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

[Mlp7029]

WP Blunt says it applies to staves as does W.P. Staff. So you get bonuses for both skills when using staves?

[Nekira Sudacne]

As written, yes.

Most everyone I know rules you pick higher of two.

[SpiritInterface]

WP Blunt is for short weapons such as maces, morning stars, batons, escrima sticks, yawara, shillelagh, canes. WP Staff covers longer weapons such as Jo staff, Bo staff, Quarter staff, fighting staff.

[eliakon]

I am of the opinion that you can only use one W.P. for a weapon at a time.
BUT that you can use the better of the W.P.s for a specific weapon if it comes under multiple W.P.s
This is because there are so many possible overlapping W.P.s that the bonuses can get out of hand quickly if someone wants to specialize in a specific weapon.

So your staff could use W.P. blunt, or W.P. staff, or W.P. Bo Staff or what have you... but you can't stack all three.

[dreicunan]

Nekira hit the nail on the head. As written, both would apply, but plenty of people house rule that away.

[Blue_Lion]

WP Blunt is for short weapons such as maces, morning stars, batons, escrima sticks, yawara, shillelagh, canes. WP Staff covers longer weapons such as Jo staff, Bo staff, Quarter staff, fighting staff.

You might want to check the text in RUE as WP blunt says it covers staffs.

I see nothing in writing that says only one applies. So lacking the limit in writing both would apply, many people may house rule that only one would apply.

[SpiritInterface]

WP Blunt is for short weapons such as maces, morning stars, batons, escrima sticks, yawara, shillelagh, canes. WP Staff covers longer weapons such as Jo staff, Bo staff, Quarter staff, fighting staff.

You might want to check the text in RUE as WP blunt says it covers staffs.

I see nothing in writing that says only one applies. So lacking the limit in writing both would apply, many people may house rule that only one would apply.

Actually it doesn't say staff, it says staves. A stave is any straight stick.

[Axelmania]

326 Blunt "all types of blunt weaopons, including .. staves"
327 Staff "large and small staves"

Both definitely apply to Staves. As someone else pointed out before, Blunt also applies to WP Shield since it says "1D6 as a blunt weapon"

[eliakon]

WP Blunt is for short weapons such as maces, morning stars, batons, escrima sticks, yawara, shillelagh, canes. WP Staff covers longer weapons such as Jo staff, Bo staff, Quarter staff, fighting staff.

You might want to check the text in RUE as WP blunt says it covers staffs.

I see nothing in writing that says only one applies. So lacking the limit in writing both would apply, many people may house rule that only one would apply.

I also don't see anything that says that you can stack them
They are not physical skills and only physical skills say that they stack.
No other skill section has the note about stacking, and that note is in the Physical skill section... meaning it applies to physical skills and not any other skills per se.

That and the fact that there are ways to get five or six or more WPs all applying to the same weapon (meaning that at level 3 or 4 your looking at +12 or better to strike and parry!) suggests to me that there is no intent to stack them.

[Axelmania]

All bonuses apply unless we're explicitly told that it's a mutually exclusive situation and they interfere and we have to pick one or the other.

Intent to stack is totally different from whether it's RAW to stack or not.

That said, you could always take the ninjas and superspies approach of requiring weapon katas to stack WP with HTH bonuses... the rule is 1 kata at a time so that would only allow 1 WP to be combined with a HTH at a time, even if WP could still stack independent of using HTH.

[eliakon]

All bonuses apply unless we're explicitly told that it's a mutually exclusive situation and they interfere and we have to pick one or the other.

Intent to stack is totally different from whether it's RAW to stack or not.

That said, you could always take the ninjas and superspies approach of requiring weapon katas to stack WP with HTH bonuses... the rule is 1 kata at a time so that would only allow 1 WP to be combined with a HTH at a time, even if WP could still stack independent of using HTH.

This is not saying anything though...
...after all why would this NOT be a mutually exclusive situation where they interfere?
I mean they are different techniques... so why should you be able to both wield a staff like a staff AND wield it like a club, at the same time?
Each style or technique seems to be totally different. Just like you can't speak Japanese and French at the same time I don't think you should be able to wield one weapon in two or three or five different ways at one time.

[Axelmania]

You could make the same arguments about hand to hand combat forms and WP skills being different sets of techniques, but they also stack in Rifts.

Hand to hand combat skills even apply when piloting non-humanoid robots, which doesn't make much sense if you're thinking of it as rigid forms.

They stack because the skills must reflect generalized principles which are flexible. If HTH Martial Arts and Boxing can stack with Robot Combat Elite: Spider-Skull Walker then Blunt+Staff principles being complementary is not hard to conceive in the slightest.

It's much easier to imagine how general blunt / specific staff training would benefit in synergy than it would be to know why boxing makes me a better parrier with a staff.

If those skills are so flexible then why would WP be rigid?

[tsh77769]

I am aware of a few cases where WP do combine with other WP or with other skills to SOME degree...

W.P. Sword PLUS Fencing (listed as a physical skill).

W.P. Archery & Targeting PLUS W.P. Bow, W.P. Spear and one or two others.

W.P. Pistol, E-Pistol, Rifle, E-Rifle, Bow, targeting PLUS W.P. Sharpshooting.

W.P. Heavy PLUS one of the piloting or pilot related skills.

Various martial arts in Palladium provide weapon or WP related add-ons.

Nekira is definitely right in that by RAW they wold combine. I personally would allow it.

The one I have possible concern about is WP Archery & Targeting PLUS W.P. Bow, PLUS W.P. Sharpshooting. That combo is OUT THERE!!

tsh77769

[Axelmania]

"Don't forget my special OCC bonuses to disarm and crossed weapons on top of that" -T. Archer

[eliakon]

I am aware of a few cases where WP do combine with other WP or with other skills to SOME degree...

W.P. Sword PLUS Fencing (listed as a physical skill).

W.P. Archery & Targeting PLUS W.P. Bow, W.P. Spear and one or two others.

W.P. Pistol, E-Pistol, Rifle, E-Rifle, Bow, targeting PLUS W.P. Sharpshooting.

W.P. Heavy PLUS one of the piloting or pilot related skills.

Various martial arts in Palladium provide weapon or WP related add-ons.

Nekira is definitely right in that by RAW they wold combine. I personally would allow it.

The one I have possible concern about is WP Archery & Targeting PLUS W.P. Bow, PLUS W.P. Sharpshooting. That combo is OUT THERE!!

tsh77769

Actually these help MAKE my case.
There should not need to be a special note that the bonuses for these skills stack if that was the normal procedure.
The fact that Targeting is explicitly called out as stacking with another WP suggests that that is not the normal arrangement.

[MurderCityDisciple]

What about spears and polearms? Should the staff bonuses be added when used to whack bluntly or disarm folks?

[Library Ogre]

I am of the "use the better" camp. I picture them as two different styles... someone using WP Blunt with a Staff fights less like Darth Maul and more like Babe Ruth.

[dreicunan]

@eliakon: That some weapon proficiencies make it extra clear that they combine does not mean that skills which don't cannot unless there is a quote which says so. There is no such quote, ergo RAW they can stack.

[Nekira Sudacne]

I am of the "use the better" camp. I picture them as two different styles... someone using WP Blunt with a Staff fights less like Darth Maul and more like Babe Ruth.

More or less my idea. W.P. Blunt with a stave is more like an oversized baseball bat. W.P. Staff is the "proper" twirl&whirl style of fighting.

[Killer Cyborg]

@eliakon: That some weapon proficiencies make it extra clear that they combine does not mean that skills which don't cannot unless there is a quote which says so. There is no such quote, ergo RAW they can stack.

Lack of forbiddance does not equal permission.

[Mack]

I am of the "use the better" camp. I picture them as two different styles... someone using WP Blunt with a Staff fights less like Darth Maul and more like Babe Ruth.

Wow, I just had a weird Celebrity Deathmatch flash in my head.

[Library Ogre]

I am of the "use the better" camp. I picture them as two different styles... someone using WP Blunt with a Staff fights less like Darth Maul and more like Babe Ruth.

Wow, I just had a weird Celebrity Deathmatch flash in my head.

...I'll allow it.

[rem1093]

I would go with no. You can't and should not stack WP. All it is, is that some weapons can fall into multiple WP. For example if I use my Hatchet, do i combine both the Axe and Blunt wp's? No Just because it can be used as both a hammer and an axe, does not mean that stacks the skills, just that I can can use the bonuses from ether skill with it.

Then there is the Fact that if you start stacking WP's, it would get way out of hand. Just off the top of my head, I take my Hatchet, increase the head size, mounted on a pole, and add a forked base. I would have a weapon that stacked Axe, Blunt, Forked, Pole arm, maybe even staff. Thats four to five different WP that could be stacked in one weapon. Does anybody really want that?

[dreicunan]

@eliakon: That some weapon proficiencies make it extra clear that they combine does not mean that skills which don't cannot unless there is a quote which says so. There is no such quote, ergo RAW they can stack.

Lack of forbiddance does not equal permission.

Quite true, but it also certainly doesn't equal prohibition.

Page 326 of RUE states, "Bonuses that increase for that particular weapon are accumulative," and the fact that it mentions "weapon," and not weapon proficiency, would seem significant in this discussion.

[Axelmania]

@eliakon: That some weapon proficiencies make it extra clear that they combine does not mean that skills which don't cannot unless there is a quote which says so. There is no such quote, ergo RAW they can stack.

Lack of forbiddance does not equal permission.

Permission is already given when we are told what weapons a WP applies to. The permission is that staves are mentioned under WP blunt and WP staff.

Since permission to use these bonuses is present, proof of forbidding would be needed to cancel that out.

if I use my Hatchet, do i combine both the Axe and Blunt wp's? No Just because it can be used as both a hammer and an axe, does not mean that stacks the skills, just that I can can use the bonuses from ether skill with it.

Even though IRL you can use the blunt side of a hatchet as a hammer, I have never seen a hatchet classified as a blunt weapon in any Palladium game.

Then there is the Fact that if you start stacking WP's, it would get way out of hand. Just off the top of my head, I take my Hatchet, increase the head size, mounted on a pole, and add a forked base. I would have a weapon that stacked Axe, Blunt, Forked, Pole arm, maybe even staff. Thats four to five different WP that could be stacked in one weapon. Does anybody really want that?

The GM could rule what class of weapon that qualifies as. You're inventing false dilemmas.

[Killer Cyborg]

@eliakon: That some weapon proficiencies make it extra clear that they combine does not mean that skills which don't cannot unless there is a quote which says so. There is no such quote, ergo RAW they can stack.

Lack of forbiddance does not equal permission.

Permission is already given when we are told what weapons a WP applies to. The permission is that staves are mentioned under WP blunt and WP staff.

They each can apply.
But that does not mean that they both apply.

WP Heavy Energy Weapons applies to plasma ejectors.
WP Energy Pistol applies to energy pistols.
That doesn't mean that if you have a plasma pistol, that it gets bonuses from both WPs.

What you're implying is that KS, when creating various weapon proficiencies, decided that Staffs were unusually cool weapons, and that they needed to have the ability to have extra bonuses that other weapons don't have, that they're so different and special that Staffs should have TWO WPs that both apply simultaneously, when no other melee weapon does.
And that doesn't seem either plausible or reasonable.

The alternate explanation is both plausible and reasonable:
WP Staff is not in the RMB, but WP Blunt is.
At some point in a future book, some writer decided to add WP Staff. They were either unaware of the redundancy, OR they were trying to make a specialized and non-specific skill to deal with staffs specifically. When they created the new skill, they neglected to change the old skill's wording the same way they altered WP Forked when WP Trident became its own skill.
Palladium being Palladium, they still haven't fixed the wording of WP Blunt in light of the newer, more specific skill's existence.

[Killer Cyborg]

@eliakon: That some weapon proficiencies make it extra clear that they combine does not mean that skills which don't cannot unless there is a quote which says so. There is no such quote, ergo RAW they can stack.

Lack of forbiddance does not equal permission.

Quite true, but it also certainly doesn't equal prohibition.

The default when dealing with game rules is that yes, it does.

Page 326 of RUE states, "Bonuses that increase for that particular weapon are accumulative," and the fact that it mentions "weapon," and not weapon proficiency, would seem significant in this discussion.

Which is more plausible?
a) That sentence exists solely for the combination of Blunt/Staves, and it is talking about bonuses from multiple different WPs accumulating with each other
or
b) That sentence exists for all WPs, and is describing the fact that the individual +x bonuses listed under each skill all naturally stack with each other.

While you're thinking over those alternatives, consider the following.
A 15th level character with a mace would have +5 to strike and parry total from his WP, and +3 to strike when throwing the weapon.
A 15th level character with a staff would be able to have +10 to strike, +10 to Parry, and +6 to throw his staff.

Does that seem like a reasonable and deliberate result on Palladium's part? Does it seem like something that KS would have chosen to do?
Is it realistic? Are staves really twice as effective as maces and other blunt weapons?

Hell, are staves really as easy to throw accurately as knives? A 15th level character with WP Knife has a +6 bonus to strike when throwing a knife, the same as a 15th level Staff expert would have with his staff, a weapon twice noted as being "not designed for throwing."
Does that really make sense?
A 15th level character with WP Spear has +4 to strike when throwing the weapon...

I can keep breaking things down, but the idea that staves are special weapons that allow for staff experts to become significantly superior to other weapon experts simply does not make any sense.

[dreicunan]

@Killer Cyborg: I don't disagree with anything that you've said; that said, your line of reasoning is all leading to a ruling that requires us to make inferences. A level fifteen character with targeting and knife would have +10 to strike, so getting to that high a number due to two skills has precedent; one can make the argument that this supports the idea that they go together. There is an option C, after all: That sentence applies to all WPs, and thus other weapons that fall under multiple WPs can get big bonuses as well (I seem to recall tridents being famed foe this in some circles in the past).

Once again, that doesn't mean that it is a good idea, nor that one should allow it, but by all appearances that is what RAW allows. KS has left things ambiguous plenty of times. So.while I agree with your ultimate conclusion, I'd also say that for the moment (absent a statement of which I am unaware) it is a house rule.

[Killer Cyborg]

@Killer Cyborg: I don't disagree with anything that you've said; that said, your line of reasoning is all leading to a ruling that requires us to make inferences. A level fifteen character with targeting and knife would have +10 to strike, so getting to that high a number due to two skills has precedent; one can make the argument that this supports the idea that they go together. There is an option C, after all: That sentence applies to all WPs, and thus other weapons that fall under multiple WPs can get big bonuses as well (I seem to recall tridents being famed foe this in some circles in the past).

Yes, if Targeting and Knives stack, then it would be +10 compared to the +6 for throwing a staff.
I wouldn't say that makes much more sense, though.

Tridents as of the RGMG were officially excluded from the WP Forked skill.
As of RUE, they seem to be folded back into Forked.

IF all WPs stacked, then we'd have a bad situation where a blunt knife on the end of a chain is 3x better than just a sharp knife or a chain.

Once again, that doesn't mean that it is a good idea, nor that one should allow it, but by all appearances that is what RAW allows. KS has left things ambiguous plenty of times. So.while I agree with your ultimate conclusion, I'd also say that for the moment (absent a statement of which I am unaware) it is a house rule.

No.
There is a difference between RAW and the actual rules of the game.
A typo might be RAW, but that doesn't mean that the typo is an actual rule, nor does it mean that it's a house-rule to fix the mistake.
The same applies to other kinds of editorial mistakes, including stuff like forgetting to change WP Blunt's description to exclude staves, or neglecting to specify at some point that only one WP applies to staves at a time.

[eliakon]

@Killer Cyborg: I don't disagree with anything that you've said; that said, your line of reasoning is all leading to a ruling that requires us to make inferences. A level fifteen character with targeting and knife would have +10 to strike, so getting to that high a number due to two skills has precedent; one can make the argument that this supports the idea that they go together. There is an option C, after all: That sentence applies to all WPs, and thus other weapons that fall under multiple WPs can get big bonuses as well (I seem to recall tridents being famed foe this in some circles in the past).

Once again, that doesn't mean that it is a good idea, nor that one should allow it, but by all appearances that is what RAW allows. KS has left things ambiguous plenty of times. So.while I agree with your ultimate conclusion, I'd also say that for the moment (absent a statement of which I am unaware) it is a house rule.

I don't follow how a specific note that a specific skill has a specific special rule means that all skills everywhere get to use that special ability
That is like saying that because Mages get spell casting that all characters get it (after all there is a rule about giving the one specific class an ability right...)
Or that we should assume that because you can stack physical skills that we should be able to stack Piloting skills

Put another way can anyone specifically point to a rule that specifically says that skills OTHER than Physical skills stack?

[Axelmania]

They each can apply.
But that does not mean that they both apply.

WP Heavy Energy Weapons applies to plasma ejectors.
WP Energy Pistol applies to energy pistols.
That doesn't mean that if you have a plasma pistol, that it gets bonuses from both WPs.

Can you give an example of a plasma pistol that is called an "ejector" ?

What you're implying is that KS, when creating various weapon proficiencies, decided that Staffs were unusually cool weapons, and that they needed to have the ability to have extra bonuses that other weapons don't have, that they're so different and special that Staffs should have TWO WPs that both apply simultaneously, when no other melee weapon does.
And that doesn't seem either plausible or reasonable.

It's not the only weapon where this is the case, since shields are described bluntly and other weapons like Trident have alternatively been described as polearms, spears, forked, or even WP Trident by itself.

Staves ARE unusually cool, and Kevin did publish multiple books where he put Blunt and Staff in the list even though both described working with Staves, like 326/327 of Rifts Ultimate Edition for example.

WP Staff has inferior bonuses to WP Blunt (Blunt is S&P 1/3/6/9/12 Staff is S 1/3/7/10/13 P 2/5/8/11/14) while applying to a narrower field of weapons. Due to that, there wouldn't be ANY value in selecting it unless it stacked with WP Blunt. Stacking with WP Blunt actually gives a purpose to getting WP Staff. There would be absolutely no reason to select it except for this, since it is inferior to WP Blunt in every way if you could only pick 1.

The alternate explanation is both plausible and reasonable:
WP Staff is not in the RMB, but WP Blunt is.
At some point in a future book, some writer decided to add WP Staff. They were either unaware of the redundancy, OR they were trying to make a specialized and non-specific skill to deal with staffs specifically. When they created the new skill, they neglected to change the old skill's wording the same way they altered WP Forked when WP Trident became its own skill.
Palladium being Palladium, they still haven't fixed the wording of WP Blunt in light of the newer, more specific skill's existence.

I don't see much value in speculating on the motives here. RAW we are told what weapons a WP applies to, and if multiple skills give bonuses to the same weapon, there's nothing wrong with that.

Is it realistic? Are staves really twice as effective as maces and other blunt weapons?

Palladium rules are often written to be cinematic rather than realistic.

Matt in Wheel of Time expounds on how awesome staffs are, and for someone skilled with them I can see them being much better for striking/parrying than smaller blunt weapons.

Consider that it's a 2-handed weapon yet doesn't do much damage, having better bonuses is actually a balancing factor to give people more reason to use them.

Hell, are staves really as easy to throw accurately as knives? A 15th level character with WP Knife has a +6 bonus to strike when throwing a knife, the same as a 15th level Staff expert would have with his staff, a weapon twice noted as being "not designed for throwing."
Does that really make sense?

I think it does, yes. When throwing knives you have to make sure the blade hits, when throwing a staff, it's hard all-around.

A 15th level character with WP Spear has +4 to strike when throwing the weapon...

One factor you appear to be ignoring here is that WP Knife and WP Spear can benefit from WP Targetting. They are listed under that skill. Blunt/Staff are not listed as weapons which can benefit from WP Targetting. It explicitly says "not staves" there.

You get an additional +4 from that skill by 10th, which brings it up to +10 for knives and +8 for spears, making both better than the +6 from Blunt/Staff.

[SpiritInterface]

WPs like all the other skills in Palladium are duplicative, poorly defined, and sometimes contradictory. One of the big problems I have with Palladium is the rampant use of cut and paste without editing. This leads to the perpetuation of poorly written descriptions, deffinitions, explinations, and damage.

Things written for PF don't always work with HU, or Rifts, and things written for N&SS may conflict with everything else. If they are going to truly make it a universal system they need to start conforming rules, skills, and definitions.

Sorry for climbing on my soapbox but this is one of my pet peves with the systems.

[dreicunan]

Yes, if Targeting and Knives stack, then it would be +10 compared to the +6 for throwing a staff.
I wouldn't say that makes much more sense, though.

Tridents as of the RGMG were officially excluded from the WP Forked skill.
As of RUE, they seem to be folded back into Forked.

IF all WPs stacked, then we'd have a bad situation where a blunt knife on the end of a chain is 3x better than just a sharp knife or a chain.

Well, regarding targeting and knives stacking, they do; in fact, targeting stacks with the WPs of a great many missile weapons, including siege weapons! Once again, I don't disagree that this situation may not be ideal (although a "blunt knife" (if such a thing can exist, as opposed to a dull knife; wouldn't a "blunt knife" be a stick?) on the end of a chain wielded properly may well be 3x better than just a sharp knife or a chain), nor would I argue with anyone who said "not in my game."

No.
There is a difference between RAW and the actual rules of the game.
A typo might be RAW, but that doesn't mean that the typo is an actual rule as it is written, nor does it mean that it's a house-rule to fix the mistake.
The same applies to other kinds of editorial mistakes, including stuff like forgetting to change WP Blunt's description to exclude staves, or neglecting to specify at some point that only one WP applies to staves at a time.

KC, I have to admit that I am not sure if you meant to say what is written: A Rule-As-Written is not an actual rule as it is written? I'm not trying to be tendentious, just trying to clarify if that was how you meant to formulate it. Leaving that aside, even if I agree that it isn't a house-rule to fix something if it was clearly a mistake, I don't know that we can classify WP stacking as such a mistake. After all, couldn't the mistake be that they have forgotten to publish a WP Slashing and WP Piercing that would have complemented WP Blunt?

I don't follow how a specific note that a specific skill has a specific special rule means that all skills everywhere get to use that special ability
That is like saying that because Mages get spell casting that all characters get it (after all there is a rule about giving the one specific class an ability right...)
Or that we should assume that because you can stack physical skills that we should be able to stack Piloting skills

It is just as easy to argue that WP Targeting has a special rule to indicate that it does not stack with everything that one might assume falls under the mantle of missile weapon. If piloting skills would provide a bonus that appears to be stackable (such as "Pilot sleds" provides a +1 bonus to dodge while piloting any sled, and "Pilot Rocket-Propelled sleds" provides a +1 bonus to dodge while piloting a rocket-propelled sled), then I don't see why those bonuses wouldn't stack.

Put another way can anyone specifically point to a rule that specifically says that skills OTHER than Physical skills stack?

Well, I did previously cite this: "Page 326 of RUE states, "Bonuses that increase for that particular weapon are accumulative," and the fact that it mentions "weapon," and not weapon proficiency, would seem significant in this discussion."

[Killer Cyborg]

Yes, if Targeting and Knives stack, then it would be +10 compared to the +6 for throwing a staff.
I wouldn't say that makes much more sense, though.

Tridents as of the RGMG were officially excluded from the WP Forked skill.
As of RUE, they seem to be folded back into Forked.

IF all WPs stacked, then we'd have a bad situation where a blunt knife on the end of a chain is 3x better than just a sharp knife or a chain.

Well, regarding targeting and knives stacking, they do; in fact, targeting stacks with the WPs of a great many missile weapons, including siege weapons!

I've always allowed them to stack.
There is argument, though, that Targeting stacks with "Throwing Knives," which is a subset of "knives," not the set itself. So if you throw a throwing knife, then Targeting kicks in. If you throw a different kind of knife, then it doesn't.
Hence my wording.

No.
There is a difference between RAW and the actual rules of the game.
A typo might be RAW, but that doesn't mean that the typo is an actual rule as it is written, nor does it mean that it's a house-rule to fix the mistake.
The same applies to other kinds of editorial mistakes, including stuff like forgetting to change WP Blunt's description to exclude staves, or neglecting to specify at some point that only one WP applies to staves at a time.

KC, I have to admit that I am not sure if you meant to say what is written: A Rule-As-Written is not an actual rule as it is written?

Yeah, that was an accidental example of a typo.

I'll fix it.

even if I agree that it isn't a house-rule to fix something if it was clearly a mistake, I don't know that we can classify WP stacking as such a mistake. After all, couldn't the mistake be that they have forgotten to publish a WP Slashing and WP Piercing that would have complemented WP Blunt?

Nope.

[Killer Cyborg]

They each can apply.
But that does not mean that they both apply.

WP Heavy Energy Weapons applies to plasma ejectors.
WP Energy Pistol applies to energy pistols.
That doesn't mean that if you have a plasma pistol, that it gets bonuses from both WPs.

Can you give an example of a plasma pistol that is called an "ejector" ?

Can you find me any place that defines the term "plasma ejector," or that differentiates it from any other kind of plasma gun?

Also,
WP Heavy Energy Weapons applies to rail guns.
WP Handguns applies to pistols.
That doesn't mean that if you have a rail gun pistol, that it gets bonuses from both WPs.

What you're implying is that KS, when creating various weapon proficiencies, decided that Staffs were unusually cool weapons, and that they needed to have the ability to have extra bonuses that other weapons don't have, that they're so different and special that Staffs should have TWO WPs that both apply simultaneously, when no other melee weapon does.
And that doesn't seem either plausible or reasonable.

It's not the only weapon where this is the case, since shields are described bluntly and other weapons like Trident have alternatively been described as polearms, spears, forked, or even WP Trident by itself.

Oy vey.

First, the point still stands even accepting your view (which I do not).
Are Staffs SO much cooler than most weapons, say axes or clubs, that they should have double the combat bonuses?

Spoiler:

No. The answer is "No."

Second, if you want to support this theory that WPs stack as a rule, find some official examples of WPs stacking. There are plenty of NPCs and such to choose from.

Third, The RGMG version of WP Trident doesn't describe the weapon as anything other than a trident.
WP Forked in the same book (p. 80) says "...and other weapons with tines except for tridents, which have their own separate WP."
Shields similarly have their own separate WP from WP Blunt, and therefore are excluded from WP Blunt in the same way, even though the skill description for Blunt doesn't specify it.
So are Staffs, even though the skill description for Blunt hasn't been updated to reflect it.

Staves ARE unusually cool,

Nope.

and Kevin did publish multiple books where he put Blunt and Staff in the list even though both described working with Staves, like 326/327 of Rifts Ultimate Edition for example.

Kevin has published very many books that include editorial mistakes.

WP Staff has inferior bonuses to WP Blunt (Blunt is S&P 1/3/6/9/12 Staff is S 1/3/7/10/13 P 2/5/8/11/14) while applying to a narrower field of weapons. Due to that, there wouldn't be ANY value in selecting it unless it stacked with WP Blunt.

OR unless, now that Staffs are their own WP, they no longer rightfully belong under WP Blunt, in the same way that once WP Trident got its own WP, it stopped falling under WP Forked.

But even if either WP could be applied to staffs, you're still wrong--the value in having WP Staff is that you get bonuses that somebody who is untrained does not have.
These bonuses might not be as good as the bonuses for WP Blunt, and players creating characters that they want to optimize for combat would indeed be better off choosing WP Blunt, but not all PCs have full and free choice of exactly what skills they get, and sometimes players or GMs wish to create sub-optimal characters.
The Bishamon Fighting Monk, for example, (RJ 57) has WP Staff as an OCC Skill. IF a monk wants to be better with a staff, they can spend a free skill on WP Blunt... but not every monk is necessarily going to want to spend an extra skill to beef up something that they're already pretty decent at.
The Sohei Warrior Monk similarly have WP Staff as an OCC skill, and has the same option, as does the Yamabushi, and so forth.

While I've got Rifts Japan out, here's something else interesting:
RJ 119 lists various martial arts weapons. Unlike most listings, this book is surprisingly helpful because it lists what WP Category each weapon falls under!
A Bokken, for example, falls under WP Sword, even though it's technically a blunt weapon.
A Kusari-Fundo falls under WP Chain, even though it's a weapon that is technically blunt.
A Shinobi-Zue, a hollow wooden staff which contains a weighted chain, falls under WP Staff, NOT under "WP Staff, Blunt, and/or Chain."
A Shikomi-Zue, a staff with a concealed blade that pops out, falls under WP "Staff or Spear," presumably depending on whether or not the blade was out. Again, NOT "Staff and Blunt, or Spear." And NOT "Staff and Spear."

The alternate explanation is both plausible and reasonable:
WP Staff is not in the RMB, but WP Blunt is.
At some point in a future book, some writer decided to add WP Staff. They were either unaware of the redundancy, OR they were trying to make a specialized and non-specific skill to deal with staffs specifically. When they created the new skill, they neglected to change the old skill's wording the same way they altered WP Forked when WP Trident became its own skill.
Palladium being Palladium, they still haven't fixed the wording of WP Blunt in light of the newer, more specific skill's existence.

I don't see much value in speculating on the motives here.

That pinpoints the problem nicely.

RAW we are told...

RAW we are told that when your initiative comes up, you always have to immediately roll a D20.
There's a reason why many games--especially Rifts--are not and can not be played RAW.

Is it realistic? Are staves really twice as effective as maces and other blunt weapons?

Palladium rules are often written to be cinematic rather than realistic.

Is it cinematic for staves to be twice as effective as maces and other blunt weapons?

Matt in Wheel of Time expounds on how awesome staffs are, and for someone skilled with them I can see them being much better for striking/parrying than smaller blunt weapons.

Counter-point: Some guy in some other book talks about how awesome clubs are.

Consider that it's a 2-handed weapon yet doesn't do much damage, having better bonuses is actually a balancing factor to give people more reason to use them.

A two-handed weapon being more wieldy than a one-handed weapon doesn't make sense.
You're not describing a fix to the damage; you're adding a new problem.

Hell, are staves really as easy to throw accurately as knives? A 15th level character with WP Knife has a +6 bonus to strike when throwing a knife, the same as a 15th level Staff expert would have with his staff, a weapon twice noted as being "not designed for throwing."
Does that really make sense?

I think it does, yes. When throwing knives you have to make sure the blade hits, when throwing a staff, it's hard all-around.

Nice try.

A 15th level character with WP Spear has +4 to strike when throwing the weapon...

One factor you appear to be ignoring here is that WP Knife and WP Spear can benefit from WP Targeting. They are listed under that skill. Blunt/Staff are not listed as weapons which can benefit from WP Targetting. It explicitly says "not staves" there.

I've addressed this.

Let's say that you stack Targeting in, and you bump knives and spears up to +10 and +8 respectively.
Staffs would still be +6 to strike, so the only difference in aiming superiority between a staff that is NOT designed for throwing and a spear that IS designed for throwing would be a +2 bump for the spear, IF you spend two skills on it.
That wouldn't make any sense from a simulationist view, nor from a rules view.

[Killer Cyborg]

WPs like all the other skills in Palladium are duplicative, poorly defined, and sometimes contradictory. One of the big problems I have with Palladium is the rampant use of cut and paste without editing. This leads to the perpetuation of poorly written descriptions, deffinitions, explinations, and damage.

Agreed.

[Stone Gargoyle]

Staves are basically wooden batons. You cannot wield them in the same way as you do a staff. I give them WP Blunt bonuses only.

[dreicunan]

@Killer Cyborg: Regarding your "is a staff so much cooler" line of reasoning, I have to ask what makes certain missile weapons and siege weapons so much cooler than other weapons that they get to stack bonuses from two WPs?

[eliakon]

@Killer Cyborg: Regarding your "is a staff so much cooler" line of reasoning, I have to ask what makes certain missile weapons and siege weapons so much cooler than other weapons that they get to stack bonuses from two WPs?

Logic?
I mean what would you use "targeting" with other than with weapons that you target..
It sort of seems to be a logical example of the rare example where you DO stack a skill..
But as repeatedly pointed out, exceptions don't make a new rule. They just show that there is a specific exception in a specific case.

The idea that the staff is 'cool' and thus should get a special status is not supported by anything actually published in any of the books and seems to be just an attempt to justify something.

[Axelmania]

Can you find me any place that defines the term "plasma ejector," or that differentiates it from any other kind of plasma gun?

If you're going to introduce an argument, providing a weapon example where your proposed dilemma would theoretically occur is valuable.

WP Heavy Energy Weapons applies to rail guns.
WP Handguns applies to pistols.
That doesn't mean that if you have a rail gun pistol, that it gets bonuses from both WPs.

Again here, please provide an actual example of a gun where we face this dilemma.

Are Staffs SO much cooler than most weapons, say axes or clubs, that they should have double the combat bonuses?

Depends on individual preferences.

Throwing axes benefit from WP targeting though.

Also these weapons can be wielded one-handed and the benefits from paired weapons (simultaneous strike/parry) are huge and much better than having higher bonuses.

Second, if you want to support this theory that WPs stack as a rule, find some official examples of WPs stacking. There are plenty of NPCs and such to choose from.

NPCs are not usually written that way, and Shield/Staff wasn't introduced until later on in Rifts, so we can't expect it to be reflected in earlier books.

Third, The RGMG version of WP Trident doesn't describe the weapon as anything other than a trident.
WP Forked in the same book (p. 80) says "...and other weapons with tines except for tridents, which have their own separate WP."

I was probably remembering a non-Rifts core book. This kind of dilemma might come up more often with game-mixing.

Shields similarly have their own separate WP from WP Blunt, and therefore are excluded from WP Blunt in the same way, even though the skill description for Blunt doesn't specify it.

There is no statement of exclusion, so this is a house rule. Shields are described as blunt weapons under WP shield, so that would bring them under the umbrella of blunt.

So are Staffs, even though the skill description for Blunt hasn't been updated to reflect it.

This assumes the author wants them to be excluded from blunt. If that motive were present it probably would have happened.

Staves ARE unusually cool,

Nope.

Depends on the crowd. Here's a 2008 discussion of staffs vs swords inspired by wheel of time: http://www.dragonmount.com/forums/topic ... wyn/page-3

and quote:

“Yes!” Hammar shouted, turning to make sure all heard. “During his lifetime, Jearom fought over ten thousand times, in battle and single combat. He was defeated once. By a farmer with a quarterstaff! Remember that. Remember what you just saw.”

from The Dragon Reborn

and Kevin did publish multiple books where he put Blunt and Staff in the list even though both described working with Staves, like 326/327 of Rifts Ultimate Edition for example.

Kevin has published very many books that include editorial mistakes.

Yet this isn't clearly a mistake.

WP Staff has inferior bonuses to WP Blunt (Blunt is S&P 1/3/6/9/12 Staff is S 1/3/7/10/13 P 2/5/8/11/14) while applying to a narrower field of weapons. Due to that, there wouldn't be ANY value in selecting it unless it stacked with WP Blunt.

OR unless, now that Staffs are their own WP, they no longer rightfully belong under WP Blunt, in the same way that once WP Trident got its own WP, it stopped falling under WP Forked.

There's different incarnations of WP Forked, WP Polearm and WP Spear characters are better off selecting the ones which benefit Trident use.

But even if either WP could be applied to staffs, you're still wrong--the value in having WP Staff is that you get bonuses that somebody who is untrained does not have.

If it's equal cost to blunt then there's no value in its existence when blunt can be selected. It's only use would be as an OCC skill to describe people only skilled with staves, a "WP blunt 1/2" so to speak. Or if there were ever any OCC which said "WP: Staff only" or "WP any except blunt" or something.

These bonuses might not be as good as the bonuses for WP Blunt, and players creating characters that they want to optimize for combat would indeed be better off choosing WP Blunt, but not all PCs have full and free choice of exactly what skills they get, and sometimes players or GMs wish to create sub-optimal characters.
The Bishamon Fighting Monk, for example, (RJ 57) has WP Staff as an OCC Skill. IF a monk wants to be better with a staff, they can spend a free skill on WP Blunt... but not every monk is necessarily going to want to spend an extra skill to beef up something that they're already pretty decent at.
The Sohei Warrior Monk similarly have WP Staff as an OCC skill, and has the same option, as does the Yamabushi, and so forth.

As above, it does have a narrow use as a limited OCC skill. I agree that they can all get better by spending a free skill on WP Blunt.

While I've got Rifts Japan out, here's something else interesting:
RJ 119 lists various martial arts weapons. Unlike most listings, this book is surprisingly helpful because it lists what WP Category each weapon falls under!
A Bokken, for example, falls under WP Sword, even though it's technically a blunt weapon.
A Kusari-Fundo falls under WP Chain, even though it's a weapon that is technically blunt.
A Shinobi-Zue, a hollow wooden staff which contains a weighted chain, falls under WP Staff, NOT under "WP Staff, Blunt, and/or Chain."
A Shikomi-Zue, a staff with a concealed blade that pops out, falls under WP "Staff or Spear," presumably depending on whether or not the blade was out. Again, NOT "Staff and Blunt, or Spear." And NOT "Staff and Spear."

118R Bokken: Why do you think it is technically a blunt weapon? A dull sword is still a sword.

119L Kusari-Fundo isn't described as blunt, your doing so appears to be a personal interpretation. In theory ALL chain weapons have blunt components to them, but they are not blunt as an entire object, they are fluid due to being multiple parts, which is why blunt excludes them.

119R Shinobi-Zue only mentions containing a chain, not being able to produce it, so obviously since it's externally just a staff, it counts as a staff. If the chain were extendable, it would transform into something else and operate differently. While it lists a WP Category but doesn't actually exclude other WP categories, opting in for Staff isn't the same as opting out for Blunt. Weapons for example might list which WP skill they use, but a lack of mentioning WP Sharpshooter doesn't omit the possibility of stacking Sharpshooter bonuses on top of them.

The Shikomi doesn't say anything about it's use as a staff excluding blunt's ability to benefit staffs. Nor does the new skill on page 190.

While we're citing that. I noticed 189 has "W.P. Forked/Trident".

Makes me wonder what happens to PCs who selected that. Do they suddenly lose proficiency in one or the other as of GMG?

RAW we are told that when your initiative comes up, you always have to immediately roll a D20.

Sounds interesting, where's this from?

Is it cinematic for staves to be twice as effective as maces and other blunt weapons?

Sure, it makes it a match for 2 maces + paired WP. One dilemma is the the 2-handed hercules club and the 1-handed short staff. Staffs do 1D8, at most 1D8+2 if Iron, whereas a hercules club does 2D6, so it makes up for fewer bonuses by having better damage.

Another problem I suppose is paired WP + WP Blunt + WP Staff using a pair of short staffs is better than using paired WP + Blunt and a pair of clubs or maces. Although it doesn't seem like much of a problem... staffs are elegant weapons and very versatile so I think they should be better like that.

Plus 1-handed (short) staffs only do 1D6, maces/cudgels/morningStars/warHammers all do 1D8, so they make up for fewer bonuses (mostly apparent at higher levels) by higher potential damage.

Counter-point: Some guy in some other book talks about how awesome clubs are.

What book?

Was he cool or a loser?

A two-handed weapon being more wieldy than a one-handed weapon doesn't make sense.
You're not describing a fix to the damage; you're adding a new problem.

How is this a new problem?

If you want 1-handed weapons to be more wieldy, used WP Paired.

Let's say that you stack Targeting in, and you bump knives and spears up to +10 and +8 respectively.
Staffs would still be +6 to strike, so the only difference in aiming superiority between a staff that is NOT designed for throwing and a spear that IS designed for throwing would be a +2 bump for the spear, IF you spend two skills on it.
That wouldn't make any sense from a simulationist view, nor from a rules view.

Palladium's cinematic not simulationist.

One unexplored benefit of knives/spears is they are blades, they draw blood and cause wounds. Throwing a blunt weapon like a staff at someone doesn't have this benefit. Drawing blood is a big benefit with ranged combat because you can do hit and run against a melee guy without getting stabbed in return, and then run off and let them bleed out.

Another huge benefit of knives and short spears is more than one can be thrown at once. There are specialists in the books who can do that. I suppose with WP Paired I might be able to throw a pair of short staves but they wouldn't be all too good.

Another disadvantage of throwing a blunt weapon is you can roll with impact against blunt attacks, you can't roll with impact against blades, so that lessens their potential damage even more.

This reflects that yeah, you might hit easily, but you can't hit in such a way that it's impossible to lessen as bladed weapons do.

The idea that the staff is 'cool' and thus should get a special status is not supported by anything actually published in any of the books and seems to be just an attempt to justify something.

If Palladium doesn't think staffs are cool then why were staff specialists introduced in Rifts Japan and PF 2?

I recall a rune staff, I recall no rune cudgel.

[dreicunan]

@Killer Cyborg: Regarding your "is a staff so much cooler" line of reasoning, I have to ask what makes certain missile weapons and siege weapons so much cooler than other weapons that they get to stack bonuses from two WPs?

Logic?
I mean what would you use "targeting" with other than with weapons that you target..
It sort of seems to be a logical example of the rare example where you DO stack a skill..
But as repeatedly pointed out, exceptions don't make a new rule. They just show that there is a specific exception in a specific case.

The idea that the staff is 'cool' and thus should get a special status is not supported by anything actually published in any of the books and seems to be just an attempt to justify something.

"Logic" determines that some, but not all, missile weapons are so cool that they get to stack bonuses for WPs but other weapons don't? I look forward to your explanation of how logic justifies this.

[Killer Cyborg]

@Killer Cyborg: Regarding your "is a staff so much cooler" line of reasoning, I have to ask what makes certain missile weapons and siege weapons so much cooler than other weapons that they get to stack bonuses from two WPs?

Logic?
I mean what would you use "targeting" with other than with weapons that you target..
It sort of seems to be a logical example of the rare example where you DO stack a skill..
But as repeatedly pointed out, exceptions don't make a new rule. They just show that there is a specific exception in a specific case.

The idea that the staff is 'cool' and thus should get a special status is not supported by anything actually published in any of the books and seems to be just an attempt to justify something.

"Logic" determines that some, but not all, missile weapons are so cool that they get to stack bonuses for WPs but other weapons don't? I look forward to your explanation of how logic justifies this.

You're asking a question about a multiple of weapons. I don't have my books handy, so I can't really research this answer for you.
From memory, all I can say is that the Targeting skill generally tends to be applied to throwing weapons in RUE, not to all missile weapons. Missile weapons that you fire (bows, guns, crossbows) tend to have different bonuses than missile weapons that you throw.
I'm not entirely sure why Palladium handles them differently--I still don't really get why they treat guns and bows differently either.

I'm not sure what the logic would be for including siege weapons, but I suspect it would be because the bonuses for WP Siege Weapons are particularly UNcool as they are, and this provides a way to bump them up closer to parr.
For that matter, I don't recall if there even IS a WP Siege Weapons skill in the Rifts setting. There's one on the Cutting Room Floor, IIRC, but I forget which setting.
IF it's not for Rifts, and Rifts otherwise lacks that particular skill, then most characters in Rifts would ONLY be able to apply Targeting to Siege Weapons, and it wouldn't seem to stack with anything.

[Axelmania]

Perhaps the only WP Siege users in Rifts are those visitors from PF? Wouldn't be much of a culture for those weapons here due to how cumbersome they are and how the range can't compete with easier to use guns. I'd only use them if I could have them as a magic tattoo or enhance them to do MD with magic.

[Killer Cyborg]

Perhaps the only WP Siege users in Rifts are those visitors from PF? Wouldn't be much of a culture for those weapons here due to how cumbersome they are and how the range can't compete with easier to use guns. I'd only use them if I could have them as a magic tattoo or enhance them to do MD with magic.

Different regions have different tech levels.

[eliakon]

@Killer Cyborg: Regarding your "is a staff so much cooler" line of reasoning, I have to ask what makes certain missile weapons and siege weapons so much cooler than other weapons that they get to stack bonuses from two WPs?

Logic?
I mean what would you use "targeting" with other than with weapons that you target..
It sort of seems to be a logical example of the rare example where you DO stack a skill..
But as repeatedly pointed out, exceptions don't make a new rule. They just show that there is a specific exception in a specific case.

The idea that the staff is 'cool' and thus should get a special status is not supported by anything actually published in any of the books and seems to be just an attempt to justify something.

"Logic" determines that some, but not all, missile weapons are so cool that they get to stack bonuses for WPs but other weapons don't? I look forward to your explanation of how logic justifies this.

Because your making up something?
No seriously.
The argument that "cool" is even a FACTOR is purely one from the "pro-staff" crowd
The argument that the skill targeting, which is not technically a WP in and of itself and ONLY exists as an addition to other skills some how "proves" that bows are cool is utterly fake.
Targeting is a skill that exists for the SOLE PURPOSE of being stacked. That is why it exists. It was specifically made to stack, it has a special rule that allows it to do just that. That is why it exists.
The rest of the W.P.s do not. They exist to provide training with the weapon in question. That is why THEY exist.
There is no "logic" to claim that some how bows are sexy because they get targeting and that therefore all weapons are equally sexy...
...and even if they DID then all you would get to argue is that Targeting should apply to any and all thrown weapons.

There is ZERO connection between the set up of Targeting and the set up of W.P. Staff and W.P. Blunt.

[dreicunan]

@Killer Cyborg: Regarding your "is a staff so much cooler" line of reasoning, I have to ask what makes certain missile weapons and siege weapons so much cooler than other weapons that they get to stack bonuses from two WPs?

Logic?
I mean what would you use "targeting" with other than with weapons that you target..
It sort of seems to be a logical example of the rare example where you DO stack a skill..
But as repeatedly pointed out, exceptions don't make a new rule. They just show that there is a specific exception in a specific case.

The idea that the staff is 'cool' and thus should get a special status is not supported by anything actually published in any of the books and seems to be just an attempt to justify something.

"Logic" determines that some, but not all, missile weapons are so cool that they get to stack bonuses for WPs but other weapons don't? I look forward to your explanation of how logic justifies this.

Because your making up something?
No seriously.
The argument that "cool" is even a FACTOR is purely one from the "pro-staff" crowd
The argument that the skill targeting, which is not technically a WP in and of itself and ONLY exists as an addition to other skills some how "proves" that bows are cool is utterly fake.
Targeting is a skill that exists for the SOLE PURPOSE of being stacked. That is why it exists. It was specifically made to stack, it has a special rule that allows it to do just that. That is why it exists.
The rest of the W.P.s do not. They exist to provide training with the weapon in question. That is why THEY exist.
There is no "logic" to claim that some how bows are sexy because they get targeting and that therefore all weapons are equally sexy...
...and even if they DID then all you would get to argue is that Targeting should apply to any and all thrown weapons.

There is ZERO connection between the set up of Targeting and the set up of W.P. Staff and W.P. Blunt.

Wow. First, at no point have I argued that "coolness" is a factor. I only reversed Killer Cyborg's question to others, asking if they thought that staffs were so cool that they would be special, as a way of highlighting that based on that line of reasoning then clearly they must think that certain missile weapons are very special. KC already noted that he doesn't know why WP Targetting would get special treatment under his interpretation, so I won't be pursuing that line further with him.

Nothing about the wording of WP Targeting prevents one from interpreting it as excluding certain weapons because otherwise one would apply it to anything that fell under its purview, just like any other WP if one does not assume that WPs cannot stack. As I've now cited twice previously, there is a statement in RUE that can be read as supporting the idea that WPs can stack; I've found no definitive statement to the contrary in the text. Thus, RAW, I can't see any way to say that they can't stack.

You may wish to check that wording, by the way. WP Targeting does not apply to bows or crossbows (unless of course it is a siege weapon sized weapon). It is interesting that you don't consider WP Targeting to be a WP in its own right. One does need a WP in a missile weapon of some kind to take it, but one does not need a WP in a given missile weapon that one uses to get the bonuses from it. Thus, it clearly exists to do more than stack with other skills.

As I've also noted earlier, that doesn't mean that it ia necessarily a good idea to let them stack. I previously mentioned that overall, I think that KC has some good arguments against doing so. He and I ultimately have what may well just be semantic differences about what we would classify as a house rule.

You, on the other hand, well, I'm not sure with whom you are actually arguing, because it does not appear to be with what I've actually written.

[Axelmania]

Targeting is a skill that exists for the SOLE PURPOSE of being stacked. That is why it exists. It was specifically made to stack, it has a special rule that allows it to do just that. That is why it exists.

I do not agree with your proposal. Targeting alone if a character had a single WP would be incredibly useful.

I believe the "Requires: any one W.P. for a missile weapon" is only referring to a requirement for stacking.

"Characters who select both W.P. Targeting and another W.P." is establishing a sub-group based on a condition. It doesn't appear to be declaring or even implying that all characters do select another W.P. to go with it.

The rest of the W.P.s do not

Still no actual source supporting that. Targeting mentions benefiting weapons which benefit from other WP, Blunt does that too.

Hm... taking a closer look at this skill it's pretty interesting. Normally only natural 20s to strike require unmodified matches to beat them... critical hits would do extra damage but not have that benefit of requiring naturally high defenses...

In this case though, a natural 19 does a similar thing as a natural 20, requiring a natural roll to tie or better it. I don't recall seeing anything like that before. Pretty powerful.

[Killer Cyborg]

Can you find me any place that defines the term "plasma ejector," or that differentiates it from any other kind of plasma gun?

If you're going to introduce an argument, providing a weapon example where your proposed dilemma would theoretically occur is valuable.

Sure, but you're seeming to differentiate between "plasma ejector" and "plasma gun," whereas I don't see any distinction made.
So I figured that before I start listing weapons, I'd give you an opportunity to further explain your thinking.

Since you've declined the opportunity to further explain your stance, I'll move things along and hope that my response addresses your specific concerns.

The term "Plasma Ejector" is--AFAIK--never defined in Rifts. I've always taken it to mean "a gun that fires (ejects) plasma."
By that standard, any of the Naruni Enterprise plasma pistols fit the bill: The NE-H10, the NE-4, the NE-6, the NE-2L, and any others that have come out since the RGMG.
But perhaps that standard is incorrect, and I've just wasted both of our time by listing them.

In which case, I refer you to the M-12 Plasma Pistol (RGMG 149), the ATA-P20/20 Plasma Sidearm, and the Mitsashi 1100S Plasma Projector (R:M 151)

Similarly, there is the M-120 Plasma Rifle on the same page.
I could just as easily say that it is both a plasma ejector and a plasma rifle, and that by your logic that such a weapon would get bonuses from both WP Heavy Energy Weapons and from WP Energy Rifle.
(In fact, consider that to have been said.)
On the previous page is the ARP-1 Plasma Assault Rifle, and the HRP-1 Plasma Heavy Rifle, each of which would similarly fit the bill of matching at least two WP categories.

WP Heavy Energy Weapons applies to rail guns.
WP Handguns applies to pistols.
That doesn't mean that if you have a rail gun pistol, that it gets bonuses from both WPs.

Again here, please provide an actual example of a gun where we face this dilemma.

Why? I posed it as a hypothetical, "IF you have a rail gun pistol, THEN..."
It's essentially the same as saying "IF you have a chain on your club, that wouldn't mean that you get both Chain and Blunt bonuses." Nobody need have ever done such a thing in order for you to address the point being made.

Regardless, the C-200 is arguably a rail gun pistol, and I've heard people refer to the NGR-50 Mini Rail Gun as a pistol (although I don't believe that I have the book it's in, so I can't verify).

Are Staffs SO much cooler than most weapons, say axes or clubs, that they should have double the combat bonuses?

Depends on individual preferences.

So, no, they're not demonstrably cooler or more capable weapons.

Throwing axes benefit from WP targeting though

Throwing Axes do, but other thrown Axes do not.

Also these weapons can be wielded one-handed and the benefits from paired weapons (simultaneous strike/parry) are huge and much better than having higher bonuses.

So can short staffs, and so can staves. This is not something that explains, requires, nor balances staffs/staves having roughly twice the normal combat bonus potential.

Second, if you want to support this theory that WPs stack as a rule, find some official examples of WPs stacking. There are plenty of NPCs and such to choose from.

NPCs are not usually written that way,

Uh... what way....?

and Shield/Staff wasn't introduced until later on in Rifts, so we can't expect it to be reflected in earlier books.

So find something from later books, if you want to support your notion.

Shields similarly have their own separate WP from WP Blunt, and therefore are excluded from WP Blunt in the same way, even though the skill description for Blunt doesn't specify it.

There is no statement of exclusion, so this is a house rule.

Incorrect. We can see from the changes in WP Trident what the standard is--once a WP is split off from its category, the previous broader WP does not apply.

Shields are described as blunt weapons under WP shield, so that would bring them under the umbrella of blunt.

No. All it means is that they don't have sharp edges, just like chains don't have sharp edges.
Just like most weapons don't have sharp edges, but that doesn't make them "Blunt Weapons."
Just like a Trident is a "forked weapon," but it stopped falling under the WP Forked Weapons skill once it became its own WP.

So are Staffs, even though the skill description for Blunt hasn't been updated to reflect it.

This assumes the author wants them to be excluded from blunt.

Yes, for the reasons outlined previously:
1. There is no logical reason to assume that the authors intended for Staffs to have roughly 2x the bonuses as other melee weapons.
2. There is no logical reason to assume that the authors intended staffs--which are specifically stated NOT to be designed to be thrown--to have better bonuses (or even roughly equal bonuses) to weapons that ARE designed to be thrown.
3. The way that Palladium handled WP Trident is that once the weapon was split off from its previous WP, it no longer fell into that category of weapon, and there is no logical reason to believe that Staffs were intended to be handled any differently.

If that motive were present it probably would have happened.

THAT claim would rely on an assumption that Palladium always fixes their editorial issues, that they always properly update their rules to reflect changes, and that they necessarily only ever print material that fits perfectly with their intentions.

So...

Kevin has published very many books that include editorial mistakes.

Yet this isn't clearly a mistake.

I'd say that it clearly IS a mistake, and I've made a logical case.
Do you have logical support for your claim that it clearly is NOT a mistake?

now that Staffs are their own WP, they no longer rightfully belong under WP Blunt, in the same way that once WP Trident got its own WP, it stopped falling under WP Forked.

There's different incarnations of WP Forked, WP Polearm and WP Spear characters are better off selecting the ones which benefit Trident use.

There are different incarnations of various skills, yes. But the rule is that newer versions trump older versions.
I don't know what you're trying to say there.

But even if either WP could be applied to staffs, you're still wrong--the value in having WP Staff is that you get bonuses that somebody who is untrained does not have.

If it's equal cost to blunt then there's no value in its existence when blunt can be selected. It's only use would be as an OCC skill to describe people only skilled with staves, a "WP blunt 1/2" so to speak. Or if there were ever any OCC which said "WP: Staff only" or "WP any except blunt" or something.

In a case where Staffs still fall under WP Blunt, then you would be correct.
But in such a case, I've already shown you several OCCs that fit that description--they are specialized only with staves.
So you have multiple cases of characters that do not necessarily start with WP Blunt, and are yet better off than if they started out lacking WP Staff.

While I've got Rifts Japan out, here's something else interesting:
RJ 119 lists various martial arts weapons. Unlike most listings, this book is surprisingly helpful because it lists what WP Category each weapon falls under!
A Bokken, for example, falls under WP Sword, even though it's technically a blunt weapon.
A Kusari-Fundo falls under WP Chain, even though it's a weapon that is technically blunt.
A Shinobi-Zue, a hollow wooden staff which contains a weighted chain, falls under WP Staff, NOT under "WP Staff, Blunt, and/or Chain."
A Shikomi-Zue, a staff with a concealed blade that pops out, falls under WP "Staff or Spear," presumably depending on whether or not the blade was out. Again, NOT "Staff and Blunt, or Spear." And NOT "Staff and Spear."

118R Bokken: Why do you think it is technically a blunt weapon? A dull sword is still a sword.
119L Kusari-Fundo isn't described as blunt, your doing so appears to be a personal interpretation. In theory ALL chain weapons have blunt components to them, but they are not blunt as an entire object, they are fluid due to being multiple parts, which is why blunt excludes them.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blunt
having an edge or point that is not sharp

Chains (and most other objects/weapons) that are not specifically sharpened are blunt.
The reason why WP Blunt doesn't include them is because WPs do not stack as a rule, and weapons only as a rule fall under one Weapon Proficiency.

119R Shinobi-Zue only mentions containing a chain, not being able to produce it, so obviously since it's externally just a staff, it counts as a staff. If the chain were extendable, it would transform into something else and operate differently. While it lists a WP Category but doesn't actually exclude other WP categories, opting in for Staff isn't the same as opting out for Blunt. Weapons for example might list which WP skill they use, but a lack of mentioning WP Sharpshooter doesn't omit the possibility of stacking Sharpshooter bonuses on top of them.

Yes, it does. The purpose of listing the WP category is to state which skill(s) can be used to wield the weapon with WP bonuses.
It's kind of like when a weapon its weight as "2 lbs," that excludes other weights from the equation (unless modifications are made to the weapon).
When a weapon lists a damage for that weapon, that excludes other damage ratings necessarily. If a weapon inflicts 4d6 MD, that means that it does NOT inflict 100d6 MD.
When a weapon lists "WP Category: Sword," that necessarily means that the weapon can qualify for any other WP Category.
That's the entire point of that stat.

While we're citing that. I noticed 189 has "W.P. Forked/Trident".
Makes me wonder what happens to PCs who selected that. Do they suddenly lose proficiency in one or the other as of GMG?

GM's call.

RAW we are told that when your initiative comes up, you always have to immediately roll a D20.

Sounds interesting, where's this from?

Here's the RUE version.
RUE 339
Under Combat Rules
Step 1: Determine Initiative
...
Step 2: Attacker Rolls To Strike
The next step is for the first attacker to roll a twenty-sided die.

No allowance for any other option. The rule states that after initiative is rolled, then the next step is for the attacker to roll a d20.

One of quite a few cases of Rifts not working RAW.
(Many games don't.)

Is it cinematic for staves to be twice as effective as maces and other blunt weapons?

Sure, it makes it a match for 2 maces + paired WP.

Not really, no.

Counter-point: Some guy in some other book talks about how awesome clubs are.

What book?

Was he cool or a loser?

Doesn't matter. Opinions from fictional characters don't matter in this conversation (except perhaps official Rifts characters opinions which are printed in the rule books).

A two-handed weapon being more wieldy than a one-handed weapon doesn't make sense.
You're not describing a fix to the damage; you're adding a new problem.

How is this a new problem?

It's not. It's a problem that isn't a part of this conversation, but that you're trying to add to the conversation, when it's really irrelevant to any of the issues at hand.

If you want 1-handed weapons to be more wieldy, used WP Paired.

That doesn't increase strike/parry/throw bonuses, which is what I am discussing.

Let's say that you stack Targeting in, and you bump knives and spears up to +10 and +8 respectively.
Staffs would still be +6 to strike, so the only difference in aiming superiority between a staff that is NOT designed for throwing and a spear that IS designed for throwing would be a +2 bump for the spear, IF you spend two skills on it.
That wouldn't make any sense from a simulationist view, nor from a rules view.

Palladium's cinematic not simulationist.

Incorrect. They are cinematic AND simulationist.
As a rule, they try to replicate reality as they see it to some degree. That's the official reason why KS introduced the Two Attacks For Living rule at some point early on in Rifts--he watched boxing, and realized that having only 2 attacks in 15 seconds simply wasn't realistic.
Likewise, Palladium tries to have some balance in their rules. That's why most WPs' bonuses are roughly the same, why it doesn't make sense for staffs to be an outlier.
Furthermore, there's no logical reason why staff fighting would be any more cinematic than any other kind of martial arts weapon.

One unexplored benefit of knives/spears is they are blades, they draw blood and cause wounds. Throwing a blunt weapon like a staff at someone doesn't have this benefit. Drawing blood is a big benefit with ranged combat because you can do hit and run against a melee guy without getting stabbed in return, and then run off and let them bleed out.

Doesn't matter.
Compare the bonuses from WP Blunt to WP Knife. They're roughly the same.
We're talking about raw combat bonuses from WPs, not about side issues.

Another huge benefit of knives and short spears is more than one can be thrown at once.

With WP Targeting, yes.
But that wouldn't explain why throwing a staff that is not designed for throwing would be more accurate than throwing a knife, spear, or ax that IS designed for throwing (unless you spend two WPs to get Targeting, in which case you have a minor edge to strike).

[Killer Cyborg]

Targeting is a skill that exists for the SOLE PURPOSE of being stacked. That is why it exists. It was specifically made to stack, it has a special rule that allows it to do just that. That is why it exists.

I do not agree with your proposal. Targeting alone if a character had a single WP would be incredibly useful.

I believe the "Requires: any one W.P. for a missile weapon" is only referring to a requirement for stacking.

When you look at the Medical Doctor skill, and get to the part that says:
"Requires: Biology, Pathology, Chemistry, Basic or Advanced Mathematics, and Literacy"
Do you think that those skills are only required when stacking MD with those particular skills?

"Characters who select both W.P. Targeting and another W.P." is establishing a sub-group based on a condition. It doesn't appear to be declaring or even implying that all characters do select another W.P. to go with it.

No.
All that's happening is that WP Targeting is following the standard skill description format, where at end of the skill description, they list any prerequisites for choosing that skill.

[eliakon]

@Killer Cyborg: Regarding your "is a staff so much cooler" line of reasoning, I have to ask what makes certain missile weapons and siege weapons so much cooler than other weapons that they get to stack bonuses from two WPs?

Logic?
I mean what would you use "targeting" with other than with weapons that you target..
It sort of seems to be a logical example of the rare example where you DO stack a skill..
But as repeatedly pointed out, exceptions don't make a new rule. They just show that there is a specific exception in a specific case.

The idea that the staff is 'cool' and thus should get a special status is not supported by anything actually published in any of the books and seems to be just an attempt to justify something.

"Logic" determines that some, but not all, missile weapons are so cool that they get to stack bonuses for WPs but other weapons don't? I look forward to your explanation of how logic justifies this.

Because your making up something?
No seriously.
The argument that "cool" is even a FACTOR is purely one from the "pro-staff" crowd
The argument that the skill targeting, which is not technically a WP in and of itself and ONLY exists as an addition to other skills some how "proves" that bows are cool is utterly fake.
Targeting is a skill that exists for the SOLE PURPOSE of being stacked. That is why it exists. It was specifically made to stack, it has a special rule that allows it to do just that. That is why it exists.
The rest of the W.P.s do not. They exist to provide training with the weapon in question. That is why THEY exist.
There is no "logic" to claim that some how bows are sexy because they get targeting and that therefore all weapons are equally sexy...
...and even if they DID then all you would get to argue is that Targeting should apply to any and all thrown weapons.

There is ZERO connection between the set up of Targeting and the set up of W.P. Staff and W.P. Blunt.

Wow. First, at no point have I argued that "coolness" is a factor. I only reversed Killer Cyborg's question to others, asking if they thought that staffs were so cool that they would be special, as a way of highlighting that based on that line of reasoning then clearly they must think that certain missile weapons are very special. KC already noted that he doesn't know why WP Targetting would get special treatment under his interpretation, so I won't be pursuing that line further with him.

Nothing about the wording of WP Targeting prevents one from interpreting it as excluding certain weapons because otherwise one would apply it to anything that fell under its purview, just like any other WP if one does not assume that WPs cannot stack. As I've now cited twice previously, there is a statement in RUE that can be read as supporting the idea that WPs can stack; I've found no definitive statement to the contrary in the text. Thus, RAW, I can't see any way to say that they can't stack.

You may wish to check that wording, by the way. WP Targeting does not apply to bows or crossbows (unless of course it is a siege weapon sized weapon). It is interesting that you don't consider WP Targeting to be a WP in its own right. One does need a WP in a missile weapon of some kind to take it, but one does not need a WP in a given missile weapon that one uses to get the bonuses from it. Thus, it clearly exists to do more than stack with other skills.

As I've also noted earlier, that doesn't mean that it ia necessarily a good idea to let them stack. I previously mentioned that overall, I think that KC has some good arguments against doing so. He and I ultimately have what may well just be semantic differences about what we would classify as a house rule.

You, on the other hand, well, I'm not sure with whom you are actually arguing, because it does not appear to be with what I've actually written.

When people make random arguments just to make arguments while making random attributions that I didn't say it makes it a bit hard to track which side they are supporting. But when they come out and say that the cool weapon argument is one of their supported issues and that they imply that they support full stacking of WPs it seems pretty obvious that the proper response is that they are supporting the cool weapon stacking argument.