Do SDC silver weapons do triple damage to Splurgoth?

[Mlp7029]

Splynncryth's write up says it has a vulnerability to silver and magic. They do triple damage. Does an MDC creature like a Splugorth take damage from a SDC attack it has a vulnerability to?

[torjones]

Splynncryth's write up says it has a vulnerability to silver and magic. They do triple damage. Does an MDC creature like a Splugorth take damage from a SDC attack it has a vulnerability to?

Without taking the time to look up all the relevant rules, I'd say that in the heat of the moment at the table, my ruling would be, yes it does 3x damage, because silver, but it is sadly still only an SDC weapon. If your weapon can't do 100 SDC in one hit, it's still not going to hurt him, since he is MDC. Missing from that passage and elsewhere in that entry is any statement that the Splugorth take MDC damage from the SDC Silver weapon, so make sure to cast "Enchant Weapon (Minor)" before attacking Splynncryth or it'll likely still be pointless to use that weapon.

Keep in mind though that this is not necessarily true for any other MDC creature out there, as this is not a general rule, only a rule that covers Splugorth.

[Mlp7029]

Splynncryth's write up says it has a vulnerability to silver and magic. They do triple damage. Does an MDC creature like a Splugorth take damage from a SDC attack it has a vulnerability to?

Without taking the time to look up all the relevant rules, I'd say that in the heat of the moment at the table, my ruling would be, yes it does 3x damage, because silver, but it is sadly still only an SDC weapon. If your weapon can't do 100 SDC in one hit, it's still not going to hurt him, since he is MDC. Missing from that passage and elsewhere in that entry is any statement that the Splugorth take MDC damage from the SDC Silver weapon, so make sure to cast "Enchant Weapon (Minor)" before attacking Splynncryth or it'll likely still be pointless to use that weapon.

Keep in mind though that this is not necessarily true for any other MDC creature out there, as this is not a general rule, only a rule that covers Splugorth.

I checked the Palladium Fantasy write up for Alien Intelligences and that vulnerability is a direct cut paste to Splyncrynth's write-up. So do you think a silver magic weapon x3 for the vulnerability to silver and another x3 for the vulnerability to magic for x9 damage from silver magic weapons?

[torjones]

Splynncryth's write up says it has a vulnerability to silver and magic. They do triple damage. Does an MDC creature like a Splugorth take damage from a SDC attack it has a vulnerability to?

Without taking the time to look up all the relevant rules, I'd say that in the heat of the moment at the table, my ruling would be, yes it does 3x damage, because silver, but it is sadly still only an SDC weapon. If your weapon can't do 100 SDC in one hit, it's still not going to hurt him, since he is MDC. Missing from that passage and elsewhere in that entry is any statement that the Splugorth take MDC damage from the SDC Silver weapon, so make sure to cast "Enchant Weapon (Minor)" before attacking Splynncryth or it'll likely still be pointless to use that weapon.

Keep in mind though that this is not necessarily true for any other MDC creature out there, as this is not a general rule, only a rule that covers Splugorth.

I checked the Palladium Fantasy write up for Alien Intelligences and that vulnerability is a direct cut paste to Splyncrynth's write-up. So do you think a silver magic weapon x3 for the vulnerability to silver and another x3 for the vulnerability to magic for x9 damage from silver magic weapons?

If it stacks, it would be x6, not x9. x3+x3, not x3*x3. It's a math thing. I think it would, but I might be remembering incorrectly. I remember reading a rule about it somewhere, but I'll be damned if I remember where.

[Axelmania]

yes it does 3x damage, because silver, but it is sadly still only an SDC weapon. If your weapon can't do 100 SDC in one hit, it's still not going to hurt him

I guess that would be at least 34 damage pre-multiplier since 33x3 would still be 99 and not enough to damage 1 MDC.

[dreicunan]

This is one where I would just go with the overwhelming weight of evidence that when you have a vulnerability to something that is normally SDC in an MDC environment, and you are an MDC creature, you take MD from it.

[Axelmania]

Naw, cuz fire is normally SDC in an MDC environment, that wouldn't mean to me that you'd take MD from SDC fire.

[eliakon]

Naw, cuz fire is normally SDC in an MDC environment, that wouldn't mean to me that you'd take MD from SDC fire.

If you have a vulnerability to fire? You most certainly would.
That is what "Vulnerability" means. That your vulnerable to something.
One of the entire points of adding vulnerabilites was to provide was to damage MDC creatures with SDC tools.

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

This is one where I would just go with the overwhelming weight of evidence that when you have a vulnerability to something that is normally SDC in an MDC environment, and you are an MDC creature, you take MD from it.

This right here.

[torjones]

Naw, cuz fire is normally SDC in an MDC environment, that wouldn't mean to me that you'd take MD from SDC fire.

If you have a vulnerability to fire? You most certainly would.
That is what "Vulnerability" means. That your vulnerable to something.
One of the entire points of adding vulnerabilites was to provide was to damage MDC creatures with SDC tools.

This is obviously something that you believe, possibly with good reason, but I'm not seeing that stated anywhere, so I have to ask where you're finding that stated in the books, or is that just a house rule?

The way the books read though, it tells us what that particular vulnerability means, that the Splugorth take 3x damage from those weapons. If they intended those weapons to deal MDC damage even though they aren't MDC, they would say so, as it does with the Vampire entries, where it says that all weapons deal SDC damage to them, even though they are MDC weapons.

Vulnerability doesn't actually mean anything on its own, the term isn't defined anywhere except within the entries where it is given a very specific and narrowly defined meaning in relation to that creature.

If there is "an overwhelming weight of evidence," I have yet to see it.

[Father Goose]

Naw, cuz fire is normally SDC in an MDC environment, that wouldn't mean to me that you'd take MD from SDC fire.

If you have a vulnerability to fire? You most certainly would.
That is what "Vulnerability" means. That your vulnerable to something.
One of the entire points of adding vulnerabilites was to provide was to damage MDC creatures with SDC tools.

This is obviously something that you believe, possibly with good reason, but I'm not seeing that stated anywhere, so I have to ask where you're finding that stated in the books, or is that just a house rule?

The way the books read though, it tells us what that particular vulnerability means, that the Splugorth take 3x damage from those weapons. If they intended those weapons to deal MDC damage even though they aren't MDC, they would say so, as it does with the Vampire entries, where it says that all weapons deal SDC damage to them, even though they are MDC weapons.

Vulnerability doesn't actually mean anything on its own, the term isn't defined anywhere except within the entries where it is given a very specific and narrowly defined meaning in relation to that creature.

If there is "an overwhelming weight of evidence," I have yet to see it.

I believe the writers were working under the assumption that vulnerabilities were understood to work this way and so did not clarify. Because we have vampires (for instance) to look to for an example of how vulnerability bypasses any resistance (which is what MDC is - its resistance to most physical harm), they didn't realize a clarification was missing. I understood it to mean that substances to which you are vulnerable affect you as if they were MDC, as has everyone that I game with. So I do believe it was an unintended oversight that resulted in the rules not being clarified. Otherwise, the vulnerability isn't really a vulnerability. It's just a mild nuisance.

[torjones]

Naw, cuz fire is normally SDC in an MDC environment, that wouldn't mean to me that you'd take MD from SDC fire.

If you have a vulnerability to fire? You most certainly would.
That is what "Vulnerability" means. That your vulnerable to something.
One of the entire points of adding vulnerabilites was to provide was to damage MDC creatures with SDC tools.

This is obviously something that you believe, possibly with good reason, but I'm not seeing that stated anywhere, so I have to ask where you're finding that stated in the books, or is that just a house rule?

The way the books read though, it tells us what that particular vulnerability means, that the Splugorth take 3x damage from those weapons. If they intended those weapons to deal MDC damage even though they aren't MDC, they would say so, as it does with the Vampire entries, where it says that all weapons deal SDC damage to them, even though they are MDC weapons.

Vulnerability doesn't actually mean anything on its own, the term isn't defined anywhere except within the entries where it is given a very specific and narrowly defined meaning in relation to that creature.

If there is "an overwhelming weight of evidence," I have yet to see it.

I believe the writers were working under the assumption that vulnerabilities were understood to work this way and so did not clarify. Because we have vampires (for instance) to look to for an example of how vulnerability bypasses any resistance (which is what MDC is - its resistance to most physical harm), they didn't realize a clarification was missing. I understood it to mean that substances to which you are vulnerable affect you as if they were MDC, as has everyone that I game with. So I do believe it was an unintended oversight that resulted in the rules not being clarified. Otherwise, the vulnerability isn't really a vulnerability. It's just a mild nuisance.

Because "Vulnerability" is not defined anywhere else, there is no base case for it, no default. If there is an understanding of how it works, that understanding has to be based on some text. If, instead, it is as I suggest, it's perfectly logical to take the text as written and have it's meaning be perfectly clear in the context of the game, and no clarification needs to be made, no assumptions of intent, no understanding that comes out of nowhere. There are plenty of magical weapons that deal MDC damage already and thus would qualify for that 3x damage boost.

As for Vampires, every entry with a vulnerabilities section explicitly states how that vulnerability works (or refers back to the section where it previously stated explicitly how it works). The Vampire entry explicitly states that the vulnerable substances bypasses the limited invulnerability. There are no implications.

If they meant for something to mean "substances to which you are vulnerable affect you as if they were MDC" it would be stated explicitly somewhere. It is not. It is a baseless and erroneous assumption.

[Father Goose]

If they meant for something to mean "substances to which you are vulnerable affect you as if they were MDC" it would be stated explicitly somewhere. It is not. It is a baseless and erroneous assumption.

As I lack the availability to go to the writers directly and inquire as to their intentions, I see no value in continuing to debate with you on the grounds of what either of us believe to be their intent. I'm in no mood to see yet another thread locked for a pointless argument.
What I can say, based solely on the context of this thread, is that there is a clear difference of opinion on the topic of how to interpret 'vulnerability' and since it is not a clearly defined term within the published rules, each GM should weigh the question for themselves and decide how to view the question.
Two equally valid (based on available information) views have been expressed here, so it should be a straightforward process for GMs to evaluate and decide.

[torjones]

If they meant for something to mean "substances to which you are vulnerable affect you as if they were MDC" it would be stated explicitly somewhere. It is not. It is a baseless and erroneous assumption.

As I lack the availability to go to the writers directly and inquire as to their intentions, I see no value in continuing to debate with you on the grounds of what either of us believe to be their intent. I'm in no mood to see yet another thread locked for a pointless argument.
What I can say, based solely on the context of this thread, is that there is a clear difference of opinion on the topic of how to interpret 'vulnerability' and since it is not a clearly defined term within the published rules, each GM should weigh the question for themselves and decide how to view the question.
Two equally valid (based on available information) views have been expressed here, so it should be a straightforward process for GMs to evaluate and decide.

And this is why I disagree with you. There is nothing about the text as printed, the rule as written, that is unclear. It explicitly states:

Silver and magic weapons do triple damage. Creatures of magic, supernatural beings, and psionics do normal damage.

That's it. that is exactly what that means. There is no ambiguity, no confusion, nothing to suggest that something was left out. This is the definition of that term.

I do not believe your stated position is in any way valid. I do not see how you can think it is. You offer nothing, no citations, to support your baseless belief that some other interpretation than the text as written is what should be followed. The rules, as written, a 1d4SDC silver knife deals 1d4 SDC damage x3 to a Splugorth. Since that is less than 100SDC, it winds up dealing ZERO damage to the Splugorth.

I have no idea what the writers intent was, I don't think that their intent matters in this case. What is written makes sense as written. There isn't anything ambiguous about the statement, not even when taken in context of the rest of the rules system. There is no need to guess or try to figure out what the writers meant by anything, a standard reading using basic dictionary definitions that everyone should already know, should suffice. This one really shouldn't be difficult. it doesn't say anything about SDC weapons magically doing MDC damage, and nowhere else does it say that if you have a vulnerability towards something that something does MDC damage. That's a house rule, not the RAW.

If you have any citations you would like to provide to support your statements, I'd love to see them. If you want to take the discussion private, that's fine by me.

[Shark_Force]

anyone got the random alien intelligence tables handy? i thought it was in the back of RMB with the randomly generated supernatural predator tables, but i'm guessing it's actually in conversion book 1 (the un-revised version), and looks like they may have been moved into dark conversions (which i haven't gotten around to buying yet).

that may shed some light on the subject.

(that said, i am disinclined to think that they meant for the splugorth to have a vulnerability to something that was essentially meaningless).

[glitterboy2098]

actually the rules explaining how vulnerabilities work for supernatural creatures could be found on pg249 of the RMB, as part of the random roll monster section. it explicitly states that creatures with vulnerbilities of that kind take MDC even if the item inflicting the vulnerability damage is sdc. silver is 66-75 on the random roll table btw. the random roll monsters take 1:1 sdc to mdc regarding vulnerbilities, which is what the splugorth entry would be modifying to a 1:3 ratio. this is not unprecedented. at the time werecreatures in the conversion book and vampires in WB1 took double damage from silver. the only difference in those cases being the "direct to hit points' nature of damage that bypasses their extreme invulnerability.

[torjones]

actually the rules explaining how vulnerabilities work for supernatural creatures could be found on pg249 of the RMB, as part of the random roll monster section. it explicitly states that creatures with vulnerbilities of that kind take MDC even if the item inflicting the vulnerability damage is sdc. silver is 66-75 on the random roll table btw. the random roll monsters take 1:1 sdc to mdc regarding vulnerbilities, which is what the splugorth entry would be modifying to a 1:3 ratio. this is not unprecedented. at the time werecreatures in the conversion book and vampires in WB1 took double damage from silver. the only difference in those cases being the "direct to hit points' nature of damage that bypasses their extreme invulnerability.

Thank you. I'm going to have to read that more closely, it's been a while.

[Father Goose]

actually the rules explaining how vulnerabilities work for supernatural creatures could be found on pg249 of the RMB, as part of the random roll monster section. it explicitly states that creatures with vulnerbilities of that kind take MDC even if the item inflicting the vulnerability damage is sdc. silver is 66-75 on the random roll table btw. the random roll monsters take 1:1 sdc to mdc regarding vulnerbilities, which is what the splugorth entry would be modifying to a 1:3 ratio. this is not unprecedented. at the time werecreatures in the conversion book and vampires in WB1 took double damage from silver. the only difference in those cases being the "direct to hit points' nature of damage that bypasses their extreme invulnerability.

Thank you. I knew I was correct, but it seems that this community declares you a fool and a liar if you cannot quote chapter and verse to prove every statement. It's not about sharing ideas anymore.
Since I cannot expect to memorize the exact page number for every rule, I suppose I should refrain from commenting anymore.

[Nekira Sudacne]

If they meant for something to mean "substances to which you are vulnerable affect you as if they were MDC" it would be stated explicitly somewhere. It is not. It is a baseless and erroneous assumption.

As I lack the availability to go to the writers directly and inquire as to their intentions, I see no value in continuing to debate with you on the grounds of what either of us believe to be their intent. I'm in no mood to see yet another thread locked for a pointless argument.
What I can say, based solely on the context of this thread, is that there is a clear difference of opinion on the topic of how to interpret 'vulnerability' and since it is not a clearly defined term within the published rules, each GM should weigh the question for themselves and decide how to view the question.
Two equally valid (based on available information) views have been expressed here, so it should be a straightforward process for GMs to evaluate and decide.

And this is why I disagree with you. There is nothing about the text as printed, the rule as written, that is unclear. It explicitly states:

Silver and magic weapons do triple damage. Creatures of magic, supernatural beings, and psionics do normal damage.

That's it. that is exactly what that means. There is no ambiguity, no confusion, nothing to suggest that something was left out. This is the definition of that term.

I do not believe your stated position is in any way valid. I do not see how you can think it is. You offer nothing, no citations, to support your baseless belief that some other interpretation than the text as written is what should be followed. The rules, as written, a 1d4SDC silver knife deals 1d4 SDC damage x3 to a Splugorth. Since that is less than 100SDC, it winds up dealing ZERO damage to the Splugorth.

I have no idea what the writers intent was, I don't think that their intent matters in this case. What is written makes sense as written. There isn't anything ambiguous about the statement, not even when taken in context of the rest of the rules system. There is no need to guess or try to figure out what the writers meant by anything, a standard reading using basic dictionary definitions that everyone should already know, should suffice. This one really shouldn't be difficult. it doesn't say anything about SDC weapons magically doing MDC damage, and nowhere else does it say that if you have a vulnerability towards something that something does MDC damage. That's a house rule, not the RAW.

If you have any citations you would like to provide to support your statements, I'd love to see them. If you want to take the discussion private, that's fine by me.

You do know that simply declaring that intent doesn't matter does not mean intent does not actually matter. Your argument is specious as it ignores the commonly known definition of the word "Vunerable" as in "can be harmed by". As your reading of the rules means they are not vunerable to weapons they are stated to be vunerable to, your argument is simply specious and may be dismissed without serious consideration. You convince no one but yourself. The fact the rules do in fact give a definition of Vunerability to mean deal MDC to MDC beings vunerable to it is simply icing on the cake. you know perfectly well what the intention was, the fact you like to try to appear clever by pointing out well known vaugeries in the rules to score points varies between amusing to simply annoying. In few cases are they ever convincing.

[lather]

actually the rules explaining how vulnerabilities work for supernatural creatures could be found on pg249 of the RMB, as part of the random roll monster section. it explicitly states that creatures with vulnerbilities of that kind take MDC even if the item inflicting the vulnerability damage is sdc. silver is 66-75 on the random roll table btw. the random roll monsters take 1:1 sdc to mdc regarding vulnerbilities, which is what the splugorth entry would be modifying to a 1:3 ratio. this is not unprecedented. at the time werecreatures in the conversion book and vampires in WB1 took double damage from silver. the only difference in those cases being the "direct to hit points' nature of damage that bypasses their extreme invulnerability.

Thank you. I knew I was correct, but it seems that this community declares you a fool and a liar if you cannot quote chapter and verse to prove every statement. It's not about sharing ideas anymore.
Since I cannot expect to memorize the exact page number for every rule, I suppose I should refrain from commenting anymore.

"sharing ideas" has been equated to "nothing matters, there are no rules" for years.
That along with the moderation of the forums has drained the place of some very creative folks.

[eliakon]

actually the rules explaining how vulnerabilities work for supernatural creatures could be found on pg249 of the RMB, as part of the random roll monster section. it explicitly states that creatures with vulnerbilities of that kind take MDC even if the item inflicting the vulnerability damage is sdc. silver is 66-75 on the random roll table btw. the random roll monsters take 1:1 sdc to mdc regarding vulnerbilities, which is what the splugorth entry would be modifying to a 1:3 ratio. this is not unprecedented. at the time werecreatures in the conversion book and vampires in WB1 took double damage from silver. the only difference in those cases being the "direct to hit points' nature of damage that bypasses their extreme invulnerability.

Thank you. I knew I was correct, but it seems that this community declares you a fool and a liar if you cannot quote chapter and verse to prove every statement. It's not about sharing ideas anymore.
Since I cannot expect to memorize the exact page number for every rule, I suppose I should refrain from commenting anymore.

Not everyone does that.
Just certain segments of the community that are more interested in shutting down any views contrary to their pre-determined conclusions.
I encourage you to continue commenting as we need more actual commentators and less of the attempted rules lawyers/silencers

[Axelmania]

Naw, cuz fire is normally SDC in an MDC environment, that wouldn't mean to me that you'd take MD from SDC fire.

If you have a vulnerability to fire? You most certainly would.
That is what "Vulnerability" means. That your vulnerable to something.
One of the entire points of adding vulnerabilites was to provide was to damage MDC creatures with SDC tools.

Vulnerabilities have repeatedly explicitly stated when they translate SDC damage into MD damage. The lack of such a statement to me says they remain SDC.

Page 174 of Conversion Book Revised for example, the Scarecrow's Natural Abilities mentions:

All fire, in­cluding S.D.C. flame, inflicts Mega-Damage
..
Mega-Damage fires, including plasma weapons, incendiary grenades/missiles and magic fire, inflict double damage

Given the necessity of such notations, unless you can point to a generic rule saying that anything described as a vulnerability enjoys an automatic dmg>MD conversion, I don't think it would.

I believe the writers were working under the assumption that vulnerabilities were understood to work this way and so did not clarify.

Since when? Based on what?

Because we have vampires (for instance) to look to for an example of how vulnerability bypasses any resistance (which is what MDC is - its resistance to most physical harm), they didn't realize a clarification was missing.

Vampires are not MDC creatures.

I understood it to mean that substances to which you are vulnerable affect you as if they were MDC

Being MDC isn't the issue, it's whether or not it is INFLICTED.

Otherwise, the vulnerability isn't really a vulnerability. It's just a mild nuisance.

A mild nuisance is still a respective vulnerability in comparison to a very mild nuisance.

Two equally valid (based on available information) views have been expressed here, so it should be a straightforward process for GMs to evaluate and decide.

The idea that normal damage becomes "mega" damage without any supporting text is not valid.

the rules explaining how vulnerabilities work for supernatural creatures could be found on pg249 of the RMB,
as part of the random roll monster section.
it explicitly states that creatures with vulnerbilities of that kind take MDC
even if the item inflicting the vulnerability damage is sdc

That is wrong. It doesn't state that for all vulnerabilities. There is no mention of that happening for those vulnerable to energy or to light, for example. They simply take double damage from lasers and/or ALL energy, but SDC damage isn't converted into MD for the others.

Re-noticing (had jotted down a note so I must've noticed before and forgot) that energy-vulnerables have a hidden physical/kinetic IMMUNITY snuck in there... some vulnerability! Pg 252 under "Optional Tables" talks about Intelligent Supernatural Monsters also rolling on this Weakness table for "color" and some of them are capable of casting spells such as Impervious to Energy... WHY DID I NEVER NOTICE THIS?

[dreicunan]

Naw, cuz fire is normally SDC in an MDC environment, that wouldn't mean to me that you'd take MD from SDC fire.

If you have a vulnerability to fire? You most certainly would.
That is what "Vulnerability" means. That your vulnerable to something.
One of the entire points of adding vulnerabilites was to provide was to damage MDC creatures with SDC tools.

Vulnerabilities have repeatedly explicitly stated when they translate SDC damage into MD damage. The lack of such a statement to me says they remain SDC.

Page 174 of Conversion Book Revised for example, the Scarecrow's Natural Abilities mentions:

All fire, in­cluding S.D.C. flame, inflicts Mega-Damage
..
Mega-Damage fires, including plasma weapons, incendiary grenades/missiles and magic fire, inflict double damage

Given the necessity of such notations, unless you can point to a generic rule saying that anything described as a vulnerability enjoys an automatic dmg>MD conversion, I don't think it would.

I believe the writers were working under the assumption that vulnerabilities were understood to work this way and so did not clarify.

Since when? Based on what?

Because we have vampires (for instance) to look to for an example of how vulnerability bypasses any resistance (which is what MDC is - its resistance to most physical harm), they didn't realize a clarification was missing.

Vampires are not MDC creatures.

I understood it to mean that substances to which you are vulnerable affect you as if they were MDC

Being MDC isn't the issue, it's whether or not it is INFLICTED.

Otherwise, the vulnerability isn't really a vulnerability. It's just a mild nuisance.

A mild nuisance is still a respective vulnerability in comparison to a very mild nuisance.

Two equally valid (based on available information) views have been expressed here, so it should be a straightforward process for GMs to evaluate and decide.

The idea that normal damage becomes "mega" damage without any supporting text is not valid.

the rules explaining how vulnerabilities work for supernatural creatures could be found on pg249 of the RMB,
as part of the random roll monster section.
it explicitly states that creatures with vulnerbilities of that kind take MDC
even if the item inflicting the vulnerability damage is sdc

That is wrong. It doesn't state that for all vulnerabilities. There is no mention of that happening for those vulnerable to energy or to light, for example. They simply take double damage from lasers and/or ALL energy, but SDC damage isn't converted into MD for the others.

Re-noticing (had jotted down a note so I must've noticed before and forgot) that energy-vulnerables have a hidden physical/kinetic IMMUNITY snuck in there... some vulnerability! Pg 252 under "Optional Tables" talks about Intelligent Supernatural Monsters also rolling on this Weakness table for "color" and some of them are capable of casting spells such as Impervious to Energy... WHY DID I NEVER NOTICE THIS?

The vulnerability to silver on page 250 of RMB is stated to work the same as the vulnerability to iron, which made explicit that it would inflict the SD damage and MD damage.

Then there is the example of basically every single vulnerability to silver for MDC beings in the rest of Rifts.

Find an example of an MD creature with a vulnerability to silver that explicitly doesn't convert SD damage to MD, and you might have a point. A vulnerability that requires you to inflict at least 34 points of damage to actually deal at least 1 point of damage would be the more novel situation in Rifts, especially for silver, and thus the situation requiring an explicit explanation.

[Axelmania]

Randomly rolled supernatural beings in RMB who are vulnerable to water, fire, iron, wood, silver and cold can all suffer direct MD from mundane sources.

There is no need for for any explicit notation that a being doesn't convert mundane weapon damage into MD, because non-conversion is how it works by default. The "vulnerability" is the multiplier to damage, and only requiring 34 points of damage to suffer MDC loss is certainly a comparative vulnerability to requiring 100 points of damage to suffer MDC loss.

If there were some default policy of dmg>MD then there would be no need to keep reprinting that instruction every single time for the various Russian Demons, for example.

[dreicunan]

Well, run it as you wish, Axel. That you would choose to ignore the overwhelming weight of evidence, as well as ignore clear evidence from the source that you yourself tried to use as support previously, comes as no surprise.

[Nekira Sudacne]

Randomly rolled supernatural beings in RMB who are vulnerable to water, fire, iron, wood, silver and cold can all suffer direct MD from mundane sources.

There is no need for for any explicit notation that a being doesn't convert mundane weapon damage into MD, because non-conversion is how it works by default. The "vulnerability" is the multiplier to damage, and only requiring 34 points of damage to suffer MDC loss is certainly a comparative vulnerability to requiring 100 points of damage to suffer MDC loss.

If there were some default policy of dmg>MD then there would be no need to keep reprinting that instruction every single time for the various Russian Demons, for example.

Just cuz you keep repeating it doesn't make it True. Your reading continues to pretend that Vunerability means not actually vunerable in some cases, a reading that can hardly be held to be credible. No matter how much inconsistant text you can show palladium uses, the plain meaning of the word remains.

[Axelmania]

"Vulnerable" never means "guaranteed to be harmed by", otherwise anything classified as a vulnerability would bypass natural AR and automatically hit, and perhaps prevent healing for good measure.

I mean heck, "Creatures of magic, supernatural beings and psionics do normal damage" is ALSO listed under Vulnerability on page 39 of World Book 2 for Splynncryth, so by that logic, ANY attack from these 3 things MUST do "mega" damage because that's what "normal" damage MUST mean if "normal" is used under a "Vulnerability" section, right?

Splynncryth better start fearing those Restrained Punches.

[Nekira Sudacne]

"Vulnerable" never means "guaranteed to be harmed by", otherwise anything classified as a vulnerability would bypass natural AR and automatically hit, and perhaps prevent healing for good measure.

I mean heck, "Creatures of magic, supernatural beings and psionics do normal damage" is ALSO listed under Vulnerability on page 39 of World Book 2 for Splynncryth, so by that logic, ANY attack from these 3 things MUST do "mega" damage because that's what "normal" damage MUST mean if "normal" is used under a "Vulnerability" section, right?

Splynncryth better start fearing those Restrained Punches.

No, it means the object in question hurts the being in question. That doesn't have to mean it automatically bypasses defenses, that's an argument is spurious. The phrase "Vunerable to silver weapons" has an obvious meaning in the common vernacular. The fact palladium is inconsistant with how it phrases similar abilities is pretty irrelevent. They are not written as programs, where everything is precice, and these forums are not a courtroom where you argue the letter of the law is the only thing that matters because people have common sense and words and phrases have common meanings. You are simply trying to frame the debate along those lines, but I reject that premise. "Vunerable to silver weapons" has a common meaning, that silver weapons do damage. Not more that they also bypass AR, and not less that they in fact do no damage because 3x 2d6 SDC doesn't equal 1 MDC. It means they conventionally do appropriate damage as understood with the common meaning of the phrase when analyzed by an ordinary person in common meaning. The fact it doesn't give an in-book definition of vunerability doesn't matter because the meaning of the word in this context is commonly understood, and pretending otherwise is unpersuasive.

[Axelmania]

"Vulnerable" is a relative adjective, it is describing a comparative state, not a guarantee that damage will happen.

We can compare to page 85 of WB3 since Zazshan also has a "Vulnerability" section after Natural Abilities. It mentions...

Creatures of magic, supernatural beings, psionics and magic weapons
..
inflict full damage

"Full damage" does not mean to convert that into mega-damage if it is SDC. The normal rules for repleting 1 MDC (inflicting 100 or more damage) still apply. Conversion is not "full", it is x100.

The section basically exists to remind you of what can actually harm the creature, after the Natural Abilities wanes on about them being impervious to cold/heat/fier/gases/drugs/poisons.

It might also override the natural abilities (for example: magical poisons, magical diseases, magical cold) but that wouldn't mean a conversion of damage > mega-damage because we have dozens of precedent that we are told when that happens and no basic rule that we should assume it happens.

Another thing to keep in mind is that Splugorth like everything else would become non-MDC beings when they go to SDC worlds like HU/Nightbane/PF so there a broader variety of silver weapons (instead of just MD-inflicting ones) will become capable of harming them.

Also keep in mind:

due to triple damage, to get over 100 SDC you only need to achieve 34
if you have 12th level HtH expert, you can crit strike a splugorth from behind for triple damage, so you only need to achieve 12
you would also have a +3 damage bonus from level 10, so you would only need 9 damage
even if all you had was a paltry 1d4 silver dagger, you are guaranteed 1 damage, so you only need a +8 bonus
you can get that from having a PS of 23 or more

So it is entirely feasibly to harm a Splugorth with a silver weapon using just the x3 modifier and not requiring any conversion from damage to MD.

[Nekira Sudacne]

Again, just because you assert it doesn't make it a credible argument. If I tell you "He's vunerable to silver weapons" do you think "only if it also meets a bunch of other criteria", or do you think "I can hit him with this silver bullet and it will work.

Your assertation that it exists only to remind you of stuff that can harm it doesn't make sense. It's there to say what you can use to hurt it. The meaning of "Vunerable to Silver" (or wood, or anything else) is commonly understood to mean weapons made out of that hurt it, and thus, they do so. You can't negate the commonly understood meaning just because you don't want to. The fact palladium specifies it in some cases and not other cases is evidence of bad editing, which one reads and keeps in mind rather than assuming everything is to be read littearlly. You are, of course, free to do that for your own games, but you can hardly expect everyone to agree with you or even take that stance very seriously.

[Axelmania]

If you told me "he's vulnerable to" I would ask "how vulnerable" and then you would tell me 3x more vulnerable.

I am vulnerable to blunt impacts, but that doesn't mean all blunt impacts harm me. Light percussion is relaxing and good for health!

Vulnerability is not a discrete thing, it is a continuum of relative relationships, such as multipliers.

You are asserting a fake "commonly understood" idea of "Vulnerability" which simply does not exist. Palladium goes out of its way to define what vulnerabilities are, when it converts dmg>MD, so it does not rely upon any kind of common understanding.

If "vulnerable means it can harm you" is such a common universal understanding, then why does the GURPS disadvantage of that name only apply a wounding modifier to damage that passes DR instead of ignoring DR altogether so that injury is guaranteed?

Let's pull out Dark Conversions for another example. Page 130 lists "Vulnerabilities/Penalties" for Hounds. It mentions "Other types of spell magic do their normal damage" at the end.

Do you take that to mean that spells inflicting non-mega (standard) damage are somehow converted to MD against Hounds?

[Nekira Sudacne]

"Commonly Understood" means "In the common Vernacular". That is, based on how people would use a word or phrase in natural conversation, not how it's defined or not within the given text.

GURPS is much better edited and proofread than Palladium, also, a different game, and a different topic. Don't care what GURPS does unless i'm playing GURPS. This ain't a GURPS forum.

and to your example, a common reading of that would be that spells do work on hounds for damage and that their Damage would work on hounds unless specifically contradicted within the text of a particular spell, or some other context within the spell would lead to a different interpretation than the default that spells would inflict MD.

And that's the thing. Context.

In the case of Hounds, I admit I've not got a clear idea what types of spells do or do not do normal damage with a line that vauge. It says "Spells" do double damage, but "Other types of magic spells do normal damage".

Without defining "other types", it is impossible within the given context which types of spells do double damage and which do not. I would assume at least Standard invocations do double damage, and other schools of magic do normal damage. the only other possible thing I can think of is that "Magic artifacts, weapons, and Nightbane Talents, Powers, and Spells do double damage.", the "And Nightbane Talents, Powers, and Spells" means "Spells Cast by a Nightbane (Mystic or Sorcerer, presumably), in which case only spells cast by one of the latter do double damage and magic spells from anyone else do normal damage.

I can't really say for sure, and this is what I mean when I say I don't trust Palladium's editing to take your position seriously.

As to the other part of the question, yes, if Spells do double damage (either standard invocations or spells cast by a Nightbane), then any spell cast that does SDC would have the SDC converted to MDC unless there was a specific feature of the spell in question that would lead me to beleive otherwise. The fact that certain exceptions might exist, or even that elsewhere certain cases are spelled out, neither amounts to a controling general rule, and the exact vaugery you point out is why your standard is silly. You know palladium writes unclearly and often imprecicely, and so your standard that we must read the text as literal as possible simply fails to make any sense. It's trivially proven that palladium's editing and grammar is poor and you did it yourself, so there's no reason to beleive we're not expected to use common sense to interpret rules on a case by case basis. In fact, Kevin has admonished in cannon frequently that GM's are supposed to use common sense to interpret rules even where rules are not spelled out, such as his infamous example of a juicer diving on an SDC grenade is instant death no matter how much SDC he has. He just expects GM's to be able to figure things out for themselves without him having to spell out every detail.

And that means that your assertation that we're not supposed to try to figure it out and read into the rules what we will is, itself, contradictory to the rules.

[Hotrod]

Short of dropping a silver meteor on a Splugorth, I'm skeptical that you're going to do enough harm to post any serious threat. Even with triple damage, a silver sword can only chop so much.

[dreicunan]

Short of dropping a silver meteor on a Splugorth, I'm skeptical that you're going to do enough harm to post any serious threat. Even with triple damage, a silver sword can only chop so much.

True, but a WI-MG15 Viper Machine Gun shooting 10 round bursts of silver rounds for 3d8x100 damage would certainly get their attention.

[glitterboy2098]

Short of dropping a silver meteor on a Splugorth, I'm skeptical that you're going to do enough harm to post any serious threat. Even with triple damage, a silver sword can only chop so much.

True, but a WI-MG15 Viper Machine Gun shooting 10 round bursts of silver rounds for 3d8x100 damage would certainly get their attention.

given its regular damage violates the normal burst rules six ways to sunday, not really a valid example. it is literally doing three times as much as it legally should to start with, adding exotic ammo just compounds the issue.

[Axelmania]

Silver ammo is a pretty good example though, Library of Bletherad page 157 has a Heavy Ballista that does 1d6x10 damage, so triple from that is 3d6x10 which half the time would be enough to deplete 1 MDC off the Splugorth.

Being vulnerable to a substance doesn't mean the most miniscule of things will be guaranteed to do damage. I'm not entirely sure a toothpick will do 1 damage so it may not be able to inflict 1 HP on a vampire, for example.

Normal beings have a threshold of not taking damage from stuff that does less than 1 damage, MDC beings have a threshold of not taking damage from stuff that does less than 100 damage.

"Commonly Understood" means "In the common Vernacular". That is, based on how people would use a word or phrase in natural conversation, not how it's defined or not within the given text.

GURPS is much better edited and proofread than Palladium, also, a different game, and a different topic. Don't care what GURPS does unless i'm playing GURPS. This ain't a GURPS forum.

Given that many words have multiple uses in a variety of situations, I argue there is no common vernacular we can assume for the word, and that its function must be explicitly defined for us by Palladium, which luckily they do.

Zavor (CB170) are "Vulnerable to wood, silver, iron and psionics" but that doesn't mean they're guaranteed to get past its AR of 8 to inflict damage.

to your example, a common reading of that would be that spells do work on hounds for damage and that their Damage would work on hounds unless specifically contradicted within the text of a particular spell, or some other context within the spell would lead to a different interpretation than the default that spells would inflict MD.

And that's the thing. Context.

Y'know, I'm going to rephrase this so we can ignore that weird bit that Dark Conversions added to the end (it's not in Nightbane 162): do you think something being listed under "Vulnerabilities" for Hounds means that it inflicts double damage if MD and 200x damage if non-MD? That's effectively what you're doing if you think damage becomes mega-damage if it's listed as a vulnerability.

In the case of Hounds, I admit I've not got a clear idea what types of spells do or do not do normal damage with a line that vauge. It says "Spells" do double damage, but "Other types of magic spells do normal damage".

Without defining "other types", it is impossible within the given context which types of spells do double damage and which do not. I would assume at least Standard invocations do double damage, and other schools of magic do normal damage. the only other possible thing I can think of is that "Magic artifacts, weapons, and Nightbane Talents, Powers, and Spells do double damage.", the "And Nightbane Talents, Powers, and Spells" means "Spells Cast by a Nightbane (Mystic or Sorcerer, presumably), in which case only spells cast by one of the latter do double damage and magic spells from anyone else do normal damage.

I really have no clue why they added it. I guess we have to look at how to read that initial line and how its adjectives work... here's the before/after versions
magic artifacts, weapons, Talents and powers/spells
magic weapons, items, Nightbane Talents, powers and spells

I had assumed "magic" to apply to all the nouns in the list in NB (magic artifacts magic weapons, magic Talents, magic powers, magic spells)
In DC that begins to make sense (magic items, magic Nightbane Talents, magic powers, magic spells) until that last bit about "other types"...

The only thing I could figure is maybe the editor thought it meant "Nightbane Powers" and "Nightbane Spells" and that only spells cast by Nightbane did double?

[torjones]

Short of dropping a silver meteor on a Splugorth, I'm skeptical that you're going to do enough harm to post any serious threat. Even with triple damage, a silver sword can only chop so much.

True, but a WI-MG15 Viper Machine Gun shooting 10 round bursts of silver rounds for 3d8x100 damage would certainly get their attention.

Sounds like an interesting piece of kit, but I can't find it. what book is it in? If it does work like you say, then it sounds like a good, RAW, way to hurt Splugorth with silver weapons.

[dreicunan]

Short of dropping a silver meteor on a Splugorth, I'm skeptical that you're going to do enough harm to post any serious threat. Even with triple damage, a silver sword can only chop so much.

True, but a WI-MG15 Viper Machine Gun shooting 10 round bursts of silver rounds for 3d8x100 damage would certainly get their attention.

Sounds like an interesting piece of kit, but I can't find it. what book is it in? If it does work like you say, then it sounds like a good, RAW, way to hurt Splugorth with silver weapons.

Merc Ops

[dreicunan]

Short of dropping a silver meteor on a Splugorth, I'm skeptical that you're going to do enough harm to post any serious threat. Even with triple damage, a silver sword can only chop so much.

True, but a WI-MG15 Viper Machine Gun shooting 10 round bursts of silver rounds for 3d8x100 damage would certainly get their attention.

given its regular damage violates the normal burst rules six ways to sunday, not really a valid example. it is literally doing three times as much as it legally should to start with, adding exotic ammo just compounds the issue.

To my knowledge, the normal burst "rules" now are "does whatever damage the weapon says that it does for a burst of that size." If you can cite a rule (not an observed trend, but an actual rule) to the contrary, I'll stand corrected and thank you for enlightening me.

That said, once can also use the WI-SR15 and its 10 round burst at 1d4x100 to do 3d4x100 damage. That will still be enough to make a Splugorth pay attention.

[glitterboy2098]

Check the actual WP's. The structure of the revised burst rules aren't in a special section any more, but it is clear that bursts, by rules and intent only deal damage with a portion of their projectile count. Not the 100%+ of those merc ops weapons.

And just because the default is to use the written values does not mean those values can't be the result of poor writing and balance.

(Seriiusly, why bother with stuff like the C-40 or any of the railguns if you can do far better damage with an assault rifle firing far smaller bursts? And lets not even get into the whole 15mm bore size issue)

[Nekira Sudacne]

Silver ammo is a pretty good example though, Library of Bletherad page 157 has a Heavy Ballista that does 1d6x10 damage, so triple from that is 3d6x10 which half the time would be enough to deplete 1 MDC off the Splugorth.

Being vulnerable to a substance doesn't mean the most miniscule of things will be guaranteed to do damage. I'm not entirely sure a toothpick will do 1 damage so it may not be able to inflict 1 HP on a vampire, for example.

Normal beings have a threshold of not taking damage from stuff that does less than 1 damage, MDC beings have a threshold of not taking damage from stuff that does less than 100 damage.

"Commonly Understood" means "In the common Vernacular". That is, based on how people would use a word or phrase in natural conversation, not how it's defined or not within the given text.

GURPS is much better edited and proofread than Palladium, also, a different game, and a different topic. Don't care what GURPS does unless i'm playing GURPS. This ain't a GURPS forum.

Given that many words have multiple uses in a variety of situations, I argue there is no common vernacular we can assume for the word, and that its function must be explicitly defined for us by Palladium, which luckily they do.

Zavor (CB170) are "Vulnerable to wood, silver, iron and psionics" but that doesn't mean they're guaranteed to get past its AR of 8 to inflict damage.

to your example, a common reading of that would be that spells do work on hounds for damage and that their Damage would work on hounds unless specifically contradicted within the text of a particular spell, or some other context within the spell would lead to a different interpretation than the default that spells would inflict MD.

And that's the thing. Context.

Y'know, I'm going to rephrase this so we can ignore that weird bit that Dark Conversions added to the end (it's not in Nightbane 162): do you think something being listed under "Vulnerabilities" for Hounds means that it inflicts double damage if MD and 200x damage if non-MD? That's effectively what you're doing if you think damage becomes mega-damage if it's listed as a vulnerability.

In the case of Hounds, I admit I've not got a clear idea what types of spells do or do not do normal damage with a line that vauge. It says "Spells" do double damage, but "Other types of magic spells do normal damage".

Without defining "other types", it is impossible within the given context which types of spells do double damage and which do not. I would assume at least Standard invocations do double damage, and other schools of magic do normal damage. the only other possible thing I can think of is that "Magic artifacts, weapons, and Nightbane Talents, Powers, and Spells do double damage.", the "And Nightbane Talents, Powers, and Spells" means "Spells Cast by a Nightbane (Mystic or Sorcerer, presumably), in which case only spells cast by one of the latter do double damage and magic spells from anyone else do normal damage.

I really have no clue why they added it. I guess we have to look at how to read that initial line and how its adjectives work... here's the before/after versions
magic artifacts, weapons, Talents and powers/spells
magic weapons, items, Nightbane Talents, powers and spells

I had assumed "magic" to apply to all the nouns in the list in NB (magic artifacts magic weapons, magic Talents, magic powers, magic spells)
In DC that begins to make sense (magic items, magic Nightbane Talents, magic powers, magic spells) until that last bit about "other types"...

The only thing I could figure is maybe the editor thought it meant "Nightbane Powers" and "Nightbane Spells" and that only spells cast by Nightbane did double?

Words can have many meanings in different contexts, which is why one must examin context closely when figuring out which would be the Common vernacular in this particular case. Your argument that we must always assume literal interpretations in the book itself is still unpersuasive. Your argument amounts to trying to remove basic critical thinking from interpreting the rules and argue we should assume the writer knows and means what they are writing. As the poorly written, poorly edited passages like the Nightbane conversion above shows, it is not the case that the Authors always know what it is they are writing means, or even what they are writing about actually is. Thus your argument simply falls short of Credibility. You can argue it all you want, but you're not making any progress in convincing me and at this point you're just rephrasing the same argument. I understand your argument very well, It's just your argument is not very convincing to me.

As to the nightbane conversion of Hound to Rifts, I came to the same conclusion, that the editor thought that only spells cast by Nightbane did double damage. But, it could still be a really weird way to say only Invocational magic did double damage and not any other schools. It's just too vauge to tell.

[Axelmania]

I don't see how using a stance of literal interpretation (x3 means x3 and not x300) removes critical thinking. Taking the stance that the writer doesn't know that they're writing and YOU know what they are writing better than they do... seems to be overthinking it.

Given dozens of times we're explicitly told when SDC weapons translate into equivalent MD, the lack of it means it doesn't happen.

Sometimes when you're MDC, taking double or triple the SDC isn't enough to amount to injuring you because it's less than 100 but that's the rocks.

[dreicunan]

Check the actual WP's. The structure of the revised burst rules aren't in a special section any more, but it is clear that bursts, by rules and intent only deal damage with a portion of their projectile count. Not the 100%+ of those merc ops weapons.

And just because the default is to use the written values does not mean those values can't be the result of poor writing and balance.

(Seriiusly, why bother with stuff like the C-40 or any of the railguns if you can do far better damage with an assault rifle firing far smaller bursts? And lets not even get into the whole 15mm bore size issue)

The WPs are interesting in regards to weapon damage, since they clearly are ignored for many specific weapons. The rules for the specific weapon would take precedence. That may well be the result of bad writing, but canon is canon, whether you agree with it or not.

[dreicunan]

I don't see how using a stance of literal interpretation (x3 means x3 and not x300) removes critical thinking. Taking the stance that the writer doesn't know that they're writing and YOU know what they are writing better than they do... seems to be overthinking it.

Given dozens of times we're explicitly told when SDC weapons translate into equivalent MD, the lack of it means it doesn't happen.

Sometimes when you're MDC, taking double or triple the SDC isn't enough to amount to injuring you because it's less than 100 but that's the rocks.

The stance is that silver weapons in Rifts damage mdc creatures with a vulnerability to silver in MD. Because that is what it does every single time. The lack of a clear explanation here just means Palladium editing, that's all.

[Axelmania]

That ISN'T what it does "every single time" though, because it doesn't do that for Splugorth.

This also isn't the case for Asurk-Demonians (Dark Converson 155), Demongoyles (DC156), Red Flames Demon Lords (DC159) because unlike other things (random-generated AIs on DC9, Jinn on DC20, Abrasax on DC20, Mictla on DC28, the various Russian Demons in Mystic Russia) there is no note about damage becoming MD.

Assuming just because it does that for many cases that it must do so for ALL cases is just a house rule.

You can upgrade silver weapons into MD-inflicting weapons through certain means, I'd suggest going that path if you can't manage to do the 34 required to subtract 1 MDC from a Splugorth.

[torjones]

I don't see how using a stance of literal interpretation (x3 means x3 and not x300) removes critical thinking. Taking the stance that the writer doesn't know that they're writing and YOU know what they are writing better than they do... seems to be overthinking it.

Given dozens of times we're explicitly told when SDC weapons translate into equivalent MD, the lack of it means it doesn't happen.

Sometimes when you're MDC, taking double or triple the SDC isn't enough to amount to injuring you because it's less than 100 but that's the rocks.

The stance is that silver weapons in Rifts damage mdc creatures with a vulnerability to silver in MD. Because that is what it does every single time. The lack of a clear explanation here just means Palladium editing, that's all.

Sure, except that this is patently not true. Every example given thus far specifically calls out single circumstance when a thing applies, and not generalized rules, and there are several circumstances where it doesn't say that it happens. The only logical conclusion is that they say that it happens when it happens, and don't say it when it doesn't happen. None of the vulnerabilities mentioned are generalized rules, they are specific. They don't become MDC "every single time" either.

[Nekira Sudacne]

I don't see how using a stance of literal interpretation (x3 means x3 and not x300) removes critical thinking. Taking the stance that the writer doesn't know that they're writing and YOU know what they are writing better than they do... seems to be overthinking it.

Given dozens of times we're explicitly told when SDC weapons translate into equivalent MD, the lack of it means it doesn't happen.

Sometimes when you're MDC, taking double or triple the SDC isn't enough to amount to injuring you because it's less than 100 but that's the rocks.

It's not overthinking it. it's thinking about it critically in the first place. Which you should generally do as a matter or principle. simply reading words on the page without actively engaging with them when the material is known to be ridden with errors does not make sense.

[dreicunan]

That ISN'T what it does "every single time" though, because it doesn't do that for Splugorth.

This also isn't the case for Asurk-Demonians (Dark Converson 155), Demongoyles (DC156), Red Flames Demon Lords (DC159) because unlike other things (random-generated AIs on DC9, Jinn on DC20, Abrasax on DC20, Mictla on DC28, the various Russian Demons in Mystic Russia) there is no note about damage becoming MD.

Assuming just because it does that for many cases that it must do so for ALL cases is just a house rule.

You can upgrade silver weapons into MD-inflicting weapons through certain means, I'd suggest going that path if you can't manage to do the 34 required to subtract 1 MDC from a Splugorth.

Ok. So I guess that you then maintain that Asurk-Demonians and Demongoyles don't actually take any damage from splashes of holy water in Rifts, huh? After all, it says that holy water does 3d6 damage per splash. It doesn't say MD, so that must be only SDC damage, and thus they don't actually take any damage from the splash. Heck, the Red Flame Demon Lord actually still has the SDC in the damage code there due to Palladium copy and paste editing. And that is why there isn't a note, because the vulnerabilities sections for those creatures were directly copied and pasted without further editing.

Your position is essentially that the Splugorth and a few other odd creatures suddenly become massively more resistant to what is supposed to be a vulnerability by ending up in an MD environment instead of having the vulnerability transfer appropriately as normal. You get there by ignoring the overwhelming weight of evidence.

[eliakon]

I would also like to point out that, as has been mentioned before...
The vulnerability rules date back originally from the RMB. And thus if we want to see what the intent was it would seem logical to check the RMB. Especially since the Splugorth were written with RMB not RUE.
And in RMB things with a Vulnerability *always* took MDC from their vulnerability.
Full Stop.

There are no examples of *anything* in RMB not taking MDC from their vulnerability.
Thus the idea that the description of what a vulnerability is in the core book, a description that is repeated in WB1... suddenly is ignored in WB 2 is beyond absurd.

[Axelmania]

It's not overthinking it. it's thinking about it critically in the first place. Which you should generally do as a matter or principle. simply reading words on the page without actively engaging with them when the material is known to be ridden with errors does not make sense.

I am actively engaging with them, but just because you it would be cool to add rules it isn't grounds to declare an error of omission.

I guess that you then maintain that Asurk-Demonians and Demongoyles don't actually take any damage from splashes of holy water in Rifts, huh? After all, it says that holy water does 3d6 damage per splash. It doesn't say MD, so that must be only SDC damage, and thus they don't actually take any damage from the splash.

In MDC settings, correct. Unless of course it is wielded by an Apok or Sea Inquisitor.

Dark Conversions includes SDC settings for creatures as well for the benefit of SDC worlds, since Rifts deals with more than just Rifts Earth, but interdimensional combat in general.

Heck, the Red Flame Demon Lord actually still has the SDC in the damage code there due to Palladium copy and paste editing.

You appear to only be looking at the top-left of page 159

I suggest you also consult the bottom-right of page 158, they were given MDC for MDC settings.

They also regenerate MDC under their natural abiltiies.

And that is why there isn't a note, because the vulnerabilities sections for those creatures were directly copied and pasted without further editing.

This is not true. Compare:

Takes triple damage from holy weapons and Guardian powers.
Takes triple damage from holy weapons.

They took the time to italicize a phrase and remove another. They did alter the section and chose not to make Holy Water or Silver do automatic Mega-Damage.

If you are really set on wanting demons to take a direct conversion of MD, I would suggest you rely on Creatures of Chaos page 13 "Crea­tures vulnerable to silver suffer Mega-Damage from weapons made of, or coated with, the metal"

Given this is part of the section entitled "Demon Vulnerabilities" I would only say it applies to demons though, so I do not think it should apply to Splugorth since they are not demons.

If you start applying it to non-demons, then sorcerers with the TTGD27 "Vulnerable to Silver" Sorcerous Limitation are going to be vaporized by a single 1 dmg pinprick since they are still SDC beings and 1 MD is enough to kill them.

Your position is essentially that the Splugorth and a few other odd creatures suddenly become massively more resistant

No, my position is that they've ALWAYS been this resistant.

to what is supposed to be a vulnerability by ending up in an MD environment instead of having the vulnerability transfer appropriately as normal. You get there by ignoring the overwhelming weight of evidence.

Your sense of "appropriate" has never been normal. You're assuming that what applies to randomly generated supernatural beings must apply to specifically defined examples of them.

I suppose you must also think that any creature who takes double damage from energy attacks must also be immune to physical attacks? That's also in the RMB table for randomly generated creatuers.

Going to an MDC environment does make these creatures tougher. A child can punch a demon to death in SDC worlds, they can't do it in MDC worlds. The silver vulnerability doesn't go away: they still take double or triple damage if defined, but much like spells that do SDC in MDC worlds don't suddenly do MD just because someone takes x2 from magic attacks, it doesn't work that way with psi or silver or iron either.

It's wrong to assume that randomly generated vulnerabilities will work the same as explicitly defined ones. Different vulnerabilities work in different ways.

The vulnerability rules date back originally from the RMB. And thus if we want to see what the intent was it would seem logical to check the RMB. Especially since the Splugorth were written with RMB not RUE.
And in RMB things with a Vulnerability *always* took MDC from their vulnerability.
Full Stop.

You are citing this as if it were some generic rule. It isn't. You are talking about a table for randomly generating supernatural monsters.

If you hold that whatever is printed on this table must be extrapolated for non-randoms, then anyone vulnerable to energy attacks is now immune to kinetic attacks. You are comfortable promoting that?

There are no examples of *anything* in RMB not taking MDC from their vulnerability.

Actually there is: energy attacks and light attacks. Energy/Laser attacks do not have a note about converting damage into MD, only multiplying it.

Thus the idea that the description of what a vulnerability is in the core book, a description that is repeated in WB1... suddenly is ignored in WB 2 is beyond absurd.

When you say repeated in WB1 are you referring to Vampire Intelligences?

If that's a slip and you meant CB1 (page 206) I'll point out that "Inflicts MD equal to its usual SDC damage" is a note on RANDOMLY generated alien intelligences, and only applies to fire/silver/wood

Like the randomly generated supernatural monsters at the back of RMB, this phrase does not exist for "Vulnerable to fire" or "Vulnerable to magic"

In fact, since it only says "MD and magic fire inflicts double", SDC fire does normal damage, meaning it needs to come to 100 SDC as usual