Gerneral Rifts Question: Biggest Perceived Weaknesses

[Dog_O_War]

I've been playing Rifts for a few months now, and have yet to run into ANY problems for the system. However, everywhere I look I see people complaining about the system and the balance, but can't find anything overly specific. Some people mention the rules as "messy" or "clunky" or "in need of revision," for example.

My question is this: What are some of the biggest complaints about the Palladium systems, in better detail, and how do players/Game-masters that encounter these problems resolve them? What are the rules that are "in need of revision" and what does that really mean?

I know its an odd question, but I am genuine afraid that I'll be playing and suddenly come across something that totally breaks the game XD. What is everyone talking about?

Okay, so combat.

First things' first; the toughest character is the best character. What this means is that you're pitting a 400 MDC Borg against, say a Cyber-Knight. Seems pretty straight-forward on who will win, right?

It's the Borg. A Cyber-Knight (and by Cyber-Knight, I and everyone mean a 4th level Cyber-Knight, so they have auto-dodge) may have dodge and the ability to deny the Borg all their bonuses, etc., but here's the thing; that Borg can use area-affect attacks, thus negating the roll to hit.

And he can use them with a simultaneous attack, negating the Cyber-Knight's ability to dodge, making it a "who is the toughest?" contest. The answer to which is the Borg.

So that one is your basic loophole 1; toughest character is best character.

Loophole 2; toughest character is fastest character by default.
So back to the 400 MDC Borg. He gets challenged to a gun-duel with a Wired Gun-Slinger (that's a Crazy who is kitted out to be really fast on the draw); basically he's going to go first - it's really damn easy to get an initiative of 10+ with a Wired Gun-Slinger.

Except that the Borg is just going to simultaneous strike regardless of what initiative he rolls, and because he's a Borg, he's going to be using a weapon designed for powered armours and robots to fire back with.

Seeing a trend?

No. 3: Magic is scary and powerful, unless you are technology; magic is portrayed as this awful and scary thing, but the thing of it is that the only truly scary stuff are high-level spells which most low-level mages can't cast unless they're sacrificing mortals to a god while on a ley-line during a full moon whilst Haley's Comet is passing by Rifts Earth.

Meanwhile your average bit of technology is often superior to magic in most every way, and often can defeat magic. Like the invisibility spell; it does not fool infrared goggles. It's a good trick, if your opponent is a bumpkin or some non-infrared seeing creature with no technological aids, as most EBA, vehicles, powered armours, robots, etc. have infrared vision. Your typical attack spell is out-ranged by most rifles (and out-damaged during the lower levels), and things like Borgs (toughest character) have major bonuses to resist spells, or are simply immune to their effects.

This basic portrayal of how Rifts Earth is may cause your players to scratch their heads, because the truth is, only powerful spell-casters are actually scary.

No. 4: you really need all those skills ; what this means is that about half the skills you have are completely useless or, if you actually read the skill itself, you may question why this was even included. Like Optics Systems; did you know that you apparently need this skill to turn on or off your night-vision goggles (which are coincidentally, either on or off), or to even use the zoom on electronic binoculars? There are other such odd things to do with a lot of these skills. A second instance is that being really smart makes you a better swimmer, gymnast and all-around athletic person. A high PS, PP or PE all mean nothing when it comes to climbing, prowling, acrobatics, etc. because you can apparently think yourself up a mountain, into the shadows, or into a somersault.

No. 5: You can't do something, unless you can!; this means that there are many, many contradictory entries, often in the same sentence. For instance: you can only parry when you run out of attacks, except when you are dodging. Or another instance: you cannot parry energy blasts/bullets! Unless you're using a shield of course.

No. 6: Your stats mean nothing. Literally. The game offers you exactly nothing, and even gives you penalties for having a stat of 15 or less, which you're rolling on 3d6. Meanwhile, 16 is quite literally impossible to roll because if you roll a 16, you roll and add more dice on top of it. So you've got a range now of 3-16 on 3d6 that either give penalties, offer nothing, or cannot be achieved via rolling, and only 17+ on the dice confer any sort of benefit.

No. 7: Mega-Damage weapons and armour are a rare thing. Here's your millions of dollars worth of MD equipment: MD weapons and armour are stated as being "rare" in Rifts, yet every character starts with a ton of the stuff. If you're playing a Robot Pilot for example, you may have a robot worth a few million credits; your best option at that point is to sell it and retire in some place like Northern Gun, where you can really stretch out your money in a 50s-esque town of modern convenience.

No. 8: Here's your bonus, which is immediately negated by this penalty; Rifts equipment often states that it's "specialized" for certain tasks; Naruni for instance, has this "stealth" armour, which changes to match its surroundings, creating a "perfect camouflage", which is instantly negated by the penalty the armour gives you.

No. 9: Where was that rule again?; Rifts does not have a linear flow to the books, and has rules that are never easy to find. Or they just say a bunch of garbage in the fluff and the mechanics do not match it in the slightest. For instance: did you know that one of the primary attacks a Glitterboy Killer employs is a targeted missile-strike against the Glitterboy's boomgun? Oh wait, the mechanics says that you cannot do that and that all missiles hit the main body of a target instead.

No.10: There is no incentive to leveling up. Typically your skills improve by 5%; congratulations, you still suck at everything you attempt to do, unless you started good at it. There are a couple of exceptions, but those are exceptions and not the rule.


These are just what I could ramble off in 20 minutes.

[Dog_O_War]

Okay, I have a bit more time, so I will go over some solutions.

Step 1: get rid of "simultaneous attack". Problem solved. However, as I don't believe in just throwing stuff away, I actually kept the rule, albeit, a modified version. Version: the effects of a simultaneous attack occur when two opponents on the same initiative attack each other. And yes, you would then no longer order people into a first through tenth style initiative ranking, instead allowing them to go whenever their initiative is listed.

Magic: I am still working on this solution. It involves a kind of "points-buy" system, wherein you choose the effects you want a spell to have, determined by how much energy you're pumping into the spell.

Skills: I have yet to overhaul the Rifts skill-system in its entirety, but I do have a few quick-fixes and patches. I have turned certain skills into proficiencies, like Radio: Basic, and WP: Powered Armour (which is no longer part of Pilot: Robots and Powered armour, using the moniker, "WP" for lack of a better category). Some skills I just dumped, like Optics Systems, though I am considering keeping them and turning them into a bonus skill. For example, if you took Optics Systems, you net a bonus to Scouting (what I renamed the skill Perception).

Additionally, There are competitive skills, and these skills you cannot fail. For example, Prowl is a competitive skill; you roll it against your number (say, 50%) and you succeed, giving your opponent either a bonus or penalty to their competitive skill - which is in this case Scouting. So if you rolled 60 vs 50% on your prowl, your opponent would get a bonus of 10% (the margin by which you exceeded your prowl skill) to their opposed roll. If you had instead rolled a 40 vs 50% on your prowl, then your opponent would receive a 10% penalty.

Additionally, I divided all the skills (yes, all the skills) into stat categories, so that being smart would stop offering a bonus to skills like swimming or climbing, and instead these skills receive bonuses from an appropriate stat. The list is here.

As to the rest of the problems; I have been working on a rules re-write; I have gone through several versions.

[Nekira Sudacne]

Dog of War, where did you get that area effect attacks negate the roll to hit? that's not listed anywhere.

[Dog_O_War]

Dog of War, where did you get that area effect attacks negate the roll to hit? that's not listed anywhere.

By this, I mean that you are not attacking the Cyber-Knight, thus you retain your bonuses. What you're doing is attacking the area the Cyber-Knight is in; a marginally easier target, given that an area of ground or a room are the equivalent of "the broad side of a barn" for targeting purposes.

So you go from major penalties to no penalties and only requiring a roll of 8; most of the time you need to roll a 2 and you still hit. I could have been more clear.

[Nekira Sudacne]

Dog of War, where did you get that area effect attacks negate the roll to hit? that's not listed anywhere.

By this, I mean that you are not attacking the Cyber-Knight, thus you retain your bonuses. What you're doing is attacking the area the Cyber-Knight is in; a marginally easier target, given that an area of ground or a room are the equivalent of "the broad side of a barn" for targeting purposes.

So you go from major penalties to no penalties and only requiring a roll of 8; most of the time you need to roll a 2 and you still hit. I could have been more clear.

Aha!

It's a clever technicallity. At first I thought it would work, but a closer reading of Zen combat, I don't think it would help.

"Become aware of one primary opponent and all weapon systems of that opponent, and can react to all uses of those devices"

"Knows what the opponent is doing the split second the opponent does"

In short, the cyber knight's bonus's applys to anything a technoloical opponent does, about anything, not just those directed at him. he's basically reading your weapon sensors along with you, and the bonus is in recognition of that fact. According to this reading, he would know whoever is being targeted instantly and be able to warn them, even if it's not them, as well as get defensive bonus's against AoE as well.

[Dog_O_War]

Hmm, that is a lot of information, thank you for this

1) Haven't run into that yet but I'll keep that in mind

2) Same thing, I think some solid GMing will take care of that

Where you call it "solid GMing", I call it "making arbitrary rulings when the rules break down". Basically, with a "solid GMing" technique, you would then need to worry about favoritism. Remember that just because someone is playing a brick of MDC, doesn't mean that you should penalize them for it. That said, the 'fast' archetypical character is otherwise penalized.

4) I've been using most of the skills as more of a "If you want to do something particularly challenging"

Which completely negates the point of some skills a player might take; not that it is a bad thing. I would just give a player a skill refund if they took an otherwise useless skill like Optics Systems then.

6) I've been having the players roll 4d6 for stats, make them into heroes, you know?

So are you then only allowing rolls of 4d6? Or are you continuing on with the 3d6 tradition of 'rolls of 16-18 net you an additional 1d6; if you roll a 6 on that 1d6, you get to roll another d6'?

8 ) I don't really know what you mean, can I get some more examples?

Well the Glitterboy Killer powered armour is meant to kill Glitterboys, but at the end of the day (as high-lighted in the No. 9 example) it cannot be used in the way it was written.

The Juicer Sensor-Spoofers are listed as "only being effective in armour with 50 MDC or less" which is subjective, like wearing a suit of Juicer Assassin Flex Plate that has been souped up by an Operator to have more MDC; the Sensors placed in that armour would then become "ineffective". But wait, if you were to damage your armour until it is at the 50 MDC or less mark, they magically work again.

Somehow it costs 65 million credits for an e-clip charging station, yet you could buy a skelebot on the black market, even at 10 times the cost and it would still be a cheaper, more effective "e-clip charging station" (this is the price negating the bonus of a e-clip charger).

There are a few variable frequency laser weapons out there; for the most part they have nothing to shoot at and aren't otherwise special.

HtH: Expert, if you don't start with it, costs an "other" skill choice. It offers a whole +1 parry, +1 dodge over HtH: Basic over the course of 15 levels; there are even points where Basic has equal or better bonuses.

10) Yeah and it takes forever to level up on top of that. Hmmmm...if I were to halve the experience costs for leveling up do you think that'd make leveling up less of a grind and more useful?

Less of a grind? No.
The rate at which you gain levels in this game has nothing to do with how much incentive there is to leveling up. Incentive means to incite or stimulate action; gaining levels faster does not offer the incentive to get them. An incentive is to actually receive something when you gain a level. For example, Cyber-Knights have a strong incentive to get to level 4; it is when they get auto-dodge. People with HtH: Commando have a strong incentive to get to level 5; it is when they get auto-dodge.
Every other class on the other hand gains basically nothing; they get a small bonus to all of their skills. Yay.

An incentive would be additional abilities or some kind of unique use of a skill, etc.

Or to put it another way, think of the first level of a Rifts character as a diamond. Then think of every other level thereafter as a turd. Nobody wants a turd; they want more diamonds. Well say you achieve the next level; all you're really getting is a turd. Maybe when you've got a whole pile of turds, you can burn them to stay warm at night, but at the end of the night something stinks; it's those turds Palladium Books calls levels. Players want diamonds, not turds. For the most part you're better off just dumping second level and taking on another OCC; there are more benefits and less turds that way.

[Dog_O_War]

Dog of War, where did you get that area effect attacks negate the roll to hit? that's not listed anywhere.

By this, I mean that you are not attacking the Cyber-Knight, thus you retain your bonuses. What you're doing is attacking the area the Cyber-Knight is in; a marginally easier target, given that an area of ground or a room are the equivalent of "the broad side of a barn" for targeting purposes.

So you go from major penalties to no penalties and only requiring a roll of 8; most of the time you need to roll a 2 and you still hit. I could have been more clear.

Aha!

It's a clever technicallity. At first I thought it would work, but a closer reading of Zen combat, I don't think it would help.

"Become aware of one primary opponent and all weapon systems of that opponent, and can react to all uses of those devices"

"Knows what the opponent is doing the split second the opponent does"

In short, the cyber knight's bonus's applys to anything a technoloical opponent does, about anything, not just those directed at him. he's basically reading your weapon sensors along with you, and the bonus is in recognition of that fact. According to this reading, he would know whoever is being targeted instantly and be able to warn them, even if it's not them, as well as get defensive bonus's against AoE as well.

Yes - I realized that. That's why you're simultaneously attacking the CK; he can't benefit from his ability to dodge that way.

The real technicality here is that you're simultaneously attacking a target and not actually rolling the attack-roll against them, so much as the area they're in. You're still attacking them, meaning that they cannot dodge (re: simultaneous attack), but it's still an attack against them.

And the final bit, the real piece of rules-lawyer darkness is that:
If not attacking them directly is not considered a "simultaneous attack", then attacks not directed at them, but which still affect them, cannot be dodged either, because a character can only dodge attacks, of which it would not otherwise be considered [to be an attack] for the additional reason that you can simultaneous strike on attacks.

There is actually another method (toughest character is best character); you volley missiles at the area the CK is in; in groups of 4 or more, he cannot dodge. Even firing them at your own feet (assuming the CK was on top of you) otherwise disrupts their abilities and the tougher character (re: the Borg) just rides out the damage.

[Alrik Vas]

The weaknesses in the system are easily dealt with. Dog makes good points about how to abuse the crap out of things, but all if it is easily overcome by either eliminating simultansous attacks or applying GM consideration to things so they don't get out of hand.

[Dog_O_War]

The weaknesses in the system are easily dealt with. Dog makes good points about how to abuse the crap out of things, but all if it is easily overcome by either eliminating simultansous attacks or applying GM consideration to things so they don't get out of hand.

Which (and I was waiting for someone to point this out) does not solve the biggest weakness that the system has; it is easily abused.

Kind of a Catch-22; the perceived weaknesses are "easy to fix", but it's that you constantly have to fix weaknesses in the system, which is the biggest weakness, which is not an easy fix.

[Alrik Vas]

I really think gettng rid of (or at least changing/clarifying) Simultaneous Attack, would fix most of the issues you brought up. The issue is "fixing" it properly.

[Dog_O_War]

I really think gettng rid of (or at least changing/clarifying) Simultaneous Attack, would fix most of the issues you brought up. The issue is "fixing" it properly.

See though, Simultaneous Attack is the one that I always bring up. There are more issues; the very system itself is flawed in numerous ways. Movement over Attacks for instance, is another fundamental flaw within the game because it has been coupled with the round-robin style of play (re: the more attacks you have, the slower you move).

At the most basic, the game has poorly defined items; there are references to things that only a player who has existed on the boards or has been playing Palladium games for years would know the answer to. An instance of this is the term "auto-parry"; it is not defined anywhere in the books, yet it is referenced. Amazingly though, "auto-dodge" has its own entry.

It's the little things like that; due to their number, the problem is actually quite large. To use a parallel [example], the system's flaws are like a Jenga tower; you take a block from the middle (ie: fix a problem) and you put it on top. You keep taking blocks and the tower itself keeps getting holes and becomes more and more unstable as you mount solutions for singular problems back on top; eventually trying to have dozens of little "fixes" only creates more problems and does not solve the out-lying issue: the tower was unstable and weak to begin with.

The game needs a solid re-write; that is the only real solution. It doesn't need a different system, it just needs to have a re-write that properly addresses the problems within in the first place. Like D&D's 3.0 to 3.5, Palladium Books needs a "v2.0" to its "v1.267536"

[Alrik Vas]

I just don't see the problems the same way, i guess. I fixed a lot of things by making movement an action based off their speed, without making it based off their number of attacks. It makes the faster people faster action for action. In narritive-time, they're still faster, so i figured it worked better that way.

[Dog_O_War]

I just don't see the problems the same way, i guess. I fixed a lot of things by making movement an action based off their speed, without making it based off their number of attacks. It makes the faster people faster action for action. In narritive-time, they're still faster, so i figured it worked better that way.

The irony here is that you're still seeing the problems.
It's the forest through the trees you can't seem to find; the trees being individual problems, and the forest being the biggest problem; all the little ones combined.

I said above that the game requires all these little "fixes", but at the end of the day with all the fixes in-place, you're not even playing the same game really. Which is a problem.

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

while i generally agree that the stuff Dog pointed out are problems (and some of them quite big) at least a few of them are dealt with simply by squashing the ever loving crap out of metagaming.

The first time a player tried to tell me he was just going to fire missiles at his own feet (and just "soak up all the damage") to get rid of a weaker opponent, or who routinely just took incoming enemy fire to simultaneously attack... i'd try to have a talk with him about the concept of metagaming and how badly he was doing it.

To whit: the game-mechanics dont exist in-game. If your character behaves as if he knows he can take any given gun blast because he has 400 MDC and the gun only does 3d6MD, that's the height of cheese. That player would swiftly find themselves asked to find someplace else to play if he kept it up.

That's not a solution to the fact that the entire system is pretty badly put together in the first place (if i wasn't int he process of writing a 200+ page world book for a LARP a friend is putting together, i had taken a mind to trying to make the core Palladium system workable and rewriting it - maybe later) but it is worth mentioning as at least a partial foil to the dumb mechanics.

If your players aren't metagaming, chances to truly abuse the rules by doing some of the stuff you're talking about are a lot less likely to occur - which is not to say they wont occur. I've abused the snot out of Impervious To Energy before to abruptly end encounters via rampant simultaneous attacks against guys who simply could not harm me, so the basic premise of it being a broken mechanic is still valid.

No. 3: Magic is scary and powerful, unless you are technology; magic is portrayed as this awful and scary thing, but the thing of it is that the only truly scary stuff are high-level spells which most low-level mages can't cast unless they're sacrificing mortals to a god while on a ley-line during a full moon whilst Haley's Comet is passing by Rifts Earth.

Meanwhile your average bit of technology is often superior to magic in most every way, and often can defeat magic. Like the invisibility spell; it does not fool infrared goggles. It's a good trick, if your opponent is a bumpkin or some non-infrared seeing creature with no technological aids, as most EBA, vehicles, powered armours, robots, etc. have infrared vision. Your typical attack spell is out-ranged by most rifles (and out-damaged during the lower levels), and things like Borgs (toughest character) have major bonuses to resist spells, or are simply immune to their effects.

This basic portrayal of how Rifts Earth is may cause your players to scratch their heads, because the truth is, only powerful spell-casters are actually scary.

Ill also address some of this, as it takes a very black-and-white, "damudge iz all dat matturz" stance which, honestly, doesn't live up to the valildity of the rest of the post.

Infrared vs Invisibility: Simple:
Infrared has to be turned to see invisible guys - you'd have to know they are there first. You aren't just walking around with that turned on (for one thing, in daylight, it's nearly useless, and it eliminates any easy way to identify friend from foe). If the mage is waiting in ambush or approaches from an off-center bearing, you wont have any reason to even turn it on. Yes, it isn't a foolproof way to get close, but neither is it as simple as "guy has infrared vision available, he auto-wins". And Invisibility: Superior neatly avoids all of those weaknesses.

As for typical attack spells being out-damage by rifles at low levels - sure. This isn't D&D. Mages aren't meant to solely rely on magic to defeat their enemies or inflict damage. Mages aren't primary damage dealers. Most mages ALSO have a rifle. And any mage worth his salt also has Carpet of Adhesion.

So you're a big bad-boy Borg with 500 MDC? That's nice. You're totally imobilized while i shoot you to death. You can save with your high save vs magic bonus - but that doesn't let you escape the spell - just get out early. Youll be dead before it matters.

From a simple "who does more damage" - yeah, Tech wins because it does more damage more easily. But Magic is FAR from weak in the world of Rifts. It just isnt BIG BANG BOOM. The fact that with a few simple low level spells you can take a 30+ million credit Power ARmor and render it useless with no chance of that guy being able to retaliate speaks to that... and i forgot Teleport: Lesser, too. That spell is INSANE.

Then you put your ion rifle to his face and kill him. Because mages dont have to use spells to kill you directly.

[Killer Cyborg]

I've been playing Rifts for a few months now, and have yet to run into ANY problems for the system. However, everywhere I look I see people complaining about the system and the balance, but can't find anything overly specific. Some people mention the rules as "messy" or "clunky" or "in need of revision," for example.

You are yet young, Grasshopper.
We ALL thought the system was fine for the first few months, because we all assumed that the gaps were within our own knowledge, not within the game.

My question is this: What are some of the biggest complaints about the Palladium systems, in better detail, and how do players/Game-masters that encounter these problems resolve them? What are the rules that are "in need of revision" and what does that really mean?

I know its an odd question, but I am genuine afraid that I'll be playing and suddenly come across something that totally breaks the game XD. What is everyone talking about?

First and foremost, as long as you're able to think on your toes, to adapt and improvise, NOTHING will truly break the game.
There are plenty of flaws in the system that would make a computer crash, but as long as you're more adaptable than a computer, you should do okay for quite a while.

Second, for the clearest examples of problems, check out this thread.

Third, the simplest metaphor I've come up with is this:
Rifts is a Rorschach blot: we see what we want to see.
It's random ink on paper that so closely resembles a Role-Playing Game that our minds turn it into one.

A bit harsh, perhaps. But it's pretty close. The more you play the game, the more encounter players outside of your group, the more you start to understand how much of the game and the setting is subjective- how much of it all depends on perspective.
In the early days of this website, the most common manifestation of this was in a series of "GB Vs..." threads, where somebody would ask, "Could a Glitter Boy defeat a _______ in combat?"
And the result was inevitably a descent into hostilities as people argued tooth and nail over the rules.

A "GB Vs. Juicer" fight, for example, depends on whether or not:
-You imagine GBs to be incapable of removing a foe from behind their back.
-You believe that a Juicer can run and attack in the same action.
-You believe that simultaneous attacks can (or cannot) be used with ranged weapons.
-You believe that it takes an action/attack for a GB to sink its pylons.
-You believe that a GB is capable of using weapons other than its Boom Gun.
-You believe that a Juicer's auto-dodge gets full, normal dodge bonuses.
-You believe that a GB can GRAB a juicer as a normal attack (and what you believe the workings of such an attempt are)
And so on, and so forth.

The more people discussed any one issue, the more they start to realize that they aren't really playing the same game.
They're all playing something called "Rifts," but there are so many vague points and inconsistencies in the rules that it forces each GM to interpret the rules in whichever way makes the most sense to them... but that's often NOT the same way that another GM interprets the rules.

[cosmicfish]

I am going to chime in with the fact that technologically there are a lot of gaps and inconsistencies.

Weapons and to a lesser extent armor are scaled to make all combatants equalish - so, for example, you get ten ton cannon that have no real advantage over ten pound rifles except range. This makes dealing with such weapons an inherent metagaming issue, because "common sense" won't lead you anywhere near the right gaming answer. The very first Rifts game I played in, I found my self asking the GM why I couldn't just gang pulse rifles together with a WWII-era linked trigger system, providing a weapon that would mince a tank within 2000ft... and then wondering why everyone wasn't doing that.

Missiles are incredibly consistent in performance but tremendously inconsistent in apparent size. The Triax XM-140 has a single LRM about 20ft long and 2ft wide... and yet the 50ft tall X-5000 carries 32 of these bad boys in essentially invisible launchers on the knees.

For that matter, there is no indication how LRM's are even targeted, when there is no targeting system with nearly enough range, and no method of designating for indirect fire.

I would also list as one BIG general problem that this system has added new rules with each book, without ever addressing how the new material impacts the old. It makes the game extremely regional in rules, even as it is so broad in setting.

[PSI-Lence]

i didn't remember simultaneous strike working outside of melee range, but it also never really came up not many characters want to take MD straight damage if they can avoid it, especially a borg that takes too much and dies, unlike PA pilot who loses the armor but not his nessisarily his life

personally i have always really liked the system because of the math it makes it harder for a GM to 'fudge the numbers' and you know a melee is 15 seconds, you can calculate how far you can run in that time (even how far per action) even how far a missile travels in that time and i like that exact nature

magic is a lot stronger than it looks on face value, and saves vs magic don't apply to all spells, and a save does not always negate the effect

i might see skills a little differently , but i have used them all before (though i have seen mention of skills i don't know in books that came out after RUE) optic systems along with the right mechanical skills and you could make your own optics systems
also think of it like giving your grandmother the remote for a HDTV and having her try and set the stations (and keep in mind most people in rifts time are illiterate so take her glasses away too) even if she eventually gets it right having to do it with a different tv will be trial and error again
but with training in the skill you could work your way through all similar types with ease


leveling up doesn't just give you bonuses to skills it gives you skills you didn't have before, HtH and WP bonuses, spells or psionics, or hell even rank/pay increase to add extra incentive, being more well known (represented by level) could mean more work or better pay for freelance merc's etc too

lots of rules have exceptions, but so does real life ... if you are shot in the chest with a shotgun you will die ... unless you have body armor on, you can't parry , or block a sword ...without a shield or something hard enough that wont be cut through

rolling 4D6 for player states might seem like you are making them stronger, but if it's a flat 4d6 you are gimping them just a little, as at best they can get 24 but the rules let them get a max of 30 on creation (rolling 3d6, and on 16+ you roll an additional D6, and if that is a 6 you roll one final D6)

so for the rules if you have not come across anything yet you really aren't likely to, just stick with common sense and rational GM'ing and you should be fine

[MaxxSterling]

The game is full of contradictions and lack of information. Basically the stuff they said above, but there is so much more wrong, that it's really hard to nail down certain items. And the more books you own, the worse it gets. But rest-assured, start running the game and soon enough things will come up and then the house rules will come...

I run my games as canon as possible, even to the point of it being painfully stupid in many cases.

However, many are happy to just rewrite the entire system, and if you are one of those people... then welcome to Rifts. It is simultaneously the greatest and worst game ever to exist.

[Killer Cyborg]

i didn't remember simultaneous strike working outside of melee range, but it also never really came up not many characters want to take MD straight damage if they can avoid it, especially a borg that takes too much and dies, unlike PA pilot who loses the armor but not his nessisarily his life

Simultaneous Attack is never restricted to melee range.
Whether or not it's a good idea to simultaneously attack depends on the circumstances.

With the GB vs Juicer argument, the pro-Juicer camp was of the opinion that a Juicer's auto-dodge would make it effectively untouchable in combat.
Even skipping over the "you CAN fail to dodge" aspect of that plan, Simultaneous Attack negates dodging.
If a person DID find themselves facing an opponent with auto-dodge, who was so much better at dodging than you were at striking, it would often be wiser to take the hit from a simo-attack in exchange for the ability to hurt the enemy rather than be slowly gut to pieces.

personally i have always really liked the system

Me too.
There are a lot of things that I dislike about the system, though, a lot of flies in the ointment.
But the ointment is pretty good.

[guardiandashi]

my main gm gave players a little "edge" on their stats by making the standard roll have an extra d6 take the best...
so for standard 3d6 stats, it was roll 4d6 take the best 3, and when we had a player who was consistently getting 3's to 6's on their stat totals even rolling 4dice... it became roll 4d6, take best 3, and reroll 1's

[Dog_O_War]

while i generally agree that the stuff Dog pointed out are problems (and some of them quite big) at least a few of them are dealt with simply by squashing the ever loving crap out of metagaming.

The first time a player tried to tell me he was just going to fire missiles at his own feet (and just "soak up all the damage") to get rid of a weaker opponent, or who routinely just took incoming enemy fire to simultaneously attack... i'd try to have a talk with him about the concept of metagaming and how badly he was doing it.

To whit: the game-mechanics dont exist in-game. If your character behaves as if he knows he can take any given gun blast because he has 400 MDC and the gun only does 3d6MD, that's the height of cheese. That player would swiftly find themselves asked to find someplace else to play if he kept it up.

If your players aren't metagaming, chances to truly abuse the rules by doing some of the stuff you're talking about are a lot less likely to occur - which is not to say they wont occur. I've abused the snot out of Impervious To Energy before to abruptly end encounters via rampant simultaneous attacks against guys who simply could not harm me, so the basic premise of it being a broken mechanic is still valid.

I would agree that the missiles at the feet thing is reasonably meta, but the more likely (and still completely valid) option is a danger-close strike while moving.

But I disagree that a character who is a tank decides to use their superior firepower to tough out weaker opponents; that's not metagaming - it happens in reality. Basically when a character like a Borg is a walking tank, they tend to act like a tank; they just let their armour absorb the hits so as not to disrupt firing at the enemy. It has many valid in-game reasons to be done; the insult to injury though is that the system endorses this because of rules like simultaneous attack.

But yeah, the thread is about the weaknesses perceived in the system, and that it's so easy to abuse, especially when coupled with metagaming is pretty big.

No. 3: Magic is scary and powerful, unless you are technology; magic is portrayed as this awful and scary thing, but the thing of it is that the only truly scary stuff are high-level spells which most low-level mages can't cast unless they're sacrificing mortals to a god while on a ley-line during a full moon whilst Haley's Comet is passing by Rifts Earth.

Meanwhile your average bit of technology is often superior to magic in most every way, and often can defeat magic. Like the invisibility spell; it does not fool infrared goggles. It's a good trick, if your opponent is a bumpkin or some non-infrared seeing creature with no technological aids, as most EBA, vehicles, powered armours, robots, etc. have infrared vision. Your typical attack spell is out-ranged by most rifles (and out-damaged during the lower levels), and things like Borgs (toughest character) have major bonuses to resist spells, or are simply immune to their effects.

This basic portrayal of how Rifts Earth is may cause your players to scratch their heads, because the truth is, only powerful spell-casters are actually scary.

Ill also address some of this, as it takes a very black-and-white, "damudge iz all dat matturz" stance which, honestly, doesn't live up to the valildity of the rest of the post.

I would like to point out that the stance itself isn't that of 'damage is all that matters'; it was just an easy example.

Infrared vs Invisibility: Simple:
Infrared has to be turned to see invisible guys - you'd have to know they are there first. You aren't just walking around with that turned on (for one thing, in daylight, it's nearly useless, and it eliminates any easy way to identify friend from foe). If the mage is waiting in ambush or approaches from an off-center bearing, you wont have any reason to even turn it on. Yes, it isn't a foolproof way to get close, but neither is it as simple as "guy has infrared vision available, he auto-wins". And Invisibility: Superior neatly avoids all of those weaknesses.

The infrared thing was just speaking from a singular basis; that your average grunt can defeat years of magical training with the flick of a switch. I know it's a little more complicated than that, but that is the short of it.
I mean, if we're getting technical, vehicle radar, such as the kind found in basically every military piece of machinery, can detect the invisible, is on all the time while the vehicle is on, and most of these vehicles have a friend/foe/target-type designator.

But beyond that, your scenario above is deceptively one-sided. And doesn't do anything to deter the point I made that only powerful mages are actually scary. The one-side of your point is that this mage is waiting in ambush; if the technological enemy is waiting in ambush, well it's not like the mage is travelling around "with invisibility on all the time" either - that's as likely as infrared being on all the time. Secondly, if the mage magically vanishes, it's more than fair to assume that of course the technological opponent is going to flip through their different-spectrum vision in an attempt to weed them out.

As for typical attack spells being out-damage by rifles at low levels - sure. This isn't D&D. Mages aren't meant to solely rely on magic to defeat their enemies or inflict damage. Mages aren't primary damage dealers. Most mages ALSO have a rifle. And any mage worth his salt also has Carpet of Adhesion.

See, I agree that mages should be using utility spells like that, but the problem here is that everyone assumes Carpet of Adhesion is some kind of win-button all the while conveniently forgetting its range. Or most spell ranges; a spell like Carpet of Adhesion doesn't do you a lot of good against a circling SAMAS at a range of 2000 feet - half the range of its railgun, and nearly 1/3 the range of its missiles. This is a part of the weakness that magic suffers from.

So you're a big bad-boy Borg with 500 MDC? That's nice. You're totally imobilized while i shoot you to death. You can save with your high save vs magic bonus - but that doesn't let you escape the spell - just get out early. Youll be dead before it matters.

I think you're confusing Carpet of Adhesion with some kind of paralytic spell; that Borg can attack back, even if he can't move from the spot. And that's assuming you even got within range to cast spells in the first place.

From a simple "who does more damage" - yeah, Tech wins because it does more damage more easily. But Magic is FAR from weak in the world of Rifts. It just isnt BIG BANG BOOM. The fact that with a few simple low level spells you can take a 30+ million credit Power ARmor and render it useless with no chance of that guy being able to retaliate speaks to that... and i forgot Teleport: Lesser, too. That spell is INSANE.

See, that's just it; you're assuming that every mage always has the right spell to disable technology - that's a critical flaw in your thinking. I am more than willing to accept that a technological opponent can be in a bad position, but I can also see the various advantages they have. And beyond that, there are far more situations where a technological opponent has a mage out of position or at a disadvantage than the inverse.

I am going to chime in with the fact that technologically there are a lot of gaps and inconsistencies.

Weapons and to a lesser extent armor are scaled to make all combatants equalish - so, for example, you get ten ton cannon that have no real advantage over ten pound rifles except range. This makes dealing with such weapons an inherent metagaming issue, because "common sense" won't lead you anywhere near the right gaming answer. The very first Rifts game I played in, I found my self asking the GM why I couldn't just gang pulse rifles together with a WWII-era linked trigger system, providing a weapon that would mince a tank within 2000ft... and then wondering why everyone wasn't doing that.

See, the thing is that you can, and there are canon examples of this very thing.

Additionally, vehicular weapons do not possess any more range than personal weapons do. The trend is actually that laser rifles shoot about 2000 feet, pistols average 1000 feet, railguns at about 4000 feet, and mini-missiles go about a mile. You've got your deviations, but that's the long and short [range] of it.

The actual technological gap is that the size of the weapon does not seem to mater for damage purposes.

Missiles are incredibly consistent in performance but tremendously inconsistent in apparent size. The Triax XM-140 has a single LRM about 20ft long and 2ft wide... and yet the 50ft tall X-5000 carries 32 of these bad boys in essentially invisible launchers on the knees.

I don't see missile dimensions as being an issue of any sort. I just see it as the difference between a good design and a bad design.

For that matter, there is no indication how LRM's are even targeted, when there is no targeting system with nearly enough range, and no method of designating for indirect fire.

Yes there is, and beyond that, the LRM is self-guided.

[cosmicfish]

Weapons and to a lesser extent armor are scaled to make all combatants equalish - so, for example, you get ten ton cannon that have no real advantage over ten pound rifles except range. This makes dealing with such weapons an inherent metagaming issue, because "common sense" won't lead you anywhere near the right gaming answer. The very first Rifts game I played in, I found my self asking the GM why I couldn't just gang pulse rifles together with a WWII-era linked trigger system, providing a weapon that would mince a tank within 2000ft... and then wondering why everyone wasn't doing that.

See, the thing is that you can, and there are canon examples of this very thing.

Where? I don't recall any canon Ontos-like vehicles mounting arrays of smaller weapons over single massive (yet inferior) weapons.

Additionally, vehicular weapons do not possess any more range than personal weapons do. The trend is actually that laser rifles shoot about 2000 feet, pistols average 1000 feet, railguns at about 4000 feet, and mini-missiles go about a mile. You've got your deviations, but that's the long and short [range] of it.

Looking specifically at the aforementioned X-5000, the main guns have ranges of 4 and 8 thousand feet, at least twice that of their infantry counterparts. I mean, they're still junk, but they do have improved range.

Missiles are incredibly consistent in performance but tremendously inconsistent in apparent size. The Triax XM-140 has a single LRM about 20ft long and 2ft wide... and yet the 50ft tall X-5000 carries 32 of these bad boys in essentially invisible launchers on the knees.

I don't see missile dimensions as being an issue of any sort. I just see it as the difference between a good design and a bad design.

Except they are interchangeable - the XM-140 doesn't use "bad" missiles and the X-5000 doesn't use "good" ones, and in theory you could take an invisible knee-missile from the X-5000 and put on the XM-140... at which point it would vastly increase in size?

I see the missiles as being both characteristic of the whole weapons-scaling problem as well as a small but obvious (to me, at least) problem on its own that comes up during such things as scavenging.

For that matter, there is no indication how LRM's are even targeted, when there is no targeting system with nearly enough range, and no method of designating for indirect fire.

Yes there is, and beyond that, the LRM is self-guided.

Where are the targeting systems, and what does "self-guided" mean to you? In order for the missile to go kill a target, it has to be given some information regarding that target, and the standard Triax robot radar has a range of just 30 miles, not NEARLY enough to manage missiles with a 500-1800 mile range. You could certainly give it a set of coordinates, but that means that LRM's are available only for strict artillery use... and that is not really how they seem to be intended.

[kaid]

I see the simultaneous attack thing come up from time to time. I can't recall any group I have been in that allowed that for ranged attacks. Everybody I have ever played with handled it like a HTH combat maneuver such as entangle/grappling/kicking things of that nature. I can see how if that is allowed for ranged attacks combat would get stupid fast. Two guys would just duke it out and he who has the most MDC wins.

Even if applied to ranged combat it would not apply to somebody shooting the ground near you it is you attacking them and them attacking you not you attacking them and them shooting in your general direction.

[Incriptus]

I feel that alot of the "bugs" are actually "features".

Throwing balance out the window was intentional. Having some classes being as effectively* as powerful as they'll ever be, and others desperately requiring leveling up was intentional. Letting the players & GMs decide if they want to do street rats or dragons off the bat was intentional.

I like the fact that my average/below average stats are irrelevant to my power level, it's my training and/or experience that makes all the difference.

That said "Incriptus Game Theory" relies on 3 things, Degree of Success, Opposed Rolls, Scalability. Palladium rules are fairly weak on two of three counts.

Degrees of Success: Two characters make a cooking skill roll, while you know know who succeeded or failed there is no way of knowing who succeeded better.

Opposed Rolls: Related to above. One character rolls demolitions, the other rolls demolitions disposal. It doesn't matter how good the first guy is, it's completely dependant on the second guys roll to see if he disarmed to bomb.

Scalability: Mega Damage works! In a game where you need rules for a punch in the face, and rules for nuclear powered space guns you need a short cut. Rolling five hundred D6 just isn't going to cut it.

[Dog_O_War]

Weapons and to a lesser extent armor are scaled to make all combatants equalish - so, for example, you get ten ton cannon that have no real advantage over ten pound rifles except range. This makes dealing with such weapons an inherent metagaming issue, because "common sense" won't lead you anywhere near the right gaming answer. The very first Rifts game I played in, I found my self asking the GM why I couldn't just gang pulse rifles together with a WWII-era linked trigger system, providing a weapon that would mince a tank within 2000ft... and then wondering why everyone wasn't doing that.

See, the thing is that you can, and there are canon examples of this very thing.

Where? I don't recall any canon Ontos-like vehicles mounting arrays of smaller weapons over single massive (yet inferior) weapons.

Vehicles are the examples. The CS Mark-V APC has numerous turrets on it that fire either one barrel or two, doing either one guns' worth of damage or two. Additionally, there is a CS Rocket-Cycle that has three railguns mounted on it, doing either, 1d6x10, 2d6x10, or 3d6x10 respective to the number of guns firing. These are all examples of canon vehicles using smaller weapons in number over bigger weapons; this sets a clear precedent for doing the same thing.
My personal favorite weapon for this kind of thing has become the JA-9; 2d6 damage, sure. But it is a variable laser with a 4000 ft range. you mount 10 together and it's lighter than a railgun with the same range and more damage than most (what with the typical railgun doing 1d4-1d6x10 MD).

Additionally, vehicular weapons do not possess any more range than personal weapons do. The trend is actually that laser rifles shoot about 2000 feet, pistols average 1000 feet, railguns at about 4000 feet, and mini-missiles go about a mile. You've got your deviations, but that's the long and short [range] of it.

Looking specifically at the aforementioned X-5000, the main guns have ranges of 4 and 8 thousand feet, at least twice that of their infantry counterparts. I mean, they're still junk, but they do have improved range.

That's what I was talking about when I said "deviations".

Missiles are incredibly consistent in performance but tremendously inconsistent in apparent size. The Triax XM-140 has a single LRM about 20ft long and 2ft wide... and yet the 50ft tall X-5000 carries 32 of these bad boys in essentially invisible launchers on the knees.

I don't see missile dimensions as being an issue of any sort. I just see it as the difference between a good design and a bad design.

Except they are interchangeable - the XM-140 doesn't use "bad" missiles and the X-5000 doesn't use "good" ones, and in theory you could take an invisible knee-missile from the X-5000 and put on the XM-140... at which point it would vastly increase in size?

No; it's a bad design. The missiles from the XM-140 that is. If you can achieve the same effect with a more compact missile design, then you can fit more into an area, which is all hall-marks of a good design. I mean, think about it; if both travel the same distance, do the same damage, yet one is clearly more compact and thus more portable, then it is obviously superior in some regard.

For that matter, there is no indication how LRM's are even targeted, when there is no targeting system with nearly enough range, and no method of designating for indirect fire.

Yes there is, and beyond that, the LRM is self-guided.

Where are the targeting systems, and what does "self-guided" mean to you? In order for the missile to go kill a target, it has to be given some information regarding that target, and the standard Triax robot radar has a range of just 30 miles, not NEARLY enough to manage missiles with a 500-1800 mile range. You could certainly give it a set of coordinates, but that means that LRM's are available only for strict artillery use... and that is not really how they seem to be intended.

First, these missiles have an operational range; that means they can chase targets; this is good for when your long-range missile has to chase a target 500+ miles.
Second, self-guided means it can detect and hit the target on its own; it is making the roll to strike, not the firer, meaning that these missiles come equipped with a means of detection.

Additionally, LRM's should be available for strictly artillery use. That's how we use them; we don't fire off long-range missiles from cruisers or military bases to chase down planes or other moving targets. We pick a spot or lase a target and hit objects that way. Regardless of how their use seems to be intended, we know that mechanically, the actual use can and will differ where the fluff falls short. A primary example of this is the mini-missiles that a Glitter-Boy Killer has.

[Dog_O_War]

I see the simultaneous attack thing come up from time to time. I can't recall any group I have been in that allowed that for ranged attacks. Everybody I have ever played with handled it like a HTH combat maneuver such as entangle/grappling/kicking things of that nature. I can see how if that is allowed for ranged attacks combat would get stupid fast. Two guys would just duke it out and he who has the most MDC wins.

Even if applied to ranged combat it would not apply to somebody shooting the ground near you it is you attacking them and them attacking you not you attacking them and them shooting in your general direction.

First, I would point out that your group has opted to "fix" the problem, which I had pointed out above that needing to "fix" problems all the time is the big problem.

Second, I had stated as to the loop-hole of "shooting the ground near you" is worked, but I will reiterate it: if shooting the ground near someone is not considered to be attacking them, then they cannot dodge because you can only dodge when you are attacked. But if it is considered attacking them, then when performed with a simultaneous attack, they cannot dodge. In both circumstances, you avoid the penalties due to a technicality (which is the best and most Mortal Kombat way to kill an opponent, "Technicality").

The primary goal here is removing your opponent's ability to defend themselves, like removing the Cyber-Knight's ability to auto-dodge.

[cosmicfish]

Vehicles are the examples. The CS Mark-V APC has numerous turrets on it that fire either one barrel or two, doing either one guns' worth of damage or two. Additionally, there is a CS Rocket-Cycle that has three railguns mounted on it, doing either, 1d6x10, 2d6x10, or 3d6x10 respective to the number of guns firing. These are all examples of canon vehicles using smaller weapons in number over bigger weapons; this sets a clear precedent for doing the same thing.

These are not really examples of what I meant - these are multiple "vehicular" weapons, while I am specifically talking about "man-portable" weapons. WWII battleships mounted multiple cannon per turret, that speaks nothing of the advisability of replacing a single such cannon with its equivalent weight in rifles... something that would be stupid in reality but really useful in Rifts.

My personal favorite weapon for this kind of thing has become the JA-9; 2d6 damage, sure. But it is a variable laser with a 4000 ft range. you mount 10 together and it's lighter than a railgun with the same range and more damage than most (what with the typical railgun doing 1d4-1d6x10 MD).

Like this. This is the kind of thing that I am talking about - replacing "bad" vehicular weapons with "good" infantry weapons.

No; it's a bad design. The missiles from the XM-140 that is. If you can achieve the same effect with a more compact missile design, then you can fit more into an area, which is all hall-marks of a good design. I mean, think about it; if both travel the same distance, do the same damage, yet one is clearly more compact and thus more portable, then it is obviously superior in some regard.

The issue is that supposedly they are the same missile. With the exception of a few special types, we are given to assume that all these standardized missiles are interchangeable - meaning the XM-140 can be reloaded with the missiles meant for the X-5000, and vice versa. The fact that the missiles in the X-5000 must logically be smaller than the missiles in the XM-140 is nowhere listed, and is only going to be obvious in extreme cases like the one I mentioned.

Or did I miss somewhere that missiles are NOT interchangeable?

First, these missiles have an operational range; that means they can chase targets; this is good for when your long-range missile has to chase a target 500+ miles.

Yes... but first the target has to be designated in some way.

Second, self-guided means it can detect and hit the target on its own; it is making the roll to strike, not the firer, meaning that these missiles come equipped with a means of detection.

Yes, once it has been designated. I cannot just launch a missile towards Poland and say "kill one of my enemies" and get results - I have to give it some description of what that enemy is, and roughly where to find it, and where in the rules does it say how to do that? Are they laser guided, and if so, where do I find a designator and the skill needed to use it? Do they detect some profile? In the case of LRM's is it meant to by necessity be a two-party launch/target process, with one unit launching the missile and another a thousand miles away to handle terminal target identification and/or designation?

Additionally, LRM's should be available for strictly artillery use. That's how we use them; we don't fire off long-range missiles from cruisers or military bases to chase down planes or other moving targets. We pick a spot or lase a target and hit objects that way. Regardless of how their use seems to be intended, we know that mechanically, the actual use can and will differ where the fluff falls short. A primary example of this is the mini-missiles that a Glitter-Boy Killer has.

I agree that this is the logical use, but the main and secondary purposes listed for these weapons are things like "anti-aircraft" and "anti-armor" and "defense"... so there are no rules covering how they should be used, and no practical way to make them worthwhile for the uses listed.

I consider this a flaw - not the biggest one, but a flaw nonetheless.

[Dog_O_War]

Vehicles are the examples. The CS Mark-V APC has numerous turrets on it that fire either one barrel or two, doing either one guns' worth of damage or two. Additionally, there is a CS Rocket-Cycle that has three railguns mounted on it, doing either, 1d6x10, 2d6x10, or 3d6x10 respective to the number of guns firing. These are all examples of canon vehicles using smaller weapons in number over bigger weapons; this sets a clear precedent for doing the same thing.

These are not really examples of what I meant - these are multiple "vehicular" weapons, while I am specifically talking about "man-portable" weapons. WWII battleships mounted multiple cannon per turret, that speaks nothing of the advisability of replacing a single such cannon with its equivalent weight in rifles... something that would be stupid in reality but really useful in Rifts.

All of the weapons of spoke of here are just man-portable weapons built into a vehicle. The railguns on that Rocket-Cycle, the dual-gun turrets on the Mark-V all have the stats of man-portable weaponry, including comparative size. But if you want a direct example, well there's mini-missile launchers, which are a man-portable weapon. The Mark-V for instance can really lay out a volley of them.

No; it's a bad design. The missiles from the XM-140 that is. If you can achieve the same effect with a more compact missile design, then you can fit more into an area, which is all hall-marks of a good design. I mean, think about it; if both travel the same distance, do the same damage, yet one is clearly more compact and thus more portable, then it is obviously superior in some regard.

The issue is that supposedly they are the same missile. With the exception of a few special types, we are given to assume that all these standardized missiles are interchangeable - meaning the XM-140 can be reloaded with the missiles meant for the X-5000, and vice versa. The fact that the missiles in the X-5000 must logically be smaller than the missiles in the XM-140 is nowhere listed, and is only going to be obvious in extreme cases like the one I mentioned.

Or did I miss somewhere that missiles are NOT interchangeable?

Well if they are to be interchangeable, then I would point out that if you're citing the pictures of these two robots, then there is your problem. The pictures are not a canon source; they cannot be relied upon for an accurate diagram of what the vehicle truly looks like, only an artistic approximation.

First, these missiles have an operational range; that means they can chase targets; this is good for when your long-range missile has to chase a target 500+ miles.

Yes... but first the target has to be designated in some way.

Well as you pointed out, a typical vehicle/robot radar set is around 30 miles; that's a radius, so that's a 60-mile window to set a target and fire. So that's one way. Another way is to fire the missile, setting the target to a specific type, which is possible given that these radars and what-not can identify hundreds of different types of targets, and then send it on a "seek-and-destroy mission".

Second, self-guided means it can detect and hit the target on its own; it is making the roll to strike, not the firer, meaning that these missiles come equipped with a means of detection.

Yes, once it has been designated. I cannot just launch a missile towards Poland and say "kill one of my enemies" and get results - I have to give it some description of what that enemy is, and roughly where to find it, and where in the rules does it say how to do that? Are they laser guided, and if so, where do I find a designator and the skill needed to use it? Do they detect some profile? In the case of LRM's is it meant to by necessity be a two-party launch/target process, with one unit launching the missile and another a thousand miles away to handle terminal target identification and/or designation?

Read up on the radar systems themselves. You can literally set it to "gargoyle" and it will seek out and kill a gargoyle. You cannot however, set it to "Bob Smith" and expect it to find and kill Bob Smith. Additionally, there is a laser designator in the gear section, I just don't remember what book it's in. Finally, I did give you two clear options; did you not read them? You have the one, the other was coordinate-designation.

[cosmicfish]

All of the weapons of spoke of here are just man-portable weapons built into a vehicle. The railguns on that Rocket-Cycle, the dual-gun turrets on the Mark-V all have the stats of man-portable weaponry, including comparative size. But if you want a direct example, well there's mini-missile launchers, which are a man-portable weapon. The Mark-V for instance can really lay out a volley of them.

I think I spoke poorly when I emphasized "man-portable" - the weapons mentioned are support weapons of a variety that we would commonly see in both mounted and dismounted use in contemporary militaries. Rifts is different in that (as you noted with some pistols) the chief advantage is to be had mounting and gang-firing small arms of a size that would not in the real world be considered for such use. That is what I would like to see a canonical example of.

Well if they are to be interchangeable, then I would point out that if you're citing the pictures of these two robots, then there is your problem. The pictures are not a canon source; they cannot be relied upon for an accurate diagram of what the vehicle truly looks like, only an artistic approximation.

Then (a) the pictures must be nowhere even close to what these things look like, (b) the X-5000 must have massive knees, and (c) XM-140 should have plenty of room to carry additional missiles, but despite being a dedicated missile platform, doesn't.

Well as you pointed out, a typical vehicle/robot radar set is around 30 miles; that's a radius, so that's a 60-mile window to set a target and fire. So that's one way.

That radius is fine for MRM's, and if that is the application then an MRM is all that makes sense. It is like using a 50 cal sniper rifle in a role suited to an assault rifle, and saying it works because you fit the heavy rifle with a short-range tactical sight.

Another way is to fire the missile, setting the target to a specific type, which is possible given that these radars and what-not can identify hundreds of different types of targets, and then send it on a "seek-and-destroy mission".

That is a slightly better tactic than the German's used with the V-2's. But not by much. In a 500-1800 radius, what are the odds that it will either run out of fuel before finding such a target, attack the wring one (perhaps a neutral or friendly party), or engage under circumstances where the blast radius will be problematic?

Read up on the radar systems themselves. You can literally set it to "gargoyle" and it will seek out and kill a gargoyle.

Can you tell me where it says that? I am quite curious how it would do so - I work with radar and other remote sensing systems, and that would be quite a feat.

[Alrik Vas]

I just don't see the problems the same way, i guess. I fixed a lot of things by making movement an action based off their speed, without making it based off their number of attacks. It makes the faster people faster action for action. In narritive-time, they're still faster, so i figured it worked better that way.

The irony here is that you're still seeing the problems.
It's the forest through the trees you can't seem to find; the trees being individual problems, and the forest being the biggest problem; all the little ones combined.

I said above that the game requires all these little "fixes", but at the end of the day with all the fixes in-place, you're not even playing the same game really. Which is a problem.

With the first two sentances, you're assuming a lot about me.

With the third, you're basically speaking the truth. I'd sack the whole system and use a different one adapted from a more modern game, but i'd never give up the setting.

[PSI-Lence]

I feel that alot of the "bugs" are actually "features".

Throwing balance out the window was intentional. Having some classes being as effectively* as powerful as they'll ever be, and others desperately requiring leveling up was intentional. Letting the players & GMs decide if they want to do street rats or dragons off the bat was intentional.

I like the fact that my average/below average stats are irrelevant to my power level, it's my training and/or experience that makes all the difference.

That said "Incriptus Game Theory" relies on 3 things, Degree of Success, Opposed Rolls, Scalability. Palladium rules are fairly weak on two of three counts.

Degrees of Success: Two characters make a cooking skill roll, while you know know who succeeded or failed there is no way of knowing who succeeded better.

Opposed Rolls: Related to above. One character rolls demolitions, the other rolls demolitions disposal. It doesn't matter how good the first guy is, it's completely dependant on the second guys roll to see if he disarmed to bomb.

Scalability: Mega Damage works! In a game where you need rules for a punch in the face, and rules for nuclear powered space guns you need a short cut. Rolling five hundred D6 just isn't going to cut it.

i agree with a lot of this not only can it be fun to be the 'under dog' in power scale , but also you get varying power levels built in, if you want a high power game pull out the dragons and the glitter boy's , mid level get a few head hunters together , lower scale powered game? get some city rats a try (hell i had a campaign that was pretty much all mechanics , scientists and scholars building and sending test rockets into low orbit)

for degree of success though any time i gm'd or even played the better roll you got tended to yield a better outcome if your cooking is at 60% and you roll 20% you did much better that if you rolled 59% (of course with cooking that brings up the taking it twice to cook at professional levels so if you were a pro is your 59% better than a non pro's 20%? that's a gm call) pretty sure i have seen that suggested in the books before but i can't say for sure , or where

and a lot of things aren't contested directly but some are if you have the right skill like concealment and detect concealment

[PSI-Lence]

Missiles are incredibly consistent in performance but tremendously inconsistent in apparent size. The Triax XM-140 has a single LRM about 20ft long and 2ft wide... and yet the 50ft tall X-5000 carries 32 of these bad boys in essentially invisible launchers on the knees.

For that matter, there is no indication how LRM's are even targeted, when there is no targeting system with nearly enough range, and no method of designating for indirect fire.

I would also list as one BIG general problem that this system has added new rules with each book, without ever addressing how the new material impacts the old. It makes the game extremely regional in rules, even as it is so broad in setting.

if that's from triax and the ngr i might remember that, though the pictures are only a guide (like that super mobile fortress they have looking VERY different in triax 2 that it did in mindworks when really not that much should be changed on it, but it was done by different artists ...though i do remember a few times seeing what looked very much just like a 'copy paste' error like saying long range missile but listing the range and damage of short or medium range

(really with a lot of the robots i was always amazed that they could fit any missiles into a knee joint that bends and should probably have a lot of wiring etc ... but i just look past that)

for adding new stuff and not addressing i totally agree, like back when military skills only had 2 to chose from a OCC that had both would not even list it as an option, or some that said "any" for military skills they could pick , might not have had field armorer or something else in mind, a page or 2 even in each book with the minor updates would be nice but i mostly have to house rule on that as it is

[flatline]

Read up on the radar systems themselves. You can literally set it to "gargoyle" and it will seek out and kill a gargoyle.

Radar might be able to identify and target gargoyles in the air, it'll totally miss any gargoyles on the ground unless they're standing on the top of a hill silhouetted against the horizon from the perspective of the missile (unlikely since the missile is probably flying at a high enough altitude such that any ground targets have the ground "behind" them).

--flatline

[Dog_O_War]

Read up on the radar systems themselves. You can literally set it to "gargoyle" and it will seek out and kill a gargoyle.

Radar might be able to identify and target gargoyles in the air, it'll totally miss any gargoyles on the ground unless they're standing on the top of a hill silhouetted against the horizon from the perspective of the missile (unlikely since the missile is probably flying at a high enough altitude such that any ground targets have the ground "behind" them).

--flatline

That may be true of our modern-day radar, but it is not true of the radar systems in Rifts; they program tanks and the like into the target identification system, and I'd assume it's for more than the off chance that "they're on the top of a hill silhouetted against the horizon from the perspective of the missile".

Remember, Rifts has a messed up atmosphere; it messes with traditional radio-waves, which should mess with radar. Yet we have radar that reaches hundreds of miles; it's more likely that "radar" in Rifts is more likely something akin to lidar, because Rifts is all about the lasers.

I think I spoke poorly when I emphasized "man-portable" - the weapons mentioned are support weapons of a variety that we would commonly see in both mounted and dismounted use in contemporary militaries. Rifts is different in that (as you noted with some pistols) the chief advantage is to be had mounting and gang-firing small arms of a size that would not in the real world be considered for such use. That is what I would like to see a canonical example of.

Well the game does offer that you can mount weapons on vehicles; I'd take that as a sign that twin-linking weapons is not impossible. I am reasonably confident that I've even seen an example of such on a vehicle, but I cannot think of which one. I will try and do a bit of digging to see if I can find it.

Otherwise, I do have an example, though it isn't strictly on a vehicle. So there is this race called the Malvoren, and one of its special abilities is that it can bond with weaponry; multiple weapons in-fact. It is generally humanoid in shape, but it is effectively made of hundreds of "bio-mechanical wires", basically allowing it to just fuse technology to it in a similar manner to machine-people.
Another ability they have is that they can fire-link the weapons they've attached to themselves, firing them as a single weapon-attack.
And they can bond to stuff like powered armour. So combining all of the above, it is completely plausible to do this. The only unfortunate thing about this example is that the game has not strictly written an example of a Malvoren doing this. At least from anything I've read.

Well if they are to be interchangeable, then I would point out that if you're citing the pictures of these two robots, then there is your problem. The pictures are not a canon source; they cannot be relied upon for an accurate diagram of what the vehicle truly looks like, only an artistic approximation.

Then (a) the pictures must be nowhere even close to what these things look like, (b) the X-5000 must have massive knees, and (c) XM-140 should have plenty of room to carry additional missiles, but despite being a dedicated missile platform, doesn't.

If you have Rifts: Mercenaries, take a look at the Iron Heart Armaments Iron Bolt missile vehicle, and note the number of launchers you see, and then read the description of how many it should have.
I mean, massive knees is one thing, but missing two bloody missile-ports is a whole world of wrong.

Well as you pointed out, a typical vehicle/robot radar set is around 30 miles; that's a radius, so that's a 60-mile window to set a target and fire. So that's one way.

That radius is fine for MRM's, and if that is the application then an MRM is all that makes sense. It is like using a 50 cal sniper rifle in a role suited to an assault rifle, and saying it works because you fit the heavy rifle with a short-range tactical sight.

I see it more akin to a remote-mounted .50 with a camera attached so you can directly control the firing of it. Problem is that camera only has a 4x zoom. Great thing is that you personally don't need to see it when you plug in a coordinate into the remote and get it to fire that way.

I get what you're saying otherwise, and I don't see this as 'the missile's fault'. It is a clear oversight, like building in all sorts of crappy weapons into powered armour and then giving them useless functions, but that cannot be stated emphatically as a poor game design problem, because there is a valid and plausible in-game reason; the designers of these suits sometimes build lemons (I'm looking at you, Death's Head railgun guy) and make mistakes. Look at the NG-Hunter Mobile Gun for instance; whose bright idea was it to give the thing a penis-gun?! Or to make the huge cannon fire nerf darts?!

Another way is to fire the missile, setting the target to a specific type, which is possible given that these radars and what-not can identify hundreds of different types of targets, and then send it on a "seek-and-destroy mission".

That is a slightly better tactic than the German's used with the V-2's. But not by much. In a 500-1800 radius, what are the odds that it will either run out of fuel before finding such a target, attack the wring one (perhaps a neutral or friendly party), or engage under circumstances where the blast radius will be problematic?

It would be low assuming the person firing it wasn't completely mentally deficient. Given that you can't swing a dead Cactus-Person in Germany without hitting a Gargoyle, it would be reasonably easy. But this kind of tactic would be employed during conflicts from approaching reserves or ships one would think.

Read up on the radar systems themselves. You can literally set it to "gargoyle" and it will seek out and kill a gargoyle.

Can you tell me where it says that? I am quite curious how it would do so - I work with radar and other remote sensing systems, and that would be quite a feat.

It says this in various places, but as I am at work right now and don't have access to my books, I can't give you a direct page number. But I recommend reading both Rifts: Ultimate Edition in the equipment section where it describes radar and the Coalition War Campaign (again, equipment section).

I would also mention that while you work with radar, and that would lend a certain "expert's opinion" to your view, this is not radar, but "future-fantasy/sci-fi-radar", of which neither of us has any experience with.

[Dog_O_War]

A couple of general points I’d make:

*****

-Regarding attributes, I’ve found incorporating an attribute check to keep players honest is a good solution to this issue. Every now and again, they have to roll under their attribute on a d20 or d30 in order to make a check. You can use this if they’re trying to hold their breath underwater (Physical Endurance), or see if they recall the details of the map they saw when they broke into that base outside of Chi-Town (IQ). That means there can be a very meaningful impact and difference between an IQ of 9 and that of 14 or 15.

I understand that you're offering up your groups' solutions to the various short-falls of this game, but this one here wasn't an issue mentioned. The mentioned issue is that Stats from 1-16 (3-15+16) are effectively useless or penalizing/impossible to roll, and that specifically IQ makes you a better gymnast, swimmer, etc. What you've posted here doesn't offer any sort of solution to this problem.

[The Dark Elf]

I think the biggest issue is that not everyone can understand the fun to be had in playing a game with endless possibilities, where your team can consist of a vagabond partnered with a dragon and enjoy still enjoy the ride.

It was never pitched as a beginners game but some veterans simply dont get it either (or the enjoy different aspects of RPGs than this game offers). For the die hard fans it is this very unlimited option that they love which is why its either a love/loathe game.

The above doesnt have anything to do with game mechanics aspect either. It's simple how wide Rifts was to begin with. For those that prefer something balanced by game mechanics this is not the RPG for you. The above range (Vagabond & Dragon) cant be balanced by game mechanics alone (cos it wouldnt be anywhere near balanced IRL). It needs to be underwritten by an understanding between players & GM looking to experience and great, simpler game with a little poetic/RPG license thrown in for game enjoyment (with possibly more cliche and less realism thrown in).

IMO ofc...

[kaid]

I see the simultaneous attack thing come up from time to time. I can't recall any group I have been in that allowed that for ranged attacks. Everybody I have ever played with handled it like a HTH combat maneuver such as entangle/grappling/kicking things of that nature. I can see how if that is allowed for ranged attacks combat would get stupid fast. Two guys would just duke it out and he who has the most MDC wins.

Even if applied to ranged combat it would not apply to somebody shooting the ground near you it is you attacking them and them attacking you not you attacking them and them shooting in your general direction.

First, I would point out that your group has opted to "fix" the problem, which I had pointed out above that needing to "fix" problems all the time is the big problem.

Second, I had stated as to the loop-hole of "shooting the ground near you" is worked, but I will reiterate it: if shooting the ground near someone is not considered to be attacking them, then they cannot dodge because you can only dodge when you are attacked. But if it is considered attacking them, then when performed with a simultaneous attack, they cannot dodge. In both circumstances, you avoid the penalties due to a technicality (which is the best and most Mortal Kombat way to kill an opponent, "Technicality").

The primary goal here is removing your opponent's ability to defend themselves, like removing the Cyber-Knight's ability to auto-dodge.

Actually I think its not so much a fix as we probably misread it and given it is in the hand to hand combat section of combat descriptions just took it to be a melee combat maneuver. Although the ironic thing is misreading it makes it work more how one would expect and not two guys stand face to face and blaze away with guns neither being able to dodge/parry which does not seem in keeping with any of the descriptions of combat of the game.

[Alrik Vas]

I think the biggest issue is that not everyone can understand the fun to be had in playing a game with endless possibilities, where your team can consist of a vagabond partnered with a dragon and enjoy still enjoy the ride.

It was never pitched as a beginners game but some veterans simply dont get it either (or the enjoy different aspects of RPGs than this game offers). For the die hard fans it is this very unlimited option that they love which is why its either a love/loathe game.

The above doesnt have anything to do with game mechanics aspect either. It's simple how wide Rifts was to begin with. For those that prefer something balanced by game mechanics this is not the RPG for you. The above range (Vagabond & Dragon) cant be balanced by game mechanics alone (cos it wouldnt be anywhere near balanced IRL). It needs to be underwritten by an understanding between players & GM looking to experience and great, simpler game with a little poetic/RPG license thrown in for game enjoyment (with possibly more cliche and less realism thrown in).

IMO ofc...

Earlier in the thread i said something very similar. I'd scrap the whole system and replace it with a more modern one, but i'll never give up the setting. Too fun.

Though as far as mechanics go, if you can do anything for them, you just make your own Rifts 2nd Edition and have done with it.

[Killer Cyborg]

I can see how if that is allowed for ranged attacks combat would get stupid fast. Two guys would just duke it out and he who has the most MDC wins.

Is that how your groups handle HTH combat? Everybody just simo-attacks, all the time?

[Dog_O_War]

Actually I think its not so much a fix as we probably misread it and given it is in the hand to hand combat section of combat descriptions just took it to be a melee combat maneuver. Although the ironic thing is misreading it makes it work more how one would expect and not two guys stand face to face and blaze away with guns neither being able to dodge/parry which does not seem in keeping with any of the descriptions of combat of the game.

I know what you mean. It just rubs me raw at thinking that they could have re-worded it in the decades the company has existed to fix the problem and produce what they originally intended, instead of leaving the players and fan-base to fix it for them

I was responding to this, which states:

No. 6: Your stats mean nothing. Literally. The game offers you exactly nothing, and even gives you penalties for having a stat of 15 or less, which you're rolling on 3d6. Meanwhile, 16 is quite literally impossible to roll because if you roll a 16, you roll and add more dice on top of it. So you've got a range now of 3-16 on 3d6 that either give penalties, offer nothing, or cannot be achieved via rolling, and only 17+ on the dice confer any sort of benefit.

Using attribute checks very directly offers you something instead of nothing. I agree that in the RAW, obviously there’s little differentiation between a 10 and a 15, except for role-playing guidelines.

Rolling under one's stats though is something that is very arbitrary. I mean, how does a robot roll under PE? It just seems terribly one-sided; to the point that you're either going to be a character that needs to roll stat-checks all the time, or you're going to be a character that doesn't, and you (again) end of in the position of your stats being meaningless.

[Alrik Vas]

I can see how if that is allowed for ranged attacks combat would get stupid fast. Two guys would just duke it out and he who has the most MDC wins.

Is that how your groups handle HTH combat? Everybody just simo-attacks, all the time?

For my part, this isn't how we do things. Sometimes it's cool to use up attacks and SA constantly, but other times, like when horrifically outnumbered and dodging to cover would help your survive, it's not so smart.

[Razzinold]

I could see a full conversion borg using simultaneous attack once or twice, but not every time. Even though he has 400 mdc repairs are costly and not necessarily available everywhere.

[flatline]

Before we removed voluntary simultaneous attacks from our house rules, it was pretty common to cast Impervious to Energy and then just simultaneous attack our energy weapon bearing enemies to death.

--flatline

[Killer Cyborg]

Before we removed voluntary simultaneous attacks from our house rules, it was pretty common to cast Impervious to Energy and then just simultaneous attack our energy weapon bearing enemies to death.

--flatline

They never just stopped attacking you when they noticed that they weren't doing any damage, only getting shot...?

[Killer Cyborg]

I can see how if that is allowed for ranged attacks combat would get stupid fast. Two guys would just duke it out and he who has the most MDC wins.

Is that how your groups handle HTH combat? Everybody just simo-attacks, all the time?

For my part, this isn't how we do things. Sometimes it's cool to use up attacks and SA constantly, but other times, like when horrifically outnumbered and dodging to cover would help your survive, it's not so smart.

I could see a full conversion borg using simultaneous attack once or twice, but not every time. Even though he has 400 mdc repairs are costly and not necessarily available everywhere.

Exactly.
Simo-attacks have a time and a place.
But there are plenty of times and places NOT to use them.

[flatline]

Before we removed voluntary simultaneous attacks from our house rules, it was pretty common to cast Impervious to Energy and then just simultaneous attack our energy weapon bearing enemies to death.

--flatline

They never just stopped attacking you when they noticed that they weren't doing any damage, only getting shot...?

Sometimes they did, sometimes they didn't. This tactic was particularly effective against laser toting skelebots which are known to be pretty dumb.

As usual, if the NPCs do something stupid, it's not the player's fault.

--flatline

[Slight001]

Before we removed voluntary simultaneous attacks from our house rules, it was pretty common to cast Impervious to Energy and then just simultaneous attack our energy weapon bearing enemies to death.

--flatline

Now this has me thinking about stacking house of glass and impervious to energy...

[Killer Cyborg]

Before we removed voluntary simultaneous attacks from our house rules, it was pretty common to cast Impervious to Energy and then just simultaneous attack our energy weapon bearing enemies to death.

--flatline

They never just stopped attacking you when they noticed that they weren't doing any damage, only getting shot...?

Sometimes they did, sometimes they didn't. This tactic was particularly effective against laser toting skelebots which are known to be pretty dumb.

You play Skelebots differently than I do.

As usual, if the NPCs do something stupid, it's not the player's fault.
--flatline

Agreed- it's the GM's fault.

[Razzinold]

I can see how if that is allowed for ranged attacks combat would get stupid fast. Two guys would just duke it out and he who has the most MDC wins.

Is that how your groups handle HTH combat? Everybody just simo-attacks, all the time?

For my part, this isn't how we do things. Sometimes it's cool to use up attacks and SA constantly, but other times, like when horrifically outnumbered and dodging to cover would help your survive, it's not so smart.

I could see a full conversion borg using simultaneous attack once or twice, but not every time. Even though he has 400 mdc repairs are costly and not necessarily available everywhere.

Exactly.
Simo-attacks have a time and a place.
But there are plenty of times and places NOT to use them.

Agreed.

I've used them before myself when playing, mostly during HTH in a bar and we were both humans and not wearing armour.

I also used it before when I was a Plains Borg. I was pinned under a partially collapsed wall (made of MDC materials) and the NPC basically stood above me and fired. Luckily he was only using a pistol (and the GM got a crap roll for damage) and I had my I11 long gun in my hand still.
I only had to do it once because the next turn belonged to one of the other players and they engaged the target above me. Although he was hurting pretty bad from my shot because the gun is almost six feet long the barrel was right up against the guy's chest when I fired so the GM gave me a hefty bonus to damage for being point blank.

[kaid]

i didn't remember simultaneous strike working outside of melee range, but it also never really came up not many characters want to take MD straight damage if they can avoid it, especially a borg that takes too much and dies, unlike PA pilot who loses the armor but not his nessisarily his life

Simultaneous Attack is never restricted to melee range.
Whether or not it's a good idea to simultaneously attack depends on the circumstances.

With the GB vs Juicer argument, the pro-Juicer camp was of the opinion that a Juicer's auto-dodge would make it effectively untouchable in combat.
Even skipping over the "you CAN fail to dodge" aspect of that plan, Simultaneous Attack negates dodging.
If a person DID find themselves facing an opponent with auto-dodge, who was so much better at dodging than you were at striking, it would often be wiser to take the hit from a simo-attack in exchange for the ability to hurt the enemy rather than be slowly gut to pieces.

personally i have always really liked the system

Me too.
There are a lot of things that I dislike about the system, though, a lot of flies in the ointment.
But the ointment is pretty good.

Well in looking at all the rules I could find over the weekend I really cannot find any references to simultaneous attacks being used in ranged attacks. Every single example I can locate in the books always is referencing simultaneous attacks in melee. Now it does not specifically say anywhere that you cannot use it with ranged attacks so I can see why there is a variety of thoughts on this.

One thing to note with the shoot the ground with the a grenade or missile for AOE damage in reading the missile rules which also appears to cover aoes such as grenades which are referenced multiple times in those descriptions as well indicate that you can dodge away from the blast radius. Depending on how big the blast radius is you may need to do two or more dodge rolls to get completely clear but the only case where they say you cannot dodge is when directly targeted by a salvo of 4+ smart rockets and in that case you can roll with the impact.

Also if you are shooting the ground near somebody at best you hit everything in the blast radius for half the listed damage only the direct target takes full damage and if they chose not to dodge they could also roll with the impact which would lower the damage to 1/4 damage.

So while that would be a way to do some damage potentially it does not negate their auto dodge and any damage it does will be at best half normal damage.