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

[Blue_Lion]

As I said your counter was "I think" it has a limit not evidence of or proff of limit just that you think it is limited. How ever this is not about what you think but what RAW is. So you never addressed it just stated that you think it is limited because you think it is.

You have my post so hacked a part it is impossible to what i was saying or the context.
I am assuming that straw man is a reference to your use of ninjas and super spies hand to hand that we are told you only use one to prove only one weapon applies. It is a straw man because we have a statement that says you can only use one hand to hand in Ninjas and super spies, and has no bearing on WP where we are not told to just use one.

You further use me addressing the rifle that you used as an example of why it should not in the previous post and my statement that rare weapon and bring in a new context of a staff. I was addressing your have fun with the plasma rifle that is rare. You then strip the direct context to make it look like my statement is wrong.

This striping of all context and changing what I said is to the point it seams it is more about trolling than debating.

The comparison of the difference in how people treat all bonuses in physical skills and weapon skills is not a baseless lie. But was about showing a double standard. If bonuses are only commutative within one skill then you only get the bonuses to stats from one skill, if skill bonuses to stats stack without being told that they do acrossed skills then they should for weapons as well. (It was about forcing consistency not a baseless lie.) The way you just said my statement was a baseless lie was not only incorrect but a personal attack.

Oh look we now have a quote from a book i do not have that says WP bonuses stack.(I do not have more full collection with me.) It is almost like they never had something ever blocking the bonuses from multiple WP stacking. (The rare seams more a flavor text item lacking any rule to define what is rare if it about the number of weapons out there and the number of times they stack it might be rare. Think about it how many possible weapons are out there that have the option to have stacking bonuses? Me and you already listed all the possible cases and most of them only apply to certain weapons.)

[eliakon]

Greetings and Salutations. This conversation comes up often, and I tend to ignore because it's the same debate each time and neither side really cares to give in to the other. With that said, I'm going to make a post anyways.

Can you pick the same W.P. twice to double the bonuses?
[snip]
However, some different W.P.s may offer an accumulated bonus for the same type of weapon, like Archery and Targeting, or Sharpshooting, but these are very rare.

Now this tells us that two W.P. can add together, and some will take that as proof W.P. Staff and W.P. Blunt add together. However, it also tells us that this is "very rare." If this is "very rare" then it cannot be the standard, default ruling. If this were the general ruling, then it wouldn't be "very rare" (it wouldn't even be rare because it would be basic, common, etc.). Targeting tells us this adds to the Weapon Proficiency. Sharpshooting (which is a Modern Weapon Proficiency for note, for those decrying that stacking doesn't apply to Modern Weapon Proficiencies and only applies to Ancient) tells us these bonuses are in addition to the other W.P. So RGMG tells us stacking is rare, then gives us two examples, both of which specifically state they stack within their write-up. Farewell and safe journeys for now.


P.S. Before someone complains about they were talking about taking the same W.P. twice, actually read the full quote, as part of the answer does apply.

As usual Prysus... your post is short, simple to the point and makes me look at the book again and go "gee why didn't I notice that"

I totally agree. Very Rare and Default are not the same.
This does suggest that there can be some odds and ends overlaps... but that they will be like Targeting and Sharpshooting and mention in the skill that they overlap... and that with out such specific text then you can only use the best W.P.
VERY good find.

[Killer Cyborg]

As I said your counter was "I think" it has a limit not evidence of or proff of limit just that you think it is limited.

IF you're talking about the literal meaning of "all bonuses are cumulative," then this isn't my opinion.
This is fact.
"All bonuses" literally means "ALL" bonuses, not just all applicable bonuses.
That's the only possible unlimited interpretation of the phrase, because "all applicable bonuses" is a limitation.

I am assuming that straw man is a reference to your use of ninjas and super spies hand to hand that we are told you only use one to prove only one weapon applies. It is a straw man because we have a statement that says you can only use one hand to hand in Ninjas and super spies, and has no bearing on WP where we are not told to just use one.

Try again.
A strawman argument is one where I would take an argument of yours, replace it with a different argument, then pose a counter argument to the argument that I made up.
If you want to cry strawman, then you need to at the least describe:
a) The actual argument that you made.
b) The false argument that I supposedly created.
c) My counter-argument to the false argument that I supposedly created.

You further use me addressing the rifle that you used as an example of why it should not in the previous post and my statement that rare weapon and bring in a new context of a staff. I was addressing your have fun with the plasma rifle that is rare. You then strip the direct context to make it look like my statement is wrong.

When you don't quote me directly at the point where you're responding to, like I have done here (bolded for emphasis), then I don't usually know what you're responding to specifically.

The comparison of the difference in how people treat all bonuses in physical skills and weapon skills is not a baseless lie.

For example, here. In order to find any meaning in this part of your post, I had to leave this response page, go back to the conversation, go back to the previous page, and reread the post in which I used the term "baseless lie" in order to see what the conversation was at that point.
All because you didn't feel like properly quoting which passage you were responding to, providing me with the proper context.

In any case, you said:
"I like how you ignore the fact I have pointed out you are using a double standard with the all bonus to physical skills meaning multiple provide a bonus but WP all bonuses is only one skill to it never being addressed."

The bolded is the part that I was referring to.

If bonuses are only commutative within one skill then you only get the bonuses to stats from one skill, if skill bonuses to stats stack without being told that they do acrossed skills then they should for weapons as well.

Again, this has already been addressed.
Pretty much everything has been.

If I understand your argument, it is essentially:
P1: RUE 316 states that, with Physical Skills, "ALL attribute and skill bonuses are accumulative, but a specific Physical skill may only be chosen once, including Hand to Hand Skills."
P2: WPs are physical skills.
Conclusion: all attribute and skill bonuses are accumulative between WPs.

But all you need do is to look at Hand to Hand combat skills to see that such a conclusion doesn't bear out.
The exact same formula, applied to HTH:
P1: RUE 316 states that, with Physical Skills, "ALL attribute and skill bonuses are accumulative, but a specific Physical skill may only be chosen once, including Hand to Hand Skills."
P2: HTH skills are physical skills.
Conclusion: all attribute and skill bonuses are accumulative between HTH skills.

But that conclusion is demonstrably false in the case of HTH skills, so there is no reason to believe that it is not also false in regards to WPs.
The conclusion is valid, but it is demonstrably NOT sound in the case of HTH skills, and is therefore not demonstrably sound in the case of WPs.

Oh look we now have a quote from a book i do not have that says WP bonuses stack.

No, you don't.

It is almost like they never had something ever blocking the bonuses from multiple WP stacking. (The rare seams more a flavor text item lacking any rule to define what is rare if it about the number of weapons out there and the number of times they stack it might be rare. Think about it how many possible weapons are out there that have the option to have stacking bonuses? Me and you already listed all the possible cases and most of them only apply to certain weapons.)

Stacking WPs isn't just "rare," but "very rare."
Care to count up the possible combos that you think are legal, and the total number of WPs in Rifts, and to figure a rough percentage?
In any case, Prysus is entirely correct that "very rare" and "the default" are mutually exclusive.

Furthermore, the full text is this:
However, some different W.P.s may offer an accumulated bonus for the same type of weapon, like Archery and Targeting, or Sharpshooting, but these are very rare.

Note the wording. Some different WPs may offer an accumulated bonus for the same type of weapon.
Archery and targeting makes such a specific offer.
Sharpshooting makes such a specific offer.
WP Blunt and WP Staff?
Not so much.

[Blue_Lion]

The post that you claimed to adress the all bonuses you stated.

Actually, the full quote is:
"Bonuses that increase for that particular weapon are accumulative and are combined with the character's PP attribute, OCC, and Hand to Hand Combat skill bonuses.

To me, that seems to very clearly be a listing of what "all bonuses" entails:
-Bonuses that increase for that particular weapon. As in, the +1 to strike bonus at levels 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 under WP Blunt are all accumulative.
-Characters' PP bonus.
-Any applicable OCC bonuses.
-HTH Combat skill bonuses.

It does NOT list "bonuses from more than one Weapon Proficiency.""

That is you saying that it does not include multiple WP simply because you do not think it does. Not that the book says it does not.
WP blunt provides weapon specific bonuses to staffs.
WP blunt provides weapon specific bonuses staffs.
That means both WP are conversed under the all Weapon specific bonuses. There is no logical reason to write out the long bonuses from more than one WP as that is covered by all weapon specific bonuses. There is however to a reason to say if a possible weapon specific bonuses does not apply.
Your attack that all bonuses is every thing does not address the real point, and in truth as no bearing on the statement that you justification for only one WP being used that you think all bonuses only means one WP so it only means one WP.

So your counter to all bonuses is only one WP counts because I think only one WP not because the book tells you that.

I can not imagine some one being more off on the point about my point, about physical skills than what you just presented.
This is about your logic on limiting bonuses to just one skill without being told to. Not about the type of bonus being applied.

Both physical and WP say all bonuses are cumulative, however you apply a limit to one skill to WP while allowing every skill to physical to stack. You are not demanding the same statement for multiple skill bonus stacking from physical as you are from WP. That is a double standard.

[Killer Cyborg]

The post that you claimed to adress the all bonuses you stated.

Actually, the full quote is:
"Bonuses that increase for that particular weapon are accumulative and are combined with the character's PP attribute, OCC, and Hand to Hand Combat skill bonuses.

To me, that seems to very clearly be a listing of what "all bonuses" entails:
-Bonuses that increase for that particular weapon. As in, the +1 to strike bonus at levels 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 under WP Blunt are all accumulative.
-Characters' PP bonus.
-Any applicable OCC bonuses.
-HTH Combat skill bonuses.

It does NOT list "bonuses from more than one Weapon Proficiency.""

That is you saying that it does not include multiple WP simply because you do not think it does

Incorrect.
That is me saying that the book does NOT list bonuses from more than one Weapon Proficiency.
Am I wrong in that claim?
If so, then kindly provide a direct quote and citation that shows the book listing "bonuses from more than one Weapon Proficiency."

Let's focus on this, because you should be very clear on what RAW does and does not say, if you want to discuss it.

[Blue_Lion]

The post that you claimed to adress the all bonuses you stated.

Actually, the full quote is:
"Bonuses that increase for that particular weapon are accumulative and are combined with the character's PP attribute, OCC, and Hand to Hand Combat skill bonuses.

To me, that seems to very clearly be a listing of what "all bonuses" entails:
-Bonuses that increase for that particular weapon. As in, the +1 to strike bonus at levels 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 under WP Blunt are all accumulative.
-Characters' PP bonus.
-Any applicable OCC bonuses.
-HTH Combat skill bonuses.

It does NOT list "bonuses from more than one Weapon Proficiency.""

That is you saying that it does not include multiple WP simply because you do not think it does

Incorrect.
That is me saying that the book does NOT list bonuses from more than one Weapon Proficiency.
Am I wrong in that claim?
If so, then kindly provide a direct quote and citation that shows the book listing "bonuses from more than one Weapon Proficiency."

Let's focus on this, because you should be very clear on what RAW does and does not say, if you want to discuss it.

The nature of your claim is that you think it only list means from 1 WP under all weapon specific bonuses.(The it does not list more than one is a straw man as it does not even list 1 in the statement you are using, logically saying multiple bonuses are covered by all is unneeded.)
Not because the book says so but because that is what you think.
The it does not specifically list bonuses from more than one weapon proficiency is a straw man, because it does not list specifically list bonuses from one WP directly instead use a blanket all bonuses are cumulative statement and all weapon specific bonuses are accumulative. So there is no reason for it to directly list the bonuses from more than one WP directly as it does not directly list the bonuses from 1.

Now then you stated that WP blunt is a weapon specific bonus that they say are all accumulative.
WP staff would also be weapon specific bonus that they say are all cumulative.
So if all weapon specific bonuses are cumulative that means both the WPs are proving bonuses that are accumulative.

So then where does it tell you to only apply the bonus of one of the two accumulative bonuses(that are both covered by the all weapon specific bonuses)?
No where you simply do that because you think you should not because it tells you to.
So you are not presenting a limitation from the book but creating one because that is how you think it works.
The way it is written is uses a blanket statement of all bonuses and all weapon specific bonuses that would include both WP skills if they are known. The only use one is not coming from the text of RAW but you thinking that you only use 1.(Logically there is no reason to say to include something in all weapon specific bonuses, but there is a reason to say if a weapon specific bonuses is not part of all weapon specific bonuses.)

Other than that you think you should only use 1 you never gave a logical reason to just use one of the two cumulative bonuses that would be covered by weapon specific bonuses.

So tell me this where does it say to use the bonuses of 1 WP?
(-If all weapon specific bonuses means bonuses from WP why would only one skill count as part of all?)

**Basically any bonus that you have all stack as long as you have the bonuses by the way the text is written.**

[Killer Cyborg]

The post that you claimed to adress the all bonuses you stated.

Actually, the full quote is:
"Bonuses that increase for that particular weapon are accumulative and are combined with the character's PP attribute, OCC, and Hand to Hand Combat skill bonuses.

To me, that seems to very clearly be a listing of what "all bonuses" entails:
-Bonuses that increase for that particular weapon. As in, the +1 to strike bonus at levels 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 under WP Blunt are all accumulative.
-Characters' PP bonus.
-Any applicable OCC bonuses.
-HTH Combat skill bonuses.

It does NOT list "bonuses from more than one Weapon Proficiency.""

That is you saying that it does not include multiple WP simply because you do not think it does

Incorrect.
That is me saying that the book does NOT list bonuses from more than one Weapon Proficiency.
Am I wrong in that claim?
If so, then kindly provide a direct quote and citation that shows the book listing "bonuses from more than one Weapon Proficiency."

Let's focus on this, because you should be very clear on what RAW does and does not say, if you want to discuss it.

The nature of your claim is that you think ...

Stop.
Let's try again, because this is a very simple Yes or No question.

That is me saying that the book does NOT list bonuses from more than one Weapon Proficiency.
Am I wrong in that claim?
If so, then kindly provide a direct quote and citation that shows the book listing "bonuses from more than one Weapon Proficiency."

Let's focus on this, because you should be very clear on what RAW does and does not say, if you want to discuss it.

[Blue_Lion]

If Weapon specific bonuses are WP bonuses then yes all weapon specif bonuses is all WP bonuses even if they are from more than one skill.
If weapon specific bonuses are not WP bonuses then it does not even list one.

Your does it have a citation for bonuses from more than one WP is a straw man as the rule in question does not even directly state to apply 1 but you demand direct statement for two. The way it is written applying all WP specific bonuses means you would use the bonuses from all skills that you have learned and are speccific to the weapon.

(In addition Pyrus quote about a weapon may get bonuses from over lapping WP skills stacking. You claim it is not the rule because of a flavor word rare, however it can be the rule if it does not apply to most weapons. I do not have that book with me.)

Do you have a citation that says all bonuses means only bonuses from 1 WP?
(You must prove a restriction to all not prove a lack of restriction. Your demand of a citation for a unneeded statement has been addressed, better than your I think you only use 1 but no book statement to only use 1.)


(I am tired for your demand that I prove all is not limited but you have no evidence of the limit.)



You need to stop and prove that all bonuses and all weapon specific bonuses does not include multiple WP. Logically I see no reason to prove multiple skills are part of all if even 1 is.

[Blue_Lion]

I think this as played out it is starting to go around in circles.

Lets just agree we have different points of view.

Mine-I see nothing that says multiple WP are not covered by all bonuses and all weapon specific bonuses.

Yours as I understand it-To you all weapon specific bonuses means only the bonuses from 1 WP, you see nothing that says more than 1 WP is part of all weapon specific bonuses.

[J_cobbers]

I was actually looking at the description of both ancient and modern weapons not the over veiw the over view simply says all bonuses are cumulative with no reference of bonus other than the context other than WP but ancient weapons places it on a participial weapon not a skill. They felt the need in ancient that has weapons skills that over lap to remind you that bonus for the weapon are accumulative but did not feel the need to include that in the description of modern weapons. That is what I am talking about why emphasis it ancient (that has obvious over lapping weapon proficients) and not in modern weapons (that has no obvious over lapping WP) that all bonuses to a weapon are accumulative?

If they need to state it in WP ancient right after they just said it was in the previous over view but did not include it in molder weapons after you turn the page. If it was important enough to include in ancient then why not include it in Modern WP description as well?

It sounds like you're saying that rules need to be stated twice in order to be taken seriously.
Please clarify if you mean something else.

Nothing says the bonus from over lapping WP are not cumulative that is something you are adding not in the WP descriptions.

Correct.
There is nothing forbidding multiple different WPs from stacking when stacking isn't specified.
There just isn't any reason to believe that's the intent of the rules.

**We can not know RAI so we can not come to a real conclusion on that we can only debate RAW as we can read that ourselves.**

Incorrect.
People can and frequently DO come to real conclusions on RAI via debate and discussion.
Also, as you know, authors can and do come forward and explain intent from time to time.

We can know RAI, and we can come to real conclusions.

Beyond that you are just guessing what you think they mean and arguing it against what is actually written.

Who invades Spain in the 8th century?
a) The Moors.
b) The Moops.

*on some weapon skills you did not see why they over lap*
Sai is a small blade that would be covered by WP knife and is also in forked as is multi pronged claws.

A sai is not a bladed weapon. They are somewhat pointed, but the edges are round and blunt. They're digging tools in origin, not cutting implements.
Nonetheless, you are correct that WP Knife would apply!

Japan 119
Sai/Jitte list the WP Category as Knife.

And WP Forked in RUE (p. 326) list Sai as an example of forked weapons.

The question here would be whether the Rifts Japan categorization of the weapon as using WP Knife was intended to replace it's listing in WP Forked (can't find original source for that WP--it's not in the RMB), or whether it was intended for either or both WPs to be applied.
(Or whether it was a mistake, written by somebody who wasn't really familiar with sai in the first place.)

So that still only gives us a small handful of weapons that are mentioned under two different WPs:
Staffs (WP Blunt & WP Staff)
Sai (WP Knife & WP Sai)
Tridents (WP Forked & WP Spear)

I interrupt this thread for a totally out of context and nonserious comment about why sai's ought to stack for both WP Knife and WP Forked:
Because Raphael is the most B.A. of the Ninja Turtles, that's why.
Though for the record, Mikey is totally my favorite in pretty much every incarnation of TMNT.
I now return you to your regularly scheduled forum discussion.

[J_cobbers]

The post that you claimed to adress the all bonuses you stated.

Actually, the full quote is:
"Bonuses that increase for that particular weapon are accumulative and are combined with the character's PP attribute, OCC, and Hand to Hand Combat skill bonuses.

To me, that seems to very clearly be a listing of what "all bonuses" entails:
-Bonuses that increase for that particular weapon. As in, the +1 to strike bonus at levels 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 under WP Blunt are all accumulative.
-Characters' PP bonus.
-Any applicable OCC bonuses.
-HTH Combat skill bonuses.

It does NOT list "bonuses from more than one Weapon Proficiency.""

That is you saying that it does not include multiple WP simply because you do not think it does

Incorrect.
That is me saying that the book does NOT list bonuses from more than one Weapon Proficiency.
Am I wrong in that claim?
If so, then kindly provide a direct quote and citation that shows the book listing "bonuses from more than one Weapon Proficiency."

Let's focus on this, because you should be very clear on what RAW does and does not say, if you want to discuss it.

The nature of your claim is that you think ...

Stop.
Let's try again, because this is a very simple Yes or No question.

That is me saying that the book does NOT list bonuses from more than one Weapon Proficiency.
Am I wrong in that claim?
If so, then kindly provide a direct quote and citation that shows the book listing "bonuses from more than one Weapon Proficiency."

Let's focus on this, because you should be very clear on what RAW does and does not say, if you want to discuss it.

Well if you take the quote from Prysus in the GMG seriously, then yes KC, you are wrong for the simple fact that Archery and Targeting and Sharpshooting are in fact WP's that stack. And, yes, the counterpoint is that they explicitly spell that out in their descriptions, but those are legit instances where the books do in fact lit bonuses that the weapon in question gets from more than one WP.

Further it says that the accumulated bonus for the same type of weapon are rare. Eliakon took this as too mean rarity applies to those skills mentioned in the GMG, and specifically mention it. But those are skills that apply to fairly common weapons like bows, knifes and firearms. Another interpretation of the GMG rule as to it's use of the word "rare" is not how rare the weapon itself if, but the number of instances where a weapon will fall into multiple WPs. In this thread we have found only staffs and possibly sai, and KC example in modern WPs the NE Plasma Ejector Rifle. Of course then the NE PER depends on how you interpret the it's categorization as an energy rifle and or Heavy MD weapon, which is possibly a separate and interesting debate covered earlier in this thread.

But the broad WP heading did say all bonuses are accumulative, WP Ancient reiterates that:

Each WP provides combat training with a particular type of weapon. The result is hand to hand combat bonuses whenever that particular type of weapon is used. Bonuses with that particular weapon are accumulative and are combined with the character's PP attribute, O.C.C. and hand to hand combat skill bonuses.

Emphasis mine.

I emphasized particular type of weapon and particular weapon in the quote for a very specific reason. Particular weapon is not the same as particular type of weapon. Particular weapon means a more narrow class, like a staff or a sai or a NE Plasma Ejector Rifle than particular type of weapon, such as blunt type weapons, staff type weapons, knife type weapons, fork type weapons, energy rifle type weapons, or Plasma Ejector type weapons. Dissecting this subtle, but clear, difference in the quoted section means that there is a good chance that because a Staff or sai is a particular weapon falling into 2 particular type of weapon categories, it may have 2 applicable WPs for which both bonuses would be allowed to accumulate.

I personally don't like that interpretation, but I don't find it to be an illogical or clearly erroneous interpretation of the RAW. It is certainly a munchkinesque exploitable loophole for making a H2H character that will be a cut above any others. Think about that if you also combined it with someone with Power armor elite combat training as well.

Also going back to my TMNT comment, Donatello is another compelling reason why staff should get bonuses from 2 WP's, 'cause Ninjas.... and um... Turtles Totally logical argument in there somewhere I'm telling you

[HWalsh]

I think that there might be a grammar issue...

"Each WP provides combat training with a particular type of weapon. The result is hand to hand combat bonuses whenever that particular type of weapon is used. Bonuses with that particular weapon are accumulative and are combined with the character's PP attribute, O.C.C. and hand to hand combat skill bonuses."

There are three parts to this discussion... Well three sentences.

Sentence 1:
Each WP provides combat training with a particular type of weapon.

Sentence 2:
The result is hand to hand combat bonuses whenever that particular type of weapon is used.

Sentence 3:
Bonuses with that particular weapon are accumulative and are combined with the character's PP attribute, O.C.C. and hand to hand combat skill bonuses.

-----

Sentence 1 can be interpreted in two ways.

The first is that each weapon falls under a type and that each WP, save for if explicitly noted, can affect only one category.

This does indicate that a staff, under WP Staff, is not affected by WP Blunt. This is because Staff is now codified under a different skill. We can, as well, infer that Palladium groups weapons based largely on the skill needed to use the weapon. This is why a wooden sword, a blunt weapon, is not compatible with WP blunt, but is with WP sword.

This inference is further supported by the fact that you can't use WP Shield bonuses while using a shield as a blunt weapon despite a shield absolutely being blunt.

This, to me, states that you can use a Staff as a blunt weapon, with WP Blunt bonuses, while fighting in the manner of a blunt weapon such as a baseball bat or a mace.

I would further hazard that you can use a Staff as a staff, with WP Staff bonuses, while fighting in the traditional two-handed mid-shaft weapon style.

You, however, cannot use WP Staff and WP Blunt at the same time with the same weapon as both use wholly different techniques.

Now, you may claim that WP bonuses are accumulative, but you wouldn't be wholly correct in that and I'll explain why in the dissection of sentence 3.


-----

Sentence 2 is fairly straightforward. I want to note, however, that they use the same wording as sentence one. This is a deliberate use of "weapon type" rather than "weapon" as we will discuss below.

I also wish to call attention to the fact that "hand to hand" combat bonuses are the result. Not weapon bonuses.

-----

Sentence 3, for me, is the debate ender. The first is that the line, "Bonuses with that particular weapon are accumulative"

Is not a sentence. It is not an open ended statement affirming that all bonuses from WPs stack. WPs grant "hand to hand combat bonuses." They do not grant, "Bonuses with that particular weapon."

They grant "hand to hand combat bonuses" whenever a weapon of a specific type is used. Those are not "weapon bonuses."

Then we have the full sentence:

"Bonuses with that particular weapon are accumulative and are combined with the character's PP attribute, O.C.C. and hand to hand combat skill bonuses."

Which attributes those bonuses to what they specifically accumulate with.

-----

From all of this we can infer that RAW can have numerous interpretations of varying degrees of validity, but Rai is fairly obvious that you can't use two WPs unless the rules state you can specifically as they call out it in those that can combine.

[Killer Cyborg]

If Weapon specific bonuses are WP bonuses then yes all weapon specif bonuses is all WP bonuses even if they are from more than one skill.
If weapon specific bonuses are not WP bonuses then it does not even list one.

You keep talking about RAW, so don't swap terms.
The book doesn't say "weapon specific bonuses" here.
It says "Bonuses that increase for that particular weapon are accumulative and are combined with the character's PP attribute, OCC, and Hand to Hand Combat skill bonuses."

The moment you try to paraphrase "bonuses that increase for that particular weapon" into "weapon specific bonuses," you are leaving RAW and entering a world of your own imagination.

Do you have a citation that says all bonuses means only bonuses from 1 WP?

Do YOU have a citation that says that "Bonuses that increase for that particular weapon" means bonuses from multiple WPs?
Because that's the issue here.
You keep telling me that RAW doesn't support me, and that I don't have anything RAW saying that it's just bonuses from one weapon, and you're right... but at the same time you're refusing to admit that RAW doesn't EVER say that the bonuses from different WPs stack as a default.

In this passage, it NEVER mentions multiple WPs.
All it says is "Bonuses that increase for that particular weapon are accumulative and are combined with the character's PP attribute, OCC, and Hand to Hand Combat skill bonuses," and "Bonuses that increase for that particular weapon" does not mean the same thing as "bonuses from multiple WPs."

[Killer Cyborg]

I think this as played out it is starting to go around in circles.

Lets just agree we have different points of view.

Mine-I see nothing that says multiple WP are not covered by all bonuses and all weapon specific bonuses.

DO you see the RGMG part that Prysus found that says "some different W.P.s may offer an accumulated bonus for the same type of weapon, like Archery and Targeting, or Sharpshooting, but these are very rare?

Yours as I understand it-To you all weapon specific bonuses means only the bonuses from 1 WP, you see nothing that says more than 1 WP is part of all weapon specific bonuses.

Yes, to start.
Beyond that, I don't see any reason from any standpoint why the writers would deliberately craft the rules in such a way that Sai, Staffs, Tridents, Plasma Ejector Rifles, and a minority of other weapons would have such capability for high bonuses.
It doesn't make any sense from a simulationist view, from a game-mechanics view, from a game balance view, nor from a cinematic view.
It doesn't make any sense that Palladium would go out of their way to craft the rules to benefit staff-fighters in this way, and then NEVER ONCE use it.
Not only do they not use it--they actively ignore it when writing up expert staff-fighting characters (Donatello, for example) and classes (the Rifts Japan stuff).
And when they bother to list the Weapon Proficiency for staff weapons in Rifts Japan?
NO mention of WP Blunt, ONLY WP Staff.

Even if there is a RAW argument for WP Blunt and Staff (etc.) stacking, there hasn't been any decent RAI argument for it.
Best case scenario for the pro-Blunt/Staff crowd, as far as I can see, they've found a bug that they want to exploit.

If you want to agree to disagree, then okay.
You can probably tell that I'm also getting tired of this discussion.

But if you go strictly RAW, there might not be strict support for the idea that WPs as a default don't stack, but there likewise isn't any strict RAW that they DO stack.
The main difference is that one way things make sense, and the other way gives an inexplicable and apparently random (or outright accidental) preference to certain weapons to the detriment of the setting, of balance, and of rationality.

[HWalsh]

RAI argument for it.
Best case scenario for the pro-Blunt/Staff crowd, as far as I can see, they've found a bug that they want to exploit.

I don't want to put it that way but I do agree. My gut says that this originated from, "How do I get more bonuses?"

[Blue_Lion]

RAI argument for it.
Best case scenario for the pro-Blunt/Staff crowd, as far as I can see, they've found a bug that they want to exploit.

I don't want to put it that way but I do agree. My gut says that this originated from, "How do I get more bonuses?"

My stance came from looking for anything that says they do not stack to find the raw answer for the question the question. I started by looking for a book no and could not find one.

As KC just pointed out they may stack the "rare" is more of a non-mechanical statement (flavor) as we do not have a RAW of what the rare case is.

This was not about how I would run it in my game but if the rules as written allow for it. As I said there is nothing in the rules that says they do not stack. Meaning that if you would have both bonuses there is nothing saying only apply one and the wording on bonuses in WP uses all that is some what inclusive. The only reason to say they do not stack is to prevent power creep or unbalancing not because the book says so.

(I have no idea why KC thinks I should see a statement that says there may be cases as they do not stack.)

[Killer Cyborg]

The only reason to say they do not stack is to prevent power creep or unbalancing not because the book says so.

The only reason to say that they DO stack is... well, I don't know why.
But it's not in the rules anywhere.

[J_cobbers]

The only reason to say they do not stack is to prevent power creep or unbalancing not because the book says so.

The only reason to say that they DO stack is... well, I don't know why.
But it's not in the rules anywhere.

Sounds like this discussion has more or less settled down. There's a vague bit about accumulation of bonuses as I, HWalsh have both explored in our last posts, with different conclusions, KC's strict constructionist / original authorial intent arguments (much like the late Justice Scalia's usual mode of legal analysis) that indicates we have no cannon examples of WP bonuses stacking, and Blue Lion's assertion that there isn't a clear RAW that says the rare instances of weapons falling into overlapping WPs don't stack bonuses. It generally boils down to how you define "accumulative" and how you frame your analysis. Are you like KC and HWalsh looking for an instance of RAW where it explicitly says such stacking is allowed, and restrict the accumulative bonuses to a single WP? Or are you like me and Blue Lion, looking for an instance where RAW explicitly says such stacking isn't allowed and take accumulative bonuses to apply to a single weapon, which might then fall into multiple WPs?

These two starting points lead to 2 completely different conclusions, and hence the disagreement on whether stacking for staffs and such is allowable under the rules. In essence your starting point will determine your conclusion and I think both are legitimate forms of looking at the question, and so both interpretations on a close reading of the rules can lead to legitimate difference.

Where I do see a consensus is that stacking bonuses in this way is either, unbalancing, or a munchkin power grab, regardless on which side of the debate you fall; and that if we had to house rule it, none of the 4 of us would allow for it. If a GM decided they want to run their game allowing for stacking that's up to them and their players will be sure to scour source books for weapons that they can maximize their bonuses on, but if not then it will probably simplify things and leave players to look for the single WP that provides the most benefits for their particular weapon choice (like WP blunt being superior for staves except for those OCC's that start with WP Staff and have powers that revolve around fighting with one).

[HWalsh]

The only reason to say they do not stack is to prevent power creep or unbalancing not because the book says so.

The only reason to say that they DO stack is... well, I don't know why.
But it's not in the rules anywhere.

Sounds like this discussion has more or less settled down. There's a vague bit about accumulation of bonuses as I, HWalsh have both explored in our last posts, with different conclusions, KC's strict constructionist / original authorial intent arguments (much like the late Justice Scalia's usual mode of legal analysis) that indicates we have no cannon examples of WP bonuses stacking, and Blue Lion's assertion that there isn't a clear RAW that says the rare instances of weapons falling into overlapping WPs don't stack bonuses. It generally boils down to how you define "accumulative" and how you frame your analysis. Are you like KC and HWalsh looking for an instance of RAW where it explicitly says such stacking is allowed, and restrict the accumulative bonuses to a single WP? Or are you like me and Blue Lion, looking for an instance where RAW explicitly says such stacking isn't allowed and take accumulative bonuses to apply to a single weapon, which might then fall into multiple WPs?

These two starting points lead to 2 completely different conclusions, and hence the disagreement on whether stacking for staffs and such is allowable under the rules. In essence your starting point will determine your conclusion and I think both are legitimate forms of looking at the question, and so both interpretations on a close reading of the rules can lead to legitimate difference.

Where I do see a consensus is that stacking bonuses in this way is either, unbalancing, or a munchkin power grab, regardless on which side of the debate you fall; and that if we had to house rule it, none of the 4 of us would allow for it. If a GM decided they want to run their game allowing for stacking that's up to them and their players will be sure to scour source books for weapons that they can maximize their bonuses on, but if not then it will probably simplify things and leave players to look for the single WP that provides the most benefits for their particular weapon choice (like WP blunt being superior for staves except for those OCC's that start with WP Staff and have powers that revolve around fighting with one).

Also, to note, in all of the places where WP's we know of do stack they are all explicitly called out as stacking.

What we know:

1. The books say it can happen, but call it out as being rare.
2. The books have incidents where it specifically calls out when they stack, the books do not call out when they don't stack.
3. It could be poor copy pasta.

[Blue_Lion]

(The way I run games, I house rule any natural roll 1-4 misses regardless of bonuses. So hand to hand bonuses only matter for counters such as dodge and parry. In my games the issue of stacking WP has never came up, as I been playing and gming rifts since 97 that seams it is quite rare for this to come up. I wonder how many people here have had it come up in games.)

The way hand to hand rules work in RUE after +4 the only difference any further bonuses make is for counters such dodge and parry. If the average NPC they fight has little or no bonus to parry it can be a big issue. If the NPCs they fight have a high bonus to parry it becomes less so.

Given that with most weapons their would only be a issue the GM rules that a weapon is in multiple WP. example-trident is not listed under wp spear, but instead listed under wp fork(as a spear like weapon). So the only way WP spear applies to tridents is if the GM allows it nothing in the book says the trident counts as a spear as most weapons listed in forced weapons are primarily piercing weapons you could easily rule spear does not apply. So with most weapons it is easy to prevent the stacking as you simply rule only one WP applies to the weapon.

What makes the staff special is it is directly listed in two WP, so the GM is not deciding if it is part of a second WP but the book says it is part of two. Other than staff the only time a weapon is found in multiple WP that i can find with a quick check is WP targeting-axe (small) knife, javelins. (I may have missed something.)

That is likely why the issue never came up I have never in my games ruled a weapon to be covered by two WPs a PC had been trained in.(Take the NE plasma rifle-I rule that like a recoil-less rifle just having the word rifle in the name does not mean it counts as rifle, so no over lap.) Staffs are primarily sdc weapons(the only MD staffs I think of come from a rare super smart tree) I have never seen one used by a PC.

[Blue_Lion]

Sentence 1:
Each WP provides combat training with a particular type of weapon.



-----

Sentence 1 can be interpreted in two ways.

The first is that each weapon falls under a type and that each WP, save for if explicitly noted, can affect only one category.

This does indicate that a staff, under WP Staff, is not affected by WP Blunt. This is because Staff is now codified under a different skill. We can, as well, infer that Palladium groups weapons based largely on the skill needed to use the weapon. This is why a wooden sword, a blunt weapon, is not compatible with WP blunt, but is with WP sword.

This inference is further supported by the fact that you can't use WP Shield bonuses while using a shield as a blunt weapon despite a shield absolutely being blunt.

This, to me, states that you can use a Staff as a blunt weapon, with WP Blunt bonuses, while fighting in the manner of a blunt weapon such as a baseball bat or a mace.

I would further hazard that you can use a Staff as a staff, with WP Staff bonuses, while fighting in the traditional two-handed mid-shaft weapon style.

That seams more about wild guessing than mechanical rules.
I do not think it is reasonable to assume you are doing baseball bat swings with a staff while fighting with it under blunt. Looking at other WP you see that weapons even if normally held at the base and mid shaft are in the same category-WP forked. Typically spear-like weapons are held some where mid shaft while sia is held at the base. WP archery includes weapons held mid shaft (bows) as well as handles at a end (crossbow pistol) and weapons held like a rifle spear gun and heavy cross bow. The categories seam more about more abstract than how something is held/used.

The shield while being used like a blunt weapon is not stated as part of the WP blunt, and not listed as part of the category. This can be emphisid by the flail, used like a blunt weapon but counts as chain.

[HWalsh]

Sentence 1:
Each WP provides combat training with a particular type of weapon.



-----

Sentence 1 can be interpreted in two ways.

The first is that each weapon falls under a type and that each WP, save for if explicitly noted, can affect only one category.

This does indicate that a staff, under WP Staff, is not affected by WP Blunt. This is because Staff is now codified under a different skill. We can, as well, infer that Palladium groups weapons based largely on the skill needed to use the weapon. This is why a wooden sword, a blunt weapon, is not compatible with WP blunt, but is with WP sword.

This inference is further supported by the fact that you can't use WP Shield bonuses while using a shield as a blunt weapon despite a shield absolutely being blunt.

This, to me, states that you can use a Staff as a blunt weapon, with WP Blunt bonuses, while fighting in the manner of a blunt weapon such as a baseball bat or a mace.

I would further hazard that you can use a Staff as a staff, with WP Staff bonuses, while fighting in the traditional two-handed mid-shaft weapon style.

That seams more about wild guessing than mechanical rules.
I do not think it is reasonable to assume you are doing baseball bat swings with a staff while fighting with it under blunt. Looking at other WP you see that weapons even if normally held at the base and mid shaft are in the same category-WP forked. Typically spear-like weapons are held some where mid shaft while sia is held at the base. WP archery includes weapons held mid shaft (bows) as well as handles at a end (crossbow pistol) and weapons held like a rifle spear gun and heavy cross bow. The categories seam more about more abstract than how something is held/used.

The shield while being used like a blunt weapon is not stated as part of the WP blunt, and not listed as part of the category. This can be emphisid by the flail, used like a blunt weapon but counts as chain.

Your argument about forked isn't really accurate. While held in the mid haft the execution of their use is spear-like as opposed to the common uses of a staff which, while can be used for thrusting, is usually used in wide circular swings and close range semi-circular arching strikes.

[dreicunan]

I think that there might be a grammar issue...

"Each WP provides combat training with a particular type of weapon. The result is hand to hand combat bonuses whenever that particular type of weapon is used. Bonuses with that particular weapon are accumulative and are combined with the character's PP attribute, O.C.C. and hand to hand combat skill bonuses."

{snip}

Sentence 2 is fairly straightforward. I want to note, however, that they use the same wording as sentence one. This is a deliberate use of "weapon type" rather than "weapon" as we will discuss below.

I also wish to call attention to the fact that "hand to hand" combat bonuses are the result. Not weapon bonuses.

-----

Sentence 3, for me, is the debate ender. The first is that the line, "Bonuses with that particular weapon are accumulative"

Is not a sentence. It is not an open ended statement affirming that all bonuses from WPs stack. WPs grant "hand to hand combat bonuses." They do not grant, "Bonuses with that particular weapon."

They grant "hand to hand combat bonuses" whenever a weapon of a specific type is used. Those are not "weapon bonuses."

Then we have the full sentence:

"Bonuses with that particular weapon are accumulative and are combined with the character's PP attribute, O.C.C. and hand to hand combat skill bonuses."

Which attributes those bonuses to what they specifically accumulate with.

-----

From all of this we can infer that RAW can have numerous interpretations of varying degrees of validity, but Rai is fairly obvious that you can't use two WPs unless the rules state you can specifically as they call out it in those that can combine.

I disagree with your second and third arguments. You are attempting to claim that "hand to hand combat bonuses" are somehow not "bonuses with that particular weapon," but that doesn't hold up. PP, OCC and hand to hand combat SKILL (as in the bonuses from Basic, Expert, Martial Arts, Assassin, or whatever other skill you have) bonuses clearly do not include the bonuses from Weapon Proficiencies. If "bonuses with that particular weapon" do not refer to the bonuses provided by WPs, then there is nothing to which they can refer! 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 them as accumulative in their own right and then separately states them as combining with other types as well.

Also, I'm curious as to the book from which you got your wording. The RUE wording is:

"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."

---
Fun fact that may have already been mentioned: near as I can tell, pre-RUE, WP Staff gave superior bonuses to WP Blunt (certainly did in Chaos Earth).

More generally, the origin of the idea that multiple WPs can apply to the same weapon is probably that the old wording for this in RMB had "All bonuses are cumulative" as a stand-alone sentence, and people took the sentence at its word (which is perhaps crazy to do with Palladium books, but is not rooted in a desire to exploit a bug). I'm pretty sure that we had a trident wielding character in a Fantasy campaign who somehow got three WPs to apply to the trident at once (I'm trying to recall how; does anyone know if one of the books had a W.P. Spear that applied to tridents?). It wasn't really that big of a deal as I recall, however, because that was in the same campaign that our GM decided that he wanted to rift my Heroes Unlimited Character, another guy's Glitter Boy Pilot (in the armor), and a third guy's nightbane into the fantasy universe.

Did we find that crazy? Of course (the guy who introduced me to Rifts explained it as the coolest setting he'd ever seen with rules that were clearly written under the influence of mind-altering substances because no game designer in an unaltered state would write things up this way), but no more crazy than a Vagabond, a Glitter Boy, a Mind Melter, and a Ley Line Walker all being in the same party. As I think back, I think that we just took it as part of the "not all things are created equal" vibe that clearly runs throughout Palladium's games.

All that said, as I mentioned a while back, I have no problem with those who decide to say "only one WP at a time" or "choose highest bonus."

The more that rules get discussed on this website, the more I feel like the whole idea of a Palladium "system" is just a shared delusion we all have.

EDIT: Just found this on the cutting room floor FAQ, and I don't think that anyone has referenced it yet:

71. Would any of the WPs apply to a sack full of doorknobs blunt, flail?
Answer: Normally blunt, but if plenty of slack is provided then W.P. Chain would apply

The wording implies that the writer of the FAQ feels that only one of the two would apply at a time.

[J_cobbers]

The more that rules get discussed on this website, the more I feel like the whole idea of a Palladium "system" is just a shared delusion we all have.

Yep that sounds about right.

[Killer Cyborg]

The more that rules get discussed on this website, the more I feel like the whole idea of a Palladium "system" is just a shared delusion we all have.

Yep that sounds about right.

I've said before that it's more of a Rorschach's blot than a rule system.

[Axelmania]

But if you want to interpret things the other way, then that Naruni Plasma Ejector Rifle would benefit from both WP Heavy MD Weapons and WP Energy Rifle, for something like +6 on Aimed shots to start.
So that should be your new energy rifle of choice!

RUE 361 plasma ejectors are not under WP Heavy Mega-Damage Weapons, which replaced W.P. Heavy Energy Weapons (although this is still mentioned as an alias in parenthesis) from RMB 33, so that appears to solve the dilemma.

HMDW covers the CS Plasma Cannon since it is a "military class weapon" by merit of being an official weapon of the CS military.

(I should point out at the start even adding the bonuses from energy rifle and heavy weapons is not +6 on a aimed shot right at the start, aimed shot provides +2 neither wp energy rifle or heavy weapons provide a bonus at level 1.)

Yeah, the new modern WP in RUE make this much less of a dilemma.

roughly 2x the combat bonuses with a staff than with a sword, axe, or spear.

Given that most fighters will have a hand to hand skill providing bonuses comparable to WP, it's usually less than 2x the bonuses at the end of the night. Moreso if a high PP or intuitive combat / sixth sense, power armor combat, etc. are all taken into account.

our staff-fighting NPCs such as Donatello don't have both skills because they're really not all THAT good with staffs, even though staffs are such awesome weapons"...?

Donatello isn't a staff-fighting expert, statistically. He has PP 17 (+1 s/p) and WP Staff at 5th level.

By contrast, Leonardo has PP 20 (+3 s/p) and WP Staff at 6th level and Mike has PP 24 (+5 s/p) and WP Staff at 5th level.

Leo and Mike are already better than Don with a staff per their in-book stats even if you ignore them having WP Blunt, which makes them even better.

Since Raphael has PP 18 (+2s/p) and Blunt at 6th (+2 s/p just like staff) he is also better with a staff than Donatello, by +1 s/p

The advantage that Donatello has over Raphael in combat is actually when using spears, since he gets a +2 to strike/parry with spears via his WP Staff (total +3 with his PP) while Raph has to rely on raw PP with spears, only having a +2 to with them.

Fun fact: if you check page 25 of revised TMNT, WP Staff adds a bonus to spears, despite WP "Forked and Spear" coming a couple spots after, besides this and the usual blunt+staff combo, Blunt helps maces and Chain helps 'mace and chain' which is probably short for 'mace and ball and chain' mentioned under Paired.

WP Targeting (Shuriken) explicitly adds its 2/4/7/10/13 to spears/forks despite it already getting bonuses to strike when thrown at 2/6/9/14 meaning at level 14 you can have +9 to strike with a thrown spear from these WP.

The TMNT having a weapon of choice doesn't mean they're the most skilled of the turtles with that weapon.

That said... the TMNT probably aren't the best examples for discussing WP. For example Raphael has WP Sai but there's no WP Sai in the book (closest is Forked and Spear)

and then there's the fun of Raph having "W.P. Nunchuks[/u]", Leo having "W.P. Nunchuka" and Mike having "W.P. Nunchaku" AND "W.P. Chain"

or Leo having both W.P. Daisho (Katana/Wakazashi) AND W.P. Paired Weapons - Swords while Raph and Mike have a mysterious "W.P. Blade" (dunno if that's meant to be knife or sword) plus while page 25 says if you buy paired weapons you can use them in any combination (HTH skills did not provide them, this differs from later games which required different paired WP buys for each combination) and Mike has that, Raph and Leo specifically note having it with Sais/Swords for some reason.

Then of course you have splinter, who despite having 'All Ancient Weapons' still lists W.P. Daisho and W.P Paired Weapons in addition to that even though Paired Weapons is already in that category and Daisho doesn't exist...

The Sparrow Eagles also list specified PW for Nunchuks/Daisho, inconsistent with Mike having it unspecified per 25.

Only one hand to hand applies at time in ninjas and super spies because they clearly tell us that.

The rules never clearly tell us that multiple WPs stack, yet you insist on claiming that they do.

Bonuses applying cumulatively is inherently how they all work. That's basic math.

When multiple adders interfere with one another is when we need to be told about it, which N&SS does.

I don't need to be told for example that I can stack the bonuses from Espionage: Sniper with Sharpshooting: Aimed Shot. I don't recall ever reading anywhere saying I can do this, but I obviously can because that's what bonuses do, they both increase the roll and will do so concurrently until told otherwise.

[Blue_Lion]

Sentence 1:
Each WP provides combat training with a particular type of weapon.



-----

Sentence 1 can be interpreted in two ways.

The first is that each weapon falls under a type and that each WP, save for if explicitly noted, can affect only one category.

This does indicate that a staff, under WP Staff, is not affected by WP Blunt. This is because Staff is now codified under a different skill. We can, as well, infer that Palladium groups weapons based largely on the skill needed to use the weapon. This is why a wooden sword, a blunt weapon, is not compatible with WP blunt, but is with WP sword.

This inference is further supported by the fact that you can't use WP Shield bonuses while using a shield as a blunt weapon despite a shield absolutely being blunt.

This, to me, states that you can use a Staff as a blunt weapon, with WP Blunt bonuses, while fighting in the manner of a blunt weapon such as a baseball bat or a mace.

I would further hazard that you can use a Staff as a staff, with WP Staff bonuses, while fighting in the traditional two-handed mid-shaft weapon style.

That seams more about wild guessing than mechanical rules.
I do not think it is reasonable to assume you are doing baseball bat swings with a staff while fighting with it under blunt. Looking at other WP you see that weapons even if normally held at the base and mid shaft are in the same category-WP forked. Typically spear-like weapons are held some where mid shaft while sia is held at the base. WP archery includes weapons held mid shaft (bows) as well as handles at a end (crossbow pistol) and weapons held like a rifle spear gun and heavy cross bow. The categories seam more about more abstract than how something is held/used.

The shield while being used like a blunt weapon is not stated as part of the WP blunt, and not listed as part of the category. This can be emphisid by the flail, used like a blunt weapon but counts as chain.

Your argument about forked isn't really accurate. While held in the mid haft the execution of their use is spear-like as opposed to the common uses of a staff which, while can be used for thrusting, is usually used in wide circular swings and close range semi-circular arching strikes.

Umm.. you lost me on your point in this.
My point was where the weapon is held does not affect what WP is used,(I used WP forked because it had clear examples of that fact) I never claimed that a staff is used like a spear weapon.

[Killer Cyborg]

But if you want to interpret things the other way, then that Naruni Plasma Ejector Rifle would benefit from both WP Heavy MD Weapons and WP Energy Rifle, for something like +6 on Aimed shots to start.
So that should be your new energy rifle of choice!

RUE 361 plasma ejectors are not under WP Heavy Mega-Damage Weapons, which replaced W.P. Heavy Energy Weapons (although this is still mentioned as an alias in parenthesis) from RMB 33, so that appears to solve the dilemma.

Only if you assume that lack of mention in a current book is necessarily a change from previous rules, and that's always a contentious assumption.
For me, it leaves Plasma weapons in a kind of limbo (as I believe I mentioned), where we can't be certain which WP applies to them.

HMDW covers the CS Plasma Cannon since it is a "military class weapon" by merit of being an official weapon of the CS military.

I don't think that logic follows.

roughly 2x the combat bonuses with a staff than with a sword, axe, or spear.

Given that most fighters will have a hand to hand skill providing bonuses comparable to WP, it's usually less than 2x the bonuses at the end of the night.

Not in the context of straight WP bonuses.

our staff-fighting NPCs such as Donatello don't have both skills because they're really not all THAT good with staffs, even though staffs are such awesome weapons"...?

Donatello isn't a staff-fighting expert, statistically. He has PP 17 (+1 s/p) and WP Staff at 5th level.

By contrast, Leonardo has PP 20 (+3 s/p) and WP Staff at 6th level and Mike has PP 24 (+5 s/p) and WP Staff at 5th level.

Leo and Mike are already better than Don with a staff per their in-book stats even if you ignore them having WP Blunt, which makes them even better.

Since Raphael has PP 18 (+2s/p) and Blunt at 6th (+2 s/p just like staff) he is also better with a staff than Donatello, by +1 s/p

The advantage that Donatello has over Raphael in combat is actually when using spears, since he gets a +2 to strike/parry with spears via his WP Staff (total +3 with his PP) while Raph has to rely on raw PP with spears, only having a +2 to with them.

Okay... THAT is weird.
I'd say that they screwed things up when making the characters, since Don is supposed to be a staff expert, BUT if they did screw things up, that still negates Don as a good example.
So I have to withdraw Donatello from this conversation.
Good point.

Fun fact: if you check page 25 of revised TMNT, WP Staff adds a bonus to spears, despite WP "Forked and Spear" coming a couple spots after, besides this and the usual blunt+staff combo, Blunt helps maces and Chain helps 'mace and chain' which is probably short for 'mace and ball and chain' mentioned under Paired.

Good find.
Although we're obviously going to disagree about how that would be implemented.

WP Targeting (Shuriken) explicitly adds its 2/4/7/10/13 to spears/forks despite it already getting bonuses to strike when thrown at 2/6/9/14 meaning at level 14 you can have +9 to strike with a thrown spear from these WP.

Again, since Targeting specifies that it stacks, that would mean that it stacks, and it would indicate that other WPs are not intended to stack.

Only one hand to hand applies at time in ninjas and super spies because they clearly tell us that.

The rules never clearly tell us that multiple WPs stack, yet you insist on claiming that they do.

Bonuses applying cumulatively is inherently how they all work. That's basic math.[/quote]

No. Math is adding numbers.
Declaring that two different sets of bonuses stack, when stacking is not declared in the books? That's a house rule.

I don't need to be told for example that I can stack the bonuses from Espionage: Sniper with Sharpshooting: Aimed Shot. I don't recall ever reading anywhere saying I can do this, but I obviously can because that's what bonuses do, they both increase the roll and will do so concurrently until told otherwise.

We've covered that; stacking is specifically the nature of such bonuses. The only way for the skill to work is to stack.
That's not the case with parallel WPs that cover the same weapon.

[Axelmania]

Given that most fighters will have a hand to hand skill providing bonuses comparable to WP, it's usually less than 2x the bonuses at the end of the night.

Not in the context of straight WP bonuses.
[/quote]
Which seems like a strange distinction to make, it's comparing an unlikely world of fighters without HTH skills, when the auto-parry HTH gives is useful with weapons

Okay... THAT is weird.
I'd say that they screwed things up when making the characters, since Don is supposed to be a staff expert, BUT if they did screw things up, that still negates Don as a good example.

I'd say in present-day considering the entire franchise, I'd describe Don that way, but WAS he supposed to be a staff-expert in the original Mirage series?

Other Strangeness apparently debuted September 1985. According to http://turtlepedia.wikia.com/wiki/List_ ... ain_Series only the first 4 issues of the comic were out by then, so I imagine the stats only reflected their abilities as of then and hadn't been updated even though later supplements to the RPG took into account material from later comics, like Transdimensional referring to the mutant girl in issue 16. Odds are that the turtles by then were more formidable. Considering the sheer quantity of comics about them by Mirage or others, they're probably all level 10+ by now.

I'd have to double-check on a reread or something but it's possible that Don's skills grew since then. I'm not sure what issues if any show the other turtles fighting with a bo staff for comparison.

I just got the impression he used the staff because it was the least violent, simplest weapon, suited for someone who doesn't focus as much on combat as his brothers ("Donatello does machines" the lyrics say)

since Targeting specifies that it stacks, that would mean that it stacks, and it would indicate that other WPs are not intended to stack.

Palladium has a habit of sometimes adding in supplementary reminders where they aren't necessary. Like "Mega-Damage: 2D4 MD" or something. The absence of these reminders doesn't mean anything sinister.

Declaring that two different sets of bonuses stack, when stacking is not declared in the books? That's a house rule.

Bonuses add to a roll. If I have +1 to damage and +2 to damage, I have +3 to damage total. Bonuses apply where they're told we apply them, even if there are other bonuses which also apply.

We've covered that; stacking is specifically the nature of such bonuses. The only way for the skill to work is to stack.
That's not the case with parallel WPs that cover the same weapon.

Incorrect. By the argument you're making, someone would have to choose WP bonuses or Sniper or Sharpshooter, but could not combine them, unless it says to combine them.

[Killer Cyborg]

Given that most fighters will have a hand to hand skill providing bonuses comparable to WP, it's usually less than 2x the bonuses at the end of the night.

Not in the context of straight WP bonuses.

Which seems like a strange distinction to make, it's comparing an unlikely world of fighters without HTH skills, when the auto-parry HTH gives is useful with weapons

The only fair level of comparison in game stats is an "all else being equal" level of comparison.

since Targeting specifies that it stacks, that would mean that it stacks, and it would indicate that other WPs are not intended to stack.

Palladium has a habit of sometimes adding in supplementary reminders where they aren't necessary. Like "Mega-Damage: 2D4 MD" or something. The absence of these reminders doesn't mean anything sinister.

It doesn't necessarily mean that the WPs are not intended to stack.
But it does indicate that they are not intended to stack.

Declaring that two different sets of bonuses stack, when stacking is not declared in the books? That's a house rule.

Bonuses add to a roll. If I have +1 to damage and +2 to damage, I have +3 to damage total. Bonuses apply where they're told we apply them, even if there are other bonuses which also apply.

If you have +1 to damage on punches, and +2 to damage on kicks, then you don't get +3 as a total.
If you have +1 to damage from HTH Ninjitsu, and +1 to damage from HTH Assassin, you again don't get +3 as a total.
It's only basic math once you've established whether or not bonuses stack, and stacking is specifically the issue at hand.

We've covered that; stacking is specifically the nature of such bonuses. The only way for the skill to work is to stack.
That's not the case with parallel WPs that cover the same weapon.

Incorrect.

How so?

By the argument you're making, someone would have to choose WP bonuses or Sniper or Sharpshooter, but could not combine them, unless it says to combine them.

By my argument, WPs are treated like HTH forms as a rule; they don't stack unless specified, so you only get the bonuses from one at a time.
Sniper is not a WP, so my argument doesn't apply.
WP Sharpshooter is specified to stack with certain other WPs, and to not stack with others, which fits my argument.

[Axelmania]

Hand to hand don't stack when a book has a disclaimer about them not stacking. Otherwise they would.

If they wanted that disclaimer to apply to WP they could have easily forbid it in the same place.

This isn't a case of +1 to dmg with punches +2 to dmg with kicks, it's more like +1 to dmg with blunt weapons (blunt including short staff) and +2 dmg with staff weapons (staff including short staff) giving +3

[Killer Cyborg]

Hand to hand don't stack when a book has a disclaimer about them not stacking. Otherwise they would.

That would depend on how the game designers intended things to work.

If they wanted that disclaimer to apply to WP they could have easily forbid it in the same place.

And if Palladium didn't want typos, they could fix them.
But they rarely do.
That doesn't make the typos canon.

It's the same with poorly phrased rules, and it's the same with omissions.

This isn't a case of +1 to dmg with punches +2 to dmg with kicks, it's more like +1 to dmg with blunt weapons (blunt including short staff) and +2 dmg with staff weapons (staff including short staff) giving +3

It sounds like you agree that the important matter is NOT the math; it's whether or not stacking is allowed.
Which brings us back to the conversation.

[Axelmania]

Stacking isn't even a thing. Adding bonuses to rolls is the thing. We're told to increase a die roll by boni.

Non-stacking is the abberation. Bonus interference is the unusual thing you are introducing without substantiation.

[Killer Cyborg]

Stacking isn't even a thing. Adding bonuses to rolls is the thing. We're told to increase a die roll by boni.

Non-stacking is the abberation. Bonus interference is the unusual thing you are introducing without substantiation.

If you're arguing that the way that WPs work is unusual, then okay.
Unusual stuff happens from time to time

[Saitou Hajime]

I read through all of this in one sitting and it makes me want to punch people in the face.

that said i honestly thing one of the biggest problems with Palladium Books is the fact that they give us WAY too much credit to be reasonable, sensible adults. I mean there are so few examples on how things actaully add up for example. [Not that other gaming companies do much better but it at least seen as a potental problem.]

Clearly other than the already noted exceptions any weapon that has two possible WP, is using the weapon in two different styles, in the case of Staves Blunt and Staff. you can you both WP you pick the one you are using, either [as short hand] you use like a baseball bat/club or you use like a staff, the Bearded axe is the same slashing like a polearm or thrusting like a spear, the C-14 has two weapons attached, you use each seperately from each other, you are never using both WP at the same time. To me and likely the writers this is common sense and the intent of the writings, I am not commenting on other motivations.

[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?

[Saitou Hajime]

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

[Axelmania]

Saitou if I am not using a weapon as a "hand" does that mean I can't use hand to hand combat skill bonuses with it?

Does the damage bonus I get from high ST from boxing only apply to punches? Does the natural 20 knockout only work on punches? Nope.

Bonuses are clearly not very particular about restricting themselves semantically. Crossover between blunt/staff training would not be odd by comparison to other stuff we see.

[dreicunan]

I read through all of this in one sitting and it makes me want to punch people in the face.

that said i honestly thing one of the biggest problems with Palladium Books is the fact that they give us WAY too much credit to be reasonable, sensible adults. I mean there are so few examples on how things actaully add up for example. [Not that other gaming companies do much better but it at least seen as a potental problem.]

Clearly other than the already noted exceptions any weapon that has two possible WP, is using the weapon in two different styles, in the case of Staves Blunt and Staff. you can you both WP you pick the one you are using, either [as short hand] you use like a baseball bat/club or you use like a staff, the Bearded axe is the same slashing like a polearm or thrusting like a spear, the C-14 has two weapons attached, you use each seperately from each other, you are never using both WP at the same time. To me and likely the writers this is common sense and the intent of the writings, I am not commenting on other motivations.

Yeah, it is totally crazy for an adult to think that the author of the book meant it when he wrote "All bonuses are cumulative." Obviously, anyone who disagrees with you must be an idiot utterly devoid of common sense. That is of course the only way anyone could disagree with you.

The reality is that there are arguments to be made on both sides, and that siding one way or another is not an indication of some kind of mental or moral failing on anyone's part.

[Saitou Hajime]

Saitou if I am not using a weapon as a "hand" does that mean I can't use hand to hand combat skill bonuses with it?

Does the damage bonus I get from high ST from boxing only apply to punches? Does the natural 20 knockout only work on punches? Nope.

Bonuses are clearly not very particular about restricting themselves semantically. Crossover between blunt/staff training would not be odd by comparison to other stuff we see.

Actually they seem very odd to me that you [general you] would think you could stat these two WP together, as I said it about function of style, you can only use a weapon in one format or the other you can't use both at the same time to claim you can is illogical.

I read through all of this in one sitting and it makes me want to punch people in the face.

that said i honestly thing one of the biggest problems with Palladium Books is the fact that they give us WAY too much credit to be reasonable, sensible adults. I mean there are so few examples on how things actaully add up for example. [Not that other gaming companies do much better but it at least seen as a potental problem.]

Clearly other than the already noted exceptions any weapon that has two possible WP, is using the weapon in two different styles, in the case of Staves Blunt and Staff. you can you both WP you pick the one you are using, either [as short hand] you use like a baseball bat/club or you use like a staff, the Bearded axe is the same slashing like a polearm or thrusting like a spear, the C-14 has two weapons attached, you use each seperately from each other, you are never using both WP at the same time. To me and likely the writers this is common sense and the intent of the writings, I am not commenting on other motivations.

Yeah, it is totally crazy for an adult to think that the author of the book meant it when he wrote "All bonuses are cumulative." Obviously, anyone who disagrees with you must be an idiot utterly devoid of common sense. That is of course the only way anyone could disagree with you.

The reality is that there are arguments to be made on both sides, and that siding one way or another is not an indication of some kind of mental or moral failing on anyone's part.

I don't believe there is two ways to look at it, it very clear in the practical nature of what is being simulate that you can't use staves with both WP at the same time, claims that you can are clearly not taking account what the game is simulating and only looking at the math. It at the very core a example of Rule lawyering to Min-max system.

[HWalsh]

I read through all of this in one sitting and it makes me want to punch people in the face.

that said i honestly thing one of the biggest problems with Palladium Books is the fact that they give us WAY too much credit to be reasonable, sensible adults. I mean there are so few examples on how things actaully add up for example. [Not that other gaming companies do much better but it at least seen as a potental problem.]

Clearly other than the already noted exceptions any weapon that has two possible WP, is using the weapon in two different styles, in the case of Staves Blunt and Staff. you can you both WP you pick the one you are using, either [as short hand] you use like a baseball bat/club or you use like a staff, the Bearded axe is the same slashing like a polearm or thrusting like a spear, the C-14 has two weapons attached, you use each seperately from each other, you are never using both WP at the same time. To me and likely the writers this is common sense and the intent of the writings, I am not commenting on other motivations.

Yeah, it is totally crazy for an adult to think that the author of the book meant it when he wrote "All bonuses are cumulative." Obviously, anyone who disagrees with you must be an idiot utterly devoid of common sense. That is of course the only way anyone could disagree with you.

The reality is that there are arguments to be made on both sides, and that siding one way or another is not an indication of some kind of mental or moral failing on anyone's part.

Uh... Just to point out, the sentence isn't "All bonuses are cumulative."

It's, "All bonuses are accumulative," with a comma, where the statement continues specifically calling out weapon bonuses and hand to hand bonuses.

[Killer Cyborg]

I read through all of this in one sitting and it makes me want to punch people in the face.

that said i honestly thing one of the biggest problems with Palladium Books is the fact that they give us WAY too much credit to be reasonable, sensible adults. I mean there are so few examples on how things actaully add up for example. [Not that other gaming companies do much better but it at least seen as a potental problem.]

Clearly other than the already noted exceptions any weapon that has two possible WP, is using the weapon in two different styles, in the case of Staves Blunt and Staff. you can you both WP you pick the one you are using, either [as short hand] you use like a baseball bat/club or you use like a staff, the Bearded axe is the same slashing like a polearm or thrusting like a spear, the C-14 has two weapons attached, you use each seperately from each other, you are never using both WP at the same time. To me and likely the writers this is common sense and the intent of the writings, I am not commenting on other motivations.

Yeah, it is totally crazy for an adult to think that the author of the book meant it when he wrote "All bonuses are cumulative."

Actually, thinking that the author meant it 100% literally IS pretty crazy, for reasons I've already gone over--taken 100% literally, it would mean that Splyncryth's bonus to parry would stack with your character's bonus to strike.
It's quite obvious that when the author talks about "all bonuses," he doesn't mean 100% literally ALL bonuses.
And that would be pretty crazy, which is why nobody here has argued for that 100% literalness.

Knowing that what he meant was something less than 100% literal, then the discussion becomes about how literal exactly he was being, and in what ways.
And (as HWalsh points out) we have a pretty clear indication of what bonuses he was writing about, from that same passage of text.

[dreicunan]

I read through all of this in one sitting and it makes me want to punch people in the face.

that said i honestly thing one of the biggest problems with Palladium Books is the fact that they give us WAY too much credit to be reasonable, sensible adults. I mean there are so few examples on how things actaully add up for example. [Not that other gaming companies do much better but it at least seen as a potental problem.]

Clearly other than the already noted exceptions any weapon that has two possible WP, is using the weapon in two different styles, in the case of Staves Blunt and Staff. you can you both WP you pick the one you are using, either [as short hand] you use like a baseball bat/club or you use like a staff, the Bearded axe is the same slashing like a polearm or thrusting like a spear, the C-14 has two weapons attached, you use each seperately from each other, you are never using both WP at the same time. To me and likely the writers this is common sense and the intent of the writings, I am not commenting on other motivations.

Yeah, it is totally crazy for an adult to think that the author of the book meant it when he wrote "All bonuses are cumulative." Obviously, anyone who disagrees with you must be an idiot utterly devoid of common sense. That is of course the only way anyone could disagree with you.

The reality is that there are arguments to be made on both sides, and that siding one way or another is not an indication of some kind of mental or moral failing on anyone's part.

Uh... Just to point out, the sentence isn't "All bonuses are cumulative."

It's, "All bonuses are accumulative," with a comma, where the statement continues specifically calling out weapon bonuses and hand to hand bonuses.

Actually, we are both wrong. The RMB quote does use accumulative; it has a period after it, however, not a comma. See page 32 RMB.

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.

@Saitou: The practical nature of weapons training tells me that if I know multiple ways in which to use a weapon effectively, that does indeed provide an advantage over someone who only knows one way. In RPGs like Rifts, we generally use mechanical things like bonuses to represent that. Thus, your appeal to real life actually argues in favor of stacking the bonuses from WPs.

KC: No one ever took the argument to reductio ad absurdum levels. They did think that the statement in the context of weapon bonuses and hand to hand combat meant that you combined all that apply, which in context is not a ludicrous position.

[Saitou Hajime]

I read through all of this in one sitting and it makes me want to punch people in the face.

that said i honestly thing one of the biggest problems with Palladium Books is the fact that they give us WAY too much credit to be reasonable, sensible adults. I mean there are so few examples on how things actaully add up for example. [Not that other gaming companies do much better but it at least seen as a potental problem.]

Clearly other than the already noted exceptions any weapon that has two possible WP, is using the weapon in two different styles, in the case of Staves Blunt and Staff. you can you both WP you pick the one you are using, either [as short hand] you use like a baseball bat/club or you use like a staff, the Bearded axe is the same slashing like a polearm or thrusting like a spear, the C-14 has two weapons attached, you use each seperately from each other, you are never using both WP at the same time. To me and likely the writers this is common sense and the intent of the writings, I am not commenting on other motivations.

Yeah, it is totally crazy for an adult to think that the author of the book meant it when he wrote "All bonuses are cumulative." Obviously, anyone who disagrees with you must be an idiot utterly devoid of common sense. That is of course the only way anyone could disagree with you.

The reality is that there are arguments to be made on both sides, and that siding one way or another is not an indication of some kind of mental or moral failing on anyone's part.

Uh... Just to point out, the sentence isn't "All bonuses are cumulative."

It's, "All bonuses are accumulative," with a comma, where the statement continues specifically calling out weapon bonuses and hand to hand bonuses.

There are practical and logical limits to that statement. I explained my logic, which you not countered except with "all bonuses are cumulative." you are ignoring what I saying and why I saying it so why should I attempt to take what you are saying as serious.

@Saitou: The practical nature of weapons training tells me that if I know multiple ways in which to use a weapon effectively, that does indeed provide an advantage over someone who only knows one way. In RPGs like Rifts, we generally use mechanical things like bonuses to represent that. Thus, your appeal to real life actually argues in favor of stacking the bonuses from WPs.

No, it Damn well isn't, the benefit of knowing both skills is to be able to switch on the fly from one WP to the other depending on what is better at the time. you are terying to justify you belief in something by effectively making stuff up to sound like a reason. Flexibility is an advantage in itself.

[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?

False analogy
Weapons Systems is not a WP.
You can not claim that a skill that adds to something that requires a WP to fire (vehicular weapons) and thus by its existence must be used in conjunction with a WP is the same as combining two separate W.P.s

You may have as many 'add on' skills that add on to a WP as you can get...
... as per the comment in Targeting using two or more WPs at once is "rare"
and since rare is not 'default' (and is in fact pretty much the opposite)

[dreicunan]

I read through all of this in one sitting and it makes me want to punch people in the face.

that said i honestly thing one of the biggest problems with Palladium Books is the fact that they give us WAY too much credit to be reasonable, sensible adults. I mean there are so few examples on how things actaully add up for example. [Not that other gaming companies do much better but it at least seen as a potental problem.]

Clearly other than the already noted exceptions any weapon that has two possible WP, is using the weapon in two different styles, in the case of Staves Blunt and Staff. you can you both WP you pick the one you are using, either [as short hand] you use like a baseball bat/club or you use like a staff, the Bearded axe is the same slashing like a polearm or thrusting like a spear, the C-14 has two weapons attached, you use each seperately from each other, you are never using both WP at the same time. To me and likely the writers this is common sense and the intent of the writings, I am not commenting on other motivations.

Yeah, it is totally crazy for an adult to think that the author of the book meant it when he wrote "All bonuses are cumulative." Obviously, anyone who disagrees with you must be an idiot utterly devoid of common sense. That is of course the only way anyone could disagree with you.

The reality is that there are arguments to be made on both sides, and that siding one way or another is not an indication of some kind of mental or moral failing on anyone's part.

Uh... Just to point out, the sentence isn't "All bonuses are cumulative."

It's, "All bonuses are accumulative," with a comma, where the statement continues specifically calling out weapon bonuses and hand to hand bonuses.

There are practical and logical limits to that statement. I explained my logic, which you not countered except with "all bonuses are cumulative." you are ignoring what I saying and why I saying it so why should I attempt to take what you are saying as serious.

@Saitou: The practical nature of weapons training tells me that if I know multiple ways in which to use a weapon effectively, that does indeed provide an advantage over someone who only knows one way. In RPGs like Rifts, we generally use mechanical things like bonuses to represent that. Thus, your appeal to real life actually argues in favor of stacking the bonuses from WPs.

No, it Damn well isn't, the benefit of knowing both skills is to be able to switch on the fly from one WP to the other depending on what is better at the time. you are terying to justify you belief in something by effectively making stuff up to sound like a reason. Flexibility is an advantage in itself.

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.

[Axelmania]

Weapon Systems not being a WP doesn't matter. The point is there is no declaration to stack. Stack declarations have never been necessary. Bonuses add to what they add to. Exceptions where you do not add them where you're told to add them must be stated.

[Killer Cyborg]

Weapon Systems not being a WP doesn't matter.

It exactly matters.
The claim is that WPs don't stack unless specified, not that bonuses don't stack in general.

[Killer Cyborg]

Yeah, it is totally crazy for an adult to think that the author of the book meant it when he wrote "All bonuses are cumulative."

Actually, thinking that the author meant it 100% literally IS pretty crazy, for reasons I've already gone over--taken 100% literally, it would mean that Splyncryth's bonus to parry would stack with your character's bonus to strike.
It's quite obvious that when the author talks about "all bonuses," he doesn't mean 100% literally ALL bonuses.
And that would be pretty crazy, which is why nobody here has argued for that 100% literalness.

Knowing that what he meant was something less than 100% literal, then the discussion becomes about how literal exactly he was being, and in what ways.
And (as HWalsh points out) we have a pretty clear indication of what bonuses he was writing about, from that same passage of text.

KC: No one ever took the argument to reductio ad absurdum levels.

Kind of what I said; nobody has argued for 100% literalness.

They did think that the statement in the context of weapon bonuses and hand to hand combat meant that you combined all that apply, which in context is not a ludicrous position.

Indeed it is NOT ludicrous!
In fact, it's the one thing that everybody here agrees on.
Where we disagree is on what "all that apply" would entail.
Obviously, a lot of us don't view bnuses from other WPs as being applicable, unless specifically indicated.

[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).