uh, rare?

Staff made out of MDC materials wielded by anyone with Supernatural Strength. Really easy to get. Beats the heck out of a vibro blade.

Really how many places have staffs made out of MDC materials made to be used as such?

An unknown number of places, since the books never say one way or the other.
But it's not like they'd be hard to make, and with stackable WPs, they'd be a more common weapon.

More importantly, I don't think it matters, unless you're claiming that WPs only stack like this on Rifts Earth.
If so, you should let us know.
If WPs stack as default in Splicers, N&S, PFRPG, TMNT, After The Bomb, HU, Dead Reign, and so forth, then a lack of MDC staffs doesn't mean anything significant. Best case scenario, the rule is still broken in Rifts, only it has less potential impact.

Meanwhile, you might want to keep in mind that Millenium Tree Staffs are not all that uncommon in Rifts Japan, where there are a number of staff-fighting OCCs that get Millenium Tree Staffs as part of their starting equipment.

Also keep in mind that normal SDC wooden staffs can work pretty well on vampires.

Is there not rules in the books that a weapon can break if used by some one with a higher damage than it was made for?
Oh wait there it is page 286, it is listed as an opitional rule but it is there. (Likely it is the reason that most SN ps do not use weapons.)

No, I don't think it's likely that most Supernatural Beings avoid melee weapons based on an optional rule.

[Killer Cyborg]

And without any reason or logic. There's nothing in real-world fighting that would explain a decision to deliberately create the game this way, there's nothing in cinema that would explain it, and there's nothing in game mechanics that would explain it.

Yes, historically there is no evidence to suggest that the staff is the greatest defensive weapon ever. That would probably be something like short sword (Roman style) and shield.

But is there historically evidence that some one that spends more time and effort to master a weapon such as staff and different fighting styles with it is better than some one that just learns the basics?

a) What makes you think that WP Staff constitutes "just the basics?"
b) Is there historical evidence that somebody who trains with staff fighting specifically, and who also trains with staffs, clubs, hammers and blunt weapons in general, ends up being roughly twice as skilled in staff combat?
c) Is there historical evidence that somebody who trains with tridents, spears, polearms in general, and archery/thrown weapons is going to be better with the trident than somebody who trains solely with the trident?

[dreicunan]

You and KC just went back and forth about how WP stacking is "game-breaking."

I don't recall using that term, but it's certainly broken.

If that is the case, then I'd expect you to also argue that WP Targeting can't be allowed to stack. After all, there is no historical evidence to suggest that knives thrown by doctors are the most accurate offensive weapon ever, and there is nothing in real-world fighting that would explain a decision to deliberately create the game this way.

Not sure what you're talking about there.
WP Targeting is designed specifically to stack. It mentions stacking.
Learning to knife fight includes some ability to throw the thing, but it's not as effective as training to specifically use them as thrown weapons.
I'm not seeing how Targeting is broken, nor how it breaks anything. Not when it comes to stacking, at least.

A guy with WP Knife @ 1st level is +1 to parry, and +1 to throw.
A guy with WP Knife & Targeting @ first level is +2 to parry, and has a ROF of 2. Oh, and +20' to range.
Not a big deal.

@ level 15?
The guy with just WP Knife is +5 to strike, +5 to parry, and +6 to throw.
The guy with WP Knife & Targeting is +5 to strike, +6 to parry, +10 to throw, has a ROF of 8, and has +300' range.
15 levels of Targeting doesn't net a whole lot. Throwing is increased by +4, which isn't a whole lot.
ROF... well, that depends on how you play it, and how many HTH attacks per melee the guy has. It can be a good boost.
The range IS a big boost... but the net result is still a weapon that has pretty crappy range compared to a bow, gun, etc.

WHY create the game in such a way that a person who's skilled at knives, who takes training to also be an expert thrower, can throw knives well and accurately?
Because that's pretty realistic, it's certainly cinematic, and it works out pretty well mechanically.

Ok; I'm trying to figure out why simultaneously throwing a pair of knives that crit on a 19 or 20 with a +10 to strike (+11 for a body fixer) isn't a big deal, but using a staff that only crits on a 20 with a +10 to strike would be a big deal. Is this really all about the parry bonus in your eyes?

Extra training can improve skill based accuracy for throwing, while melee accuracy is limited to a +6 from skill? Even if we add in hand to hand skills, throwing is more accurate, and that remains true for most characters with moat weapons aince basic caps out at +2 to strike, as do expert and martial arts. Commando caps at +3. Assassin gives +6 to strike in melee, +2 with a thrown weapon, and +3 with guns. Thus, an assassin with WP knife and Targeting would cap at +11 in melee, +12 to throw. Who knew that it was easier to hit a bull's-eye by throwing a knife at it than by running up and stabbing it?

With WP Spear and Targeting, for what it is worth, most characters end up with +7 from hth and +8 to throw; commando is even at +8 for either, and assassin gets +11 in hth and +10 to throw. So assassin's can stab a bull's-eye more easily than throwing a spear at it, commandos are equalky adept at either, but everyone else should throw it.

[Killer Cyborg]

You and KC just went back and forth about how WP stacking is "game-breaking."

I don't recall using that term, but it's certainly broken.

If that is the case, then I'd expect you to also argue that WP Targeting can't be allowed to stack. After all, there is no historical evidence to suggest that knives thrown by doctors are the most accurate offensive weapon ever, and there is nothing in real-world fighting that would explain a decision to deliberately create the game this way.

Not sure what you're talking about there.
WP Targeting is designed specifically to stack. It mentions stacking.
Learning to knife fight includes some ability to throw the thing, but it's not as effective as training to specifically use them as thrown weapons.
I'm not seeing how Targeting is broken, nor how it breaks anything. Not when it comes to stacking, at least.

A guy with WP Knife @ 1st level is +1 to parry, and +1 to throw.
A guy with WP Knife & Targeting @ first level is +2 to parry, and has a ROF of 2. Oh, and +20' to range.
Not a big deal.

@ level 15?
The guy with just WP Knife is +5 to strike, +5 to parry, and +6 to throw.
The guy with WP Knife & Targeting is +5 to strike, +6 to parry, +10 to throw, has a ROF of 8, and has +300' range.
15 levels of Targeting doesn't net a whole lot. Throwing is increased by +4, which isn't a whole lot.
ROF... well, that depends on how you play it, and how many HTH attacks per melee the guy has. It can be a good boost.
The range IS a big boost... but the net result is still a weapon that has pretty crappy range compared to a bow, gun, etc.

WHY create the game in such a way that a person who's skilled at knives, who takes training to also be an expert thrower, can throw knives well and accurately?
Because that's pretty realistic, it's certainly cinematic, and it works out pretty well mechanically.

Ok; I'm trying to figure out why simultaneously throwing a pair of knives that crit on a 19 or 20 with a +10 to strike (+11 for a body fixer) isn't a big deal, but using a staff that only crits on a 20 with a +10 to strike would be a big deal. Is this really all about the parry bonus in your eyes?

Nope.
a) Not sure why you're saying "simultaneously throwing a pair of knives." Are you assuming that the thrower also has WP Paired Weapons, and that WP Paired Weapons applies to throwing knives?
b) The crit on 19-20 isn't bad. I think it was also added in RUE, and I was looking at the RGMG. I don't have my books, but it looks like they dropped the range bonuses and ROF, but added the 5% higher chance to crit.
Anyway, I don't think that an extra 5% chance to crit is that big of a deal. It literally only matters 5% of the time, and only then if the strike isn't parried or dodged.
c) You seem to be counting the Body Fixer's strike bonus as a bonus to THROW, and I don't think it works that way. "+x to strike when thrown" is a specific condition, and normal strike bonuses don't usually apply as far as I can tell. Or I'm remembering wrong, and they have a "+1 to strike when thrown" bonus?

In any case, no, it's not all about the parry bonus. It's about the combat bonuses overall, including bonuses to throw your staff accurately.

Extra training can improve skill based accuracy for throwing, while melee accuracy is limited to a +6 from skill? Even if we add in hand to hand skills, throwing is more accurate, and that remains true for most characters with moat weapons aince basic caps out at +2 to strike, as do expert and martial arts. Commando caps at +3. Assassin gives +6 to strike in melee, +2 with a thrown weapon, and +3 with guns. Thus, an assassin with WP knife and Targeting would cap at +11 in melee, +12 to throw. Who knew that it was easier to hit a bull's-eye by throwing a knife at it than by running up and stabbing it?

The same people who know that it's easier to hit a target using a bow and arrow than it is to hit one with a gun.
Palladium favors ranged weapons in certain ways which I chalk up to cinematic flavor. It's not unusual for movies to depict knife-throwers as being inhumanely accurate and deadly, even compared to knife-stabbders/slashers.
If I were to adjust the rules to make things more realistic, I'd drop the unusually high throwing bonus for knives in general. A +6 bonus to throw based on general knife-fighting skill is excessive, IMO.

With WP Spear and Targeting, for what it is worth, most characters end up with +7 from hth and +8 to throw; commando is even at +8 for either, and assassin gets +11 in hth and +10 to throw. So assassin's can stab a bull's-eye more easily than throwing a spear at it, commandos are equalky adept at either, but everyone else should throw it.

Yup.
Cinema, man. Spear-fighters are historically superior, but nowhere near as cool in the movies. They're also more often thrown than anything else, so Palladium fails to distinguish between spears designed for throwing, and spears designed for stabbing.
I'd tweak it if I could.

[dreicunan]

"a) Not sure why you're saying "simultaneously throwing a pair of knives." Are you assuming that the thrower also has WP Paired Weapons, and that WP Paired Weapons applies to throwing knives?"
Because WP Targeting in RUE says that you can throw two small weapons like knives or shuriken simultaneously at the same target as part of the WP, no need for Paired Weapons.

Regarding Criticals: To parry the 19, you need to equal or beat it with a natural roll, just like if you roll a 20.

"c) You seem to be counting the Body Fixer's strike bonus as a bonus to THROW, and I don't think it works that way. "+x to strike when thrown" is a specific condition, and normal strike bonuses don't usually apply as far as I can tell. Or I'm remembering wrong, and they have a "+1 to strike when thrown" bonus?"
It just says that it has a special bonus of +1 to strike. We'd always played it as a blanket bonus. I likely have allowed a house rule to sneak into my memory.

[eliakon]

Regarding Criticals: To parry the 19, you need to equal or beat it with a natural roll, just like if you roll a 20.

Source?
Because as written that is a special feature of the natural twenty and not of any other form of critical strike. All the other critical hits do is double damage.
I would be fascinated to read a citation that changes that as it would make several skills and weapons vastly more powerful.

[Killer Cyborg]

"a) Not sure why you're saying "simultaneously throwing a pair of knives." Are you assuming that the thrower also has WP Paired Weapons, and that WP Paired Weapons applies to throwing knives?"
Because WP Targeting in RUE says that you can throw two small weapons like knives or shuriken simultaneously at the same target as part of the WP, no need for Paired Weapons.

Okay, I'm looking at RUE now, and yeah, that's kinda messed up. One of the "new" abilities added in RUE that isn't present in earlier versions.
I think it's over-powered, but it's not a problem with Targeting stacking--it's a problem with Targeting.

They split the skill from archery, but I think it's still overpowered. Even without a WP, throwing mini-grenades could be quite powerful, 2 at a time.

Regarding Criticals: To parry the 19, you need to equal or beat it with a natural roll, just like if you roll a 20.

Nah. That's only with natural 20s.

"c) You seem to be counting the Body Fixer's strike bonus as a bonus to THROW, and I don't think it works that way. "+x to strike when thrown" is a specific condition, and normal strike bonuses don't usually apply as far as I can tell. Or I'm remembering wrong, and they have a "+1 to strike when thrown" bonus?"
It just says that it has a special bonus of +1 to strike. We'd always played it as a blanket bonus. I likely have allowed a house rule to sneak into my memory.

[dreicunan]

Regarding Criticals: To parry the 19, you need to equal or beat it with a natural roll, just like if you roll a 20.

Source?
Because as written that is a special feature of the natural twenty and not of any other form of critical strike. All the other critical hits do is double damage.
I would be fascinated to read a citation that changes that as it would make several skills and weapons vastly more powerful.

Go read the WP Targeting description in RUE, page 328, right column, under "A Natural 19 or 20 Does Double Damage." That would be the source; there is no ambiguity in the wording.

[Killer Cyborg]

Regarding Criticals: To parry the 19, you need to equal or beat it with a natural roll, just like if you roll a 20.

Source?
Because as written that is a special feature of the natural twenty and not of any other form of critical strike. All the other critical hits do is double damage.
I would be fascinated to read a citation that changes that as it would make several skills and weapons vastly more powerful.

Go read the WP Targeting description in RUE, page 328, right column, under "A Natural 19 or 20 Does Double Damage." That would be the source; there is no ambiguity in the wording.

It sounds like you think "does double damage" means "can only be parried by a Natural 19 or 20."

[dreicunan]

Regarding Criticals: To parry the 19, you need to equal or beat it with a natural roll, just like if you roll a 20.

Source?
Because as written that is a special feature of the natural twenty and not of any other form of critical strike. All the other critical hits do is double damage.
I would be fascinated to read a citation that changes that as it would make several skills and weapons vastly more powerful.

Go read the WP Targeting description in RUE, page 328, right column, under "A Natural 19 or 20 Does Double Damage." That would be the source; there is no ambiguity in the wording.

It sounds like you think "does double damage" means "can only be parried by a Natural 19 or 20."

No, I think that the last sentence of the paragraph where it says that the only way for this attack to be parried or dodged is for the defender to equal or better the roll with his own, unmodified die roll means exactly what it says.

[Killer Cyborg]

Regarding Criticals: To parry the 19, you need to equal or beat it with a natural roll, just like if you roll a 20.

Source?
Because as written that is a special feature of the natural twenty and not of any other form of critical strike. All the other critical hits do is double damage.
I would be fascinated to read a citation that changes that as it would make several skills and weapons vastly more powerful.

Go read the WP Targeting description in RUE, page 328, right column, under "A Natural 19 or 20 Does Double Damage." That would be the source; there is no ambiguity in the wording.

It sounds like you think "does double damage" means "can only be parried by a Natural 19 or 20."

No, I think that the last sentence of the paragraph where it says that the only way for this attack to be parried or dodged is for the defender to equal or better the roll with his own, unmodified die roll means exactly what it says.

Next time, quote THAT part!



(Seriously, that's pretty darned messed up!!!!!!!!
What the heck were they thinking with this version of Targeting?
It's over-powered.)