Balance issues?

[MADMANMIKE]

I've always scratched my head when people complain about balance in RIFTS. I'm not one to play video games, so I've always drawn on either real-life situations or movies/TV shows to consider what's reasonable in a game. I got beat up when I was young because I was scrawny, the US invaded small countries like Panama and Grenada with little difficulty because it was powerful; this is normal in the world, so why not in my games? Likewise I love a good underdog story in my fiction, so why not in RIFTS?

So I'm curious about what led you to despise the 'lack of balance'.. Is it an actual gaming experience, word of mouth, or having read the rules and seen the worst possibilities.. I think the last option there is akin to virtual agoraphobia.. Just because there are giant robots, dragons and killer cyborgs that can turn you into a fine red mist in one attack doesn't mean that's exactly what's going to happen to you if you play the game..

Thoughts?

[jaymz]

I never understood why "balance" was an issue either. I look at d20 with it's forced balance through various means and think...."what's the frakin' point?"

It is the GM's job as GM to run the games in manner that makes it challenging and/or balanced as he/she sees fit, not the game mechanics.

It is my opinion that such complaints about "balance" are because the people running the games don't want to put in the work to make the game run smoother. Add to that GMs that won't say no to players in regards to available OCCs, weapons, equipment etc, and you have what we have...people complaining that its too "unbalanced" and "broken" when the reality is in most of these cases it's not the game at all but the person running it.

[Giant2005]

I think it is probably something that happens to GMs that don't like a lot of conflict and don't want to have to say no. I can see the allure of a system that effectively says no for you by balancing it out perfectly but I prefer the diversity and realism myself.

[MaxxSterling]

Agreed, I don't get it. If as a GM you cannot creatively get around this stuff or deal with it, then you are the failure, not the game.

[jaymz]

Failure is a strong word.....I'd say it's more along the lines of not everyone is cut out to GM such open ended settings/games. That isn't a failure per se just a factual reality.

[MADMANMIKE]

I understand that; back in the day when RIFTS first came out, nerds didn't have the social stature they do now, so we were less skillful in the social interaction department. When we could find some friends who actually wanted to do the same thing, who wants to be the one who screws it up? My early memories of GMing are filled with endless arguments over what classes and equipment I would allow. I had a group of players that seemed to think the only way to have fun was to see if they could make my head explode in frustration. But I never blamed that on the game, I knew it was partly their being munchkins, and partly my being an inexperienced GM.

[jaymz]

Precisely Mike

Problem is now, many gamers want everything done for them so they don't have to work at it. It's sad. Part of the fun was the challenge of making the adventure both challenging for the players and winnable/losable so to speak.

[Icefalcon]

Since I am the only one of the "balance complainers" to post here, let me give you MY thoughts on the matter. I am the type of person that puts months of work into a game before it is even mentioned to the players and characters are started. Even after the game is started, I continue to put a lot of work into the campaign. Why am I stating all of this? Well, to illustrate that I am neither a failure as a GM nor am I lazy or stupid.

For me, I like balance built into a game because I (and most of my players for that matter) do not have any fun when only one PC can wade into a combat and destroy every enemy in one or two melees and then also have all the skills and abilities to accomplish all of the rest of the goals (such as woe NPC's for info, make contacts, solve the puzzles, fix all the vehicles, etc.) and does not really need the rest of the party. Granted, I can handle most of the classes that people complain about (most of the time) but there are still those that end up banned from my games after letting one person play them. There are also gear and vehicle selections that get banned from only certain games (like no Phase World PA's in Rifts Earth, other than the ones in Mercs).

In the long run, the main reason that made me loathe the lack of balance are players that abuse the system and powergame. These players use powerful classes or combo of race and class to steamroll the whole campaign or to break it completely. Yes, I am willing to kick these players out or make challenges to take them on. The only problem with that is that is usually winds up killing the whole party except for that one character.

Secondly, when combining characters from the other game systems, Palladium did not give much thought about how one games special rules (such as super powers) affects all the powers and abilities of another game. Could I modify the rules for these things? Yes I could but frankly do not have the time considering I run multiple systems from multiple companies. So I hardly bother, I just blanket ban certain games (such as HU, mostly because I will never buy the books; and please do not try to convince me I should because it will not work), classes (I have my reasons for why I will allow some classes in certain games but not others), powers (because I do not see them as necessary), gear (because again some belong in certain games and not others) or even World Books (because I have a serious dislike for certain ones and have created my own versions of those areas).

[MADMANMIKE]

Hmm.. I think I stopped trying to plan out long campaigns in the first year I was GMing.. all it does in my experience is pit the GM against the players. The joy of Role-Playing for me is the collaboration. When I set up a game I pick a theme (the last RIFTS game I ran the theme was 'mercenaries just after the siege on Tolkeen'), give the players some avenues for adventure, and make it up as we went along. I've always restricted the available classes in order to make sure the group can meld together (and to maintain the theme, i.e., my Coalition games always revolved around a squad of troops, so they had to pick appropriate O.C.C.s for that).

Secondly, when combining characters from the other game systems, Palladium did not give much thought about how one games special rules (such as super powers) affects all the powers and abilities of another game. Could I modify the rules for these things? Yes I could but frankly do not have the time considering I run multiple systems from multiple companies. So I hardly bother, I just blanket ban certain games (such as HU, mostly because I will never buy the books; and please do not try to convince me I should because it will not work), classes (I have my reasons for why I will allow some classes in certain games but not others), powers (because I do not see them as necessary), gear (because again some belong in certain games and not others) or even World Books (because I have a serious dislike for certain ones and have created my own versions of those areas).

I think you may be confused as to the definition of the word "Megaversal".. Megaveral refers to the ease with which a character from one Palladium Books game setting can be modified and used in another Palladium Books game setting. While the core character creation process is essentially the same in all the games, there are always setting-specific rules that are not meant to be carried over from one setting to the next. If you're running RIFTS, you have no obligation to use any of the different rules from other Palladium settings..

The first rule in any game, is to have fun. This means everyone, the Game Master included.

[jaymz]

Icefalcon - I understand what it is you are saying so please do not take what I say the wrong way.

Well, to illustrate that I am neither a failure as a GM nor am I lazy or stupid.

I never stated anyone was failure (I believe I even said that is a strong word to use), lazy nor stupid but I WILL stand by my words that not everyone is capable of GMing such an open ended game like Rifts. It isn't your typical kitchen sink setting or for that matter typical any setting.

because I (and most of my players for that matter) do not have any fun when only one PC can wade into a combat and destroy every enemy in one or two melees and then also have all the skills and abilities to accomplish all of the rest of the goals

How is it these players are managing this as many of the power combat classes are pretty combat oriented and not able to do the other things all that well?

These players use powerful classes or combo of race and class to steamroll the whole campaign or to break it completely. Yes, I am willing to kick these players out or make challenges to take them on. The only problem with that is that is usually winds up killing the whole party except for that one character.

There are ways to negate and or challenge the whole group without resorting to overpowering the one powerful character in turn killing the others. I have done it and I have seen it done. It just takes a little more work to figure out how. With all the work you said you put into a campaign, you should be able to account for this ahead of time and if not, you should have a very good idea of what to allow or not allow in that campaign to avoid this issue as well. If you are not willing to limit the options of your players going in (in regards to classes and/or equipment available), and I am not saying you don't since I don't play in your games, then you can hardly blame the game for that can you? I mean, just because it exists in Rifts doesn't mean the players should automatically have access to it.

Secondly, when combining characters from the other game systems, Palladium did not give much thought about how one games special rules (such as super powers) affects all the powers and abilities of another game. Could I modify the rules for these things? Yes I could but frankly do not have the time considering I run multiple systems from multiple companies.

While that may be your experience, I have played with multiple GMs that have had none of the issues you have stated integrating the other Palladium settings or having disparate power based classes into a game.

I would never try to convince you to buy another setting, especially if you have no interest in it. All I can say is my opinion on the matter. The choice of buying said games is entirely yours. (for the record HU has many rules within powers I find extremely useful in other ways in Rifts but again that's my opinion).

[random_username]

I've always scratched my head when people complain about balance in RIFTS. I'm not one to play video games, so I've always drawn on either real-life situations or movies/TV shows to consider what's reasonable in a game. I got beat up when I was young because I was scrawny, the US invaded small countries like Panama and Grenada with little difficulty because it was powerful; this is normal in the world, so why not in my games? Likewise I love a good underdog story in my fiction, so why not in RIFTS?

So I'm curious about what led you to despise the 'lack of balance'.. Is it an actual gaming experience, word of mouth, or having read the rules and seen the worst possibilities.. I think the last option there is akin to virtual agoraphobia.. Just because there are giant robots, dragons and killer cyborgs that can turn you into a fine red mist in one attack doesn't mean that's exactly what's going to happen to you if you play the game..

Thoughts?

Balance Issues = Lack of Realization and Application of: Know Yourself and Know Your Enemy stuff.

Players:
- (A) Know your character's abilities: Offensive damage/immobilization/distraction, defensive/damage capacity/immunities, mobility, stealth; and limitations (tactical survival capabilities).
- (B) Realize how these contrast with other party members: If your the light combat PC (a basic ground infantry body armor pistol/rifle) then stealth, tactics, timing, and so forth should probably be a core part of your survival strategies. Particularly if there is a super heavy combat character in the party, which should be utilized as the 'distraction' to draw the most fire from the enemy; or other coordinated tactics, etc. = If the big super heavy combat PC is gonna draw a lot of heavy fire to the area he's in then don't stand next to him if you're just a light combat character.
- Or possibly worse: The super heavy combat PC plays as a stealth style while the light combat PC figures he can do a direct assault.
- (C) Realize that there are and will be extreme scenarios that may require cat and mouse exit strategies to simply survive let alone have any chance of immediately overcoming. = Be prepared to overcome any apparently no win situation. = Fight through the trap, or withdraw, regroup, and counterattack; as appropriate.

GM:
- Due to the inherent complexity of combinations of abilities of players and player groups (innate, skills, stats, gear, etc) which will change over time, it can be easy for a GM to lose track of the variety and degree of power scale of the players. Thus resulting in insufficient challenges or too difficult challenges. Many of these issues can be dealt with by firmly grasping the power scale of the players and starting them off in a campaign setting area that is at least vaguely appropriate to their capabilities.
- Example: Good For First level group of light combat novice PCs = The Burbs, New West, etc. Bad for same Group = Start in Atlantis and pick a fight with the Splugorth.
- Despite the inherent unpredictability of the Rifts setting due to the anything is possible via Rifting in of creatures each general setting can usually be equated with a general power scale. Ultimately if the GM or Players place themselves in an area where the combative power scale is far above them (Atlantis, etc) they can expect to be splattered quickly and thoroughly in much less time than it takes to roll up a new character.

Of course all of this combined is only designed to function as a baseline for appropriate starting setting for the players.

Ultimately there is also the follow through of the basic principle of No Plan Survives Contact With The Enemy (various paraphrases from Sun Tzu, Helmuth the Elder, and oh so many GMs and Players, and so forth).

[MADMANMIKE]

I've always scratched my head when people complain about balance in RIFTS. I'm not one to play video games, so I've always drawn on either real-life situations or movies/TV shows to consider what's reasonable in a game. I got beat up when I was young because I was scrawny, the US invaded small countries like Panama and Grenada with little difficulty because it was powerful; this is normal in the world, so why not in my games? Likewise I love a good underdog story in my fiction, so why not in RIFTS?

So I'm curious about what led you to despise the 'lack of balance'.. Is it an actual gaming experience, word of mouth, or having read the rules and seen the worst possibilities.. I think the last option there is akin to virtual agoraphobia.. Just because there are giant robots, dragons and killer cyborgs that can turn you into a fine red mist in one attack doesn't mean that's exactly what's going to happen to you if you play the game..

Thoughts?

Balance Issues = Lack of Realization and Application of: Know Yourself and Know Your Enemy stuff.

Players:
- (A) Know your character's abilities: Offensive damage/immobilization/distraction, defensive/damage capacity/immunities, mobility, stealth; and limitations (tactical survival capabilities).
- (B) Realize how these contrast with other party members: If your the light combat PC (a basic ground infantry body armor pistol/rifle) then stealth, tactics, timing, and so forth should probably be a core part of your survival strategies. Particularly if there is a super heavy combat character in the party, which should be utilized as the 'distraction' to draw the most fire from the enemy; or other coordinate tactics, etc. = If the big super heavy combat PC is gonna draw a lot of heavy fire to the area he's in then don't stand next to him if you're just a light combat character.
- Or possibly worse: The super heavy combat PC plays as a stealth style while the light combat PC figures he can do a direct assault.
- (C) Realize that there are and will be extreme scenarios that may require cat and mouse exit strategies to simply survive let alone have any chance of immediately overcoming. = Be prepared to overcome any apparently no win situation. = Fight through the trap, or withdraw, regroup, and counterattack; as appropriate.

GM:
- Due to the inherent complexity of combinations of abilities of players and player groups (innate, skills, stats, gear, etc) which will change over time, it can be easy for a GM to lose track of the variety and degree of power scale of the players. Thus resulting in insufficient challenges or too difficult challenges. Many of these issues can be dealt with by firmly grasping the power scale of the players and starting them off in a campaign setting area that is at least vaguely appropriate to their capabilities.
- Example: Good For First level group of light combat novice PCs = The Burbs, New West, etc. Bad for same Group = Start in Atlantis and pick a fight with the Splugorth.
- Despite the inherent unpredictability of the Rifts setting due to the anything is possible via Rifting in of creatures each general setting can usually be equated with a general power scale. Ultimately if the GM or Players place themselves in an area where the combative power scale is far above them (Atlantis, etc) they can expect to be splattered quickly and thoroughly in much less time than it takes to roll up a new character.

Of course all of this combined is only designed to function as a baseline for appropriate starting setting for the players.

Ultimately there is also the follow through of the basic principle of No Plan Survives Contact With The Enemy (various paraphrases from Sun Tzu, Helmuth the Elder, and oh so many GMs and Players, and so forth).

All excellent points!

[Nightmask]

Rifts is perfectly balanced. Not because of the raw numbers character have but because of the experience system.

Which is subjective.

Whats a minor threat, whats a major threat.

A vagabond fighting a gang of orc thugs and winning is definately worth the major threat award.
A glitterboy or juicer in the same fight is just a workout. (0xp).

Same goes for 700 exp jack pot.

A vagabond in plastic man running with the Fusion block to save the village is definately worth 500-700 exp.
A glitterboy doing the same? Hardly sacrificing yourself is it.

Not necessarily, what if the Glitterboy is badly damaged (after all they tend to be the main target of the enemy) and risking himself as the only one with enough armor left to reach the enemy and hopefully take them out? It's not like one can assume the GB is undamaged when they're a prime target, and that MDC doesn't regenerate.

[jaymz]

Rifts is perfectly balanced. Not because of the raw numbers character have but because of the experience system.

Which is subjective.

Whats a minor threat, whats a major threat.

A vagabond fighting a gang of orc thugs and winning is definately worth the major threat award.
A glitterboy or juicer in the same fight is just a workout. (0xp).

Same goes for 700 exp jack pot.

A vagabond in plastic man running with the Fusion block to save the village is definately worth 500-700 exp.
A glitterboy doing the same? Hardly sacrificing yourself is it.

Not necessarily, what if the Glitterboy is badly damaged (after all they tend to be the main target of the enemy) and risking himself as the only one with enough armor left to reach the enemy and hopefully take them out? It's not like one can assume the GB is undamaged when they're a prime target, and that MDC doesn't regenerate.

That would [play directly back into "level of threat". If the GB is heavily damaged then yeah it is a sacrifice. If he isn't then not so much.... either way it is still subjective.

[Icefalcon]

Hmm.. I think I stopped trying to plan out long campaigns in the first year I was GMing.. all it does in my experience is pit the GM against the players. The joy of Role-Playing for me is the collaboration. When I set up a game I pick a theme (the last RIFTS game I ran the theme was 'mercenaries just after the siege on Tolkeen'), give the players some avenues for adventure, and make it up as we went along. I've always restricted the available classes in order to make sure the group can meld together (and to maintain the theme, i.e., my Coalition games always revolved around a squad of troops, so they had to pick appropriate O.C.C.s for that).

My most recent Rifts game, I did less of the long term planning and did more of a pick and choose for the players. They were playing mercenaries and I let them choose what jobs were available in the town they were based out of. Each of these were done in great detail rather than leaving them vague. It allowed for background on each of the NPC's and events involved in each job. Some of the jobs tied into other jobs but not many of them. The most work came from doing massive amounts of stat blocks and maps. The stat blocks because I dislike picking a random monster or NPC (like Coalition Juicer) and rolling stats, HP, MDc and all of that stuff in the middle of play. I prefer to have the stats on hand when I need them. The maps because they contain smaller areas than the books do (such as towns or just local area around towns or even building interiors). I am not the seat of the pants style GM (as far as overall story and NPC's) and realized it long ago. It works out better for me (and my players) when I can do some planning. As long as I have an overall story frame in mind, I can and sometimes do come up with random elements to throw in as the game is being played. But, for the most part, I do not like running the whole game just doing whatever pops into my head at the table.

I also limit classes and gear and so on in order to preserve the theme of whatever game I am running at the time. It might be a more recent thing in my GM career because I didn't like limiting players in that fashion but now it helps preserve my peace of mind. Of course, there are times I do run high powered campaigns that account for any and everything the players want to play.

Secondly, when combining characters from the other game systems, Palladium did not give much thought about how one games special rules (such as super powers) affects all the powers and abilities of another game. Could I modify the rules for these things? Yes I could but frankly do not have the time considering I run multiple systems from multiple companies. So I hardly bother, I just blanket ban certain games (such as HU, mostly because I will never buy the books; and please do not try to convince me I should because it will not work), classes (I have my reasons for why I will allow some classes in certain games but not others), powers (because I do not see them as necessary), gear (because again some belong in certain games and not others) or even World Books (because I have a serious dislike for certain ones and have created my own versions of those areas).

I think you may be confused as to the definition of the word "Megaversal".. Megaveral refers to the ease with which a character from one Palladium Books game setting can be modified and used in another Palladium Books game setting. While the core character creation process is essentially the same in all the games, there are always setting-specific rules that are not meant to be carried over from one setting to the next. If you're running RIFTS, you have no obligation to use any of the different rules from other Palladium settings..

I have no problem with the definition Megaversal. What I was referring to was the Conversion rules. They gave no thoughts to how those would affect the game when thrown into contention with other rules.

I know I don't HAVE an obligation to use other Palladium settings in Rifts (or any other setting) but I have lost count of the number of threads where I have been told that as a GM I should allow anything and everything the players want. I do not agree with that view, so apologize for coming out already on the defensive.

The first rule in any game, is to have fun. This means everyone, the Game Master included.

True and too many people forget that the GM is there for fun as well and if he gets tired of running then someone else has to take up the job. I have seen groups torn apart because of inexperienced GM's thinking they could do better than the guy the group pissed off.

[Icefalcon]

Icefalcon - I understand what it is you are saying so please do not take what I say the wrong way.

Well, to illustrate that I am neither a failure as a GM nor am I lazy or stupid.

I never stated anyone was failure (I believe I even said that is a strong word to use), lazy nor stupid but I WILL stand by my words that not everyone is capable of GMing such an open ended game like Rifts. It isn't your typical kitchen sink setting or for that matter typical any setting.

No offense taken. That particular comment was more addressing MaxxSterling's comment. I have successfully run Rifts games for many years (the longest being 3 and 1/2 years) so I would say that I am capable but you would have to trust my word on that.

because I (and most of my players for that matter) do not have any fun when only one PC can wade into a combat and destroy every enemy in one or two melees and then also have all the skills and abilities to accomplish all of the rest of the goals

How is it these players are managing this as many of the power combat classes are pretty combat oriented and not able to do the other things all that well?

There are a few really strong classes that can do many things but you are correct that not all strong combat classes can do that. I see this type of play mostly with Atlantean T-Men, Dragons and Cosmo Knights.

These players use powerful classes or combo of race and class to steamroll the whole campaign or to break it completely. Yes, I am willing to kick these players out or make challenges to take them on. The only problem with that is that is usually winds up killing the whole party except for that one character.

There are ways to negate and or challenge the whole group without resorting to overpowering the one powerful character in turn killing the others. I have done it and I have seen it done. It just takes a little more work to figure out how. With all the work you said you put into a campaign, you should be able to account for this ahead of time and if not, you should have a very good idea of what to allow or not allow in that campaign to avoid this issue as well. If you are not willing to limit the options of your players going in (in regards to classes and/or equipment available), and I am not saying you don't since I don't play in your games, then you can hardly blame the game for that can you? I mean, just because it exists in Rifts doesn't mean the players should automatically have access to it.

True enough. Given time I can always figure out how to handle a character but sometimes it requires a bit of research. For the most part, I have a lot more knowledge of the system then my current group but that was not always so with my last group. I do tend to limit options in my games but I do not like to do too much of that. Also, there are sometimes combinations that I do not foresee that can be detrimental to the game I had planned out. Sometimes they can be dealt with and sometimes they can not but I try to keep the game fun for everyone.

Secondly, when combining characters from the other game systems, Palladium did not give much thought about how one games special rules (such as super powers) affects all the powers and abilities of another game. Could I modify the rules for these things? Yes I could but frankly do not have the time considering I run multiple systems from multiple companies.

While that may be your experience, I have played with multiple GMs that have had none of the issues you have stated integrating the other Palladium settings or having disparate power based classes into a game.

Everyone has different experiences depending on the group they play with. Considering Palladium is not the only company that I play their games or even the main company that I game from, I am not as adept at the Palladium rules as I am at some of the others. However, I am more adept at Rifts than I am say Nightbane or Ninjas and Superspies.

I would never try to convince you to buy another setting, especially if you have no interest in it. All I can say is my opinion on the matter. The choice of buying said games is entirely yours. (for the record HU has many rules within powers I find extremely useful in other ways in Rifts but again that's my opinion).

Again, that was more because of the browbeating that I receive in other threads than anything you or MadManMike have said to me.

[Icefalcon]

I've always scratched my head when people complain about balance in RIFTS. I'm not one to play video games, so I've always drawn on either real-life situations or movies/TV shows to consider what's reasonable in a game. I got beat up when I was young because I was scrawny, the US invaded small countries like Panama and Grenada with little difficulty because it was powerful; this is normal in the world, so why not in my games? Likewise I love a good underdog story in my fiction, so why not in RIFTS?

So I'm curious about what led you to despise the 'lack of balance'.. Is it an actual gaming experience, word of mouth, or having read the rules and seen the worst possibilities.. I think the last option there is akin to virtual agoraphobia.. Just because there are giant robots, dragons and killer cyborgs that can turn you into a fine red mist in one attack doesn't mean that's exactly what's going to happen to you if you play the game..

Thoughts?

Balance Issues = Lack of Realization and Application of: Know Yourself and Know Your Enemy stuff.

Players:
- (A) Know your character's abilities: Offensive damage/immobilization/distraction, defensive/damage capacity/immunities, mobility, stealth; and limitations (tactical survival capabilities).
- (B) Realize how these contrast with other party members: If your the light combat PC (a basic ground infantry body armor pistol/rifle) then stealth, tactics, timing, and so forth should probably be a core part of your survival strategies. Particularly if there is a super heavy combat character in the party, which should be utilized as the 'distraction' to draw the most fire from the enemy; or other coordinate tactics, etc. = If the big super heavy combat PC is gonna draw a lot of heavy fire to the area he's in then don't stand next to him if you're just a light combat character.
- Or possibly worse: The super heavy combat PC plays as a stealth style while the light combat PC figures he can do a direct assault.
- (C) Realize that there are and will be extreme scenarios that may require cat and mouse exit strategies to simply survive let alone have any chance of immediately overcoming. = Be prepared to overcome any apparently no win situation. = Fight through the trap, or withdraw, regroup, and counterattack; as appropriate.

GM:
- Due to the inherent complexity of combinations of abilities of players and player groups (innate, skills, stats, gear, etc) which will change over time, it can be easy for a GM to lose track of the variety and degree of power scale of the players. Thus resulting in insufficient challenges or too difficult challenges. Many of these issues can be dealt with by firmly grasping the power scale of the players and starting them off in a campaign setting area that is at least vaguely appropriate to their capabilities.
- Example: Good For First level group of light combat novice PCs = The Burbs, New West, etc. Bad for same Group = Start in Atlantis and pick a fight with the Splugorth.
- Despite the inherent unpredictability of the Rifts setting due to the anything is possible via Rifting in of creatures each general setting can usually be equated with a general power scale. Ultimately if the GM or Players place themselves in an area where the combative power scale is far above them (Atlantis, etc) they can expect to be splattered quickly and thoroughly in much less time than it takes to roll up a new character.

Of course all of this combined is only designed to function as a baseline for appropriate starting setting for the players.

Ultimately there is also the follow through of the basic principle of No Plan Survives Contact With The Enemy (various paraphrases from Sun Tzu, Helmuth the Elder, and oh so many GMs and Players, and so forth).

All excellent points!

Agreed, excellent points.

[jaymz]

Considering Palladium is not the only company that I play their games or even the main company that I game from, I am not as adept at the Palladium rules as I am at some of the others. However, I am more adept at Rifts than I am say Nightbane or Ninjas and Superspies.

I used to play a rotating set of games, about 4 or 5 different ones, all fairly different from the others and that was aside from Palladium which I played with a different set of players altogether.

I was certainly the oddball. Not many people I gamed with played Palladium. Those that did only played Palladium by and large while the others wanted nothing to do with it.


It is only a good thing to play other games to see how "the other side games" so to speak

[MADMANMIKE]

I have no problem with the definition Megaversal. What I was referring to was the Conversion rules. They gave no thoughts to how those would affect the game when thrown into contention with other rules.

I know I don't HAVE an obligation to use other Palladium settings in Rifts (or any other setting) but I have lost count of the number of threads where I have been told that as a GM I should allow anything and everything the players want. I do not agree with that view, so apologize for coming out already on the defensive.

I guess I've never really run a combat oriented game, so it didn't matter how powerful a character was on paper, it was all about how well the player could role-play. Still, I haven't really allowed any Heroes Unlimited characters in my RIFTS games so I'll have to take your word for it; I can say that I feel Kevin's writing has greatly improved over the years and thus his earlier RIFTS stuff could easily have been weaker in the mechanics department where conversions are concerned.

People have a tendency to use the internet in lieu of getting counseling, so I don't generally take absurd rantings too seriously on a message board. Anyone who argues that a G.M. is doing it wrong by not doing it their way has totally missed the point of the game.

The first rule in any game, is to have fun. This means everyone, the Game Master included.

True and too many people forget that the GM is there for fun as well and if he gets tired of running then someone else has to take up the job. I have seen groups torn apart because of inexperienced GM's thinking they could do better than the guy the group pissed off.

Yes, there tends to be a lack of understanding of the nature of the relationship between GM and player, especially for first time and casual gamers. I'm fortunate to have an excellent game group; I only wish we could get together to game more frequently.

[Icefalcon]

I have no problem with the definition Megaversal. What I was referring to was the Conversion rules. They gave no thoughts to how those would affect the game when thrown into contention with other rules.

I know I don't HAVE an obligation to use other Palladium settings in Rifts (or any other setting) but I have lost count of the number of threads where I have been told that as a GM I should allow anything and everything the players want. I do not agree with that view, so apologize for coming out already on the defensive.

I guess I've never really run a combat oriented game, so it didn't matter how powerful a character was on paper, it was all about how well the player could role-play. Still, I haven't really allowed any Heroes Unlimited characters in my RIFTS games so I'll have to take your word for it; I can say that I feel Kevin's writing has greatly improved over the years and thus his earlier RIFTS stuff could easily have been weaker in the mechanics department where conversions are concerned.

I took me a while before I learned to balance my games between combat and role-play. They always wound up one or the other for some reason until I learned that some players need a bit of each. I agree that some of the earlier works tended to be weaker in the mechanics department. It was not until more recently that they gave better thought to using one game system in another.

People have a tendency to use the internet in lieu of getting counseling, so I don't generally take absurd rantings too seriously on a message board. Anyone who argues that a G.M. is doing it wrong by not doing it their way has totally missed the point of the game.

Too true.

The first rule in any game, is to have fun. This means everyone, the Game Master included.

True and too many people forget that the GM is there for fun as well and if he gets tired of running then someone else has to take up the job. I have seen groups torn apart because of inexperienced GM's thinking they could do better than the guy the group pissed off.

Yes, there tends to be a lack of understanding of the nature of the relationship between GM and player, especially for first time and casual gamers. I'm fortunate to have an excellent game group; I only wish we could get together to game more frequently.

Some long term gamers have also never learned that lesson either. They have either gotten their way for too long or have never encountered a GM that can handle them. Fortunately, I also have a decent group (for the most part but there are one or two...) and we also have the benefit of being able to get together often. Unfortunately, it is rare that they want to play Palladium games.

[flatline]

I don't care about balance as long as the setting is compelling and consistent. The balance will establish itself during play and if we don't like it, we'll adjust the setting to achieve the balance we want (as opposed to adding rules that try to artificially enforce the desired balance)

--flatline

[Nightmask]

I don't care about balance as long as the setting is compelling and consistent. The balance will establish itself during play and if we don't like it, we'll adjust the setting to achieve the balance we want (as opposed to adding rules that try to artificially enforce the desired balance)

--flatline

Particularly when it tries to enforce one particular person's idea of balance onto everyone else, since there really is no such thing as balance in a game (after all the GM's power is infinite) only tolerable or acceptable levels of imbalance.

[Mech-Viper Prime]

I don't care about balance as long as the setting is compelling and consistent. The balance will establish itself during play and if we don't like it, we'll adjust the setting to achieve the balance we want (as opposed to adding rules that try to artificially enforce the desired balance)

--flatline

Particularly when it tries to enforce one particular person's idea of balance onto everyone else, since there really is no such thing as balance in a game (after all the GM's power is infinite) only tolerable or acceptable levels of imbalance.

This .

[Tor]

If we look to a lot of fantasy, it's full of characters who are often as (if not more) beloved than the 'main' powerful character, this could apply to RPGs as well.

WoT has Rand al'Thor, SoT has Richard Cypher, MotU has He-Man. But everyone still loves Perrin, Kara and Orko.

[Looonatic]

If we look to a lot of fantasy, it's full of characters who are often as (if not more) beloved than the 'main' powerful character, this could apply to RPGs as well.

WoT has Rand al'Thor, SoT has Richard Cypher, MotU has He-Man. But everyone still loves Perrin, Kara and Orko.

So close, but you lost me at Orko.

[Daeglan]

i think what is more important than balance is an easy way to judge the capabilities of the individual players and monsters. And to understand how things interact. Which I think Palladium is lacking helping GM's judge this.

[Furoan]

If we look to a lot of fantasy, it's full of characters who are often as (if not more) beloved than the 'main' powerful character, this could apply to RPGs as well.

WoT has Rand al'Thor, SoT has Richard Cypher, MotU has He-Man. But everyone still loves Perrin, Kara and Orko.

...Perrin and not Mat? I'm goign to pretend that is Book 1 SoT;)

[SpiritInterface]

After 33 years of role playing (table top, LARP, and mmorpgs) I have come to the conclusion that a balanced game comes down to 2 points.

1) did everyone have fun? (including the GM)
2) did any ones favorite character get irrevocably killed and are they upset about it?

Everything else can be hashed out with the players and the GM.

I have been in games that a character I built and the GM thought would be Ok turn out to be too much for the plot line so the GM talked with me and gave me the choice of "toning him down" or not." I proposed instead of having him go rouge and betray the party. Because of the work I put into him I didn't want to tweek him to fit so he became a recurring Villain instead.

GMs need to work with their players and vice versa.

As for balanced games, I have found there ain't no such animal. There will be something out of balance somewhere. There might be a player who so overpowers the baddies and is an expert in everything that he is earning 1/10th the EXP that everyone else is earning because he has been there done that already that it isn't a new experience for him. Or that you have a team that is lacking a critical skill because the players didn't think it that critical.

[Athos]

I've always scratched my head when people complain about balance in RIFTS. I'm not one to play video games, so I've always drawn on either real-life situations or movies/TV shows to consider what's reasonable in a game. I got beat up when I was young because I was scrawny, the US invaded small countries like Panama and Grenada with little difficulty because it was powerful; this is normal in the world, so why not in my games? Likewise I love a good underdog story in my fiction, so why not in RIFTS?

So I'm curious about what led you to despise the 'lack of balance'.. Is it an actual gaming experience, word of mouth, or having read the rules and seen the worst possibilities.. I think the last option there is akin to virtual agoraphobia.. Just because there are giant robots, dragons and killer cyborgs that can turn you into a fine red mist in one attack doesn't mean that's exactly what's going to happen to you if you play the game..

Thoughts?

I am a big fan of balance for one reason and one reason only... it works for RPGs. When one PC is super powerful and dominates all the action, the other PCs quit playing and the game dies.

You can argue all you want, but after 36 years of gaming, I have seen this happen over and over.

Rifts is the world's worst for this, the GB has 770 MDC and does 3d6x10 MD !!! Nothing comes close to this and it is in the basic game rules, so don't talk to me about power creep, the power creep is there from the beginning.

That is why it is so hard to get a rifts game that lasts more than 3 months. Either everyone is SDC or MDC or some kind of parity is come up with by the GM, or the game deteriorates into one or two players dominating and the rest giving up. To me, this is the biggest short coming in Rifts... I love the environment and setting, but the game is very hard to GM. I have been playing it and occasionally GMing it for close to 20 years off and on, but without some kind of forced parity, it just doesn't work out well.

It would be nice if the designers actually played the game and knew this. Rifts could really use an editor that played the game. Balance is SO important to a game lasting more than a month or two. If you don't believe me, just look at all the failed games on the forum for the Game Rooms. There aren't many games that last, I think that is something systemic and not he fault of ALL GM's.

Anyways, that is my 2 cents worth, YMMV

[popscythe]

In my experience, some people who think Palladium games have balance issues that would spoil the experience haven't had the opportunity to actually play much or at all.

The best way to remedy misunderstandings about Palladium games is to run Palladium games for people.

EDIT: Previous post edited. - NMII

[Nightmask]

I've always scratched my head when people complain about balance in RIFTS. I'm not one to play video games, so I've always drawn on either real-life situations or movies/TV shows to consider what's reasonable in a game. I got beat up when I was young because I was scrawny, the US invaded small countries like Panama and Grenada with little difficulty because it was powerful; this is normal in the world, so why not in my games? Likewise I love a good underdog story in my fiction, so why not in RIFTS?

So I'm curious about what led you to despise the 'lack of balance'.. Is it an actual gaming experience, word of mouth, or having read the rules and seen the worst possibilities.. I think the last option there is akin to virtual agoraphobia.. Just because there are giant robots, dragons and killer cyborgs that can turn you into a fine red mist in one attack doesn't mean that's exactly what's going to happen to you if you play the game..

Thoughts?

I am a big fan of balance for one reason and one reason only... it works for RPGs. When one PC is super powerful and dominates all the action, the other PCs quit playing and the game dies.

You can argue all you want, but after 36 years of gaming, I have seen this happen over and over.

Rifts is the world's worst for this, the GB has 770 MDC and does 3d6x10 MD !!! Nothing comes close to this and it is in the basic game rules, so don't talk to me about power creep, the power creep is there from the beginning.

If something's part of a game from the very start then it can't be power creep as power creep by definition is the slow escalating of power over time whether it be with new books that come out for an RPG or character power in stories like comics. What we have is the natural variety that exists because all things AREN'T equal. The Glitter Boy never gets more powerful, the pilot may improve somewhat in skill over time but his power never increases. That 770 MDC is only going to go so far particularly when it's generally treated as the first target unless something else is just far too big a concern to deal with it and that's very rare. That MDC does fast when you have a half dozen or more people targeting you and unloading everything they've got.

[Daeglan]

The problem I see comes from the difficulty in the GM setting up challenging encounters because it is really hard to judge the various power levels and keep players on some sort of parity in regards to combat. IE keeping it from being a cake walk for 1 player or a death trap for every one else.

IE how do you challenge the undead slayer with out killing the vagabond? How do you challenge the vagabond with out boring the undead slayer or have the undead slayer wipe everyone out?

[jaymz]

I've always scratched my head when people complain about balance in RIFTS. I'm not one to play video games, so I've always drawn on either real-life situations or movies/TV shows to consider what's reasonable in a game. I got beat up when I was young because I was scrawny, the US invaded small countries like Panama and Grenada with little difficulty because it was powerful; this is normal in the world, so why not in my games? Likewise I love a good underdog story in my fiction, so why not in RIFTS?

So I'm curious about what led you to despise the 'lack of balance'.. Is it an actual gaming experience, word of mouth, or having read the rules and seen the worst possibilities.. I think the last option there is akin to virtual agoraphobia.. Just because there are giant robots, dragons and killer cyborgs that can turn you into a fine red mist in one attack doesn't mean that's exactly what's going to happen to you if you play the game..

Thoughts?

I am a big fan of balance for one reason and one reason only... it works for RPGs. When one PC is super powerful and dominates all the action, the other PCs quit playing and the game dies.

You can argue all you want, but after 36 years of gaming, I have seen this happen over and over.

Rifts is the world's worst for this, the GB has 770 MDC and does 3d6x10 MD !!! Nothing comes close to this and it is in the basic game rules, so don't talk to me about power creep, the power creep is there from the beginning.

That is why it is so hard to get a rifts game that lasts more than 3 months. Either everyone is SDC or MDC or some kind of parity is come up with by the GM, or the game deteriorates into one or two players dominating and the rest giving up. To me, this is the biggest short coming in Rifts... I love the environment and setting, but the game is very hard to GM. I have been playing it and occasionally GMing it for close to 20 years off and on, but without some kind of forced parity, it just doesn't work out well.

It would be nice if the designers actually played the game and knew this. Rifts could really use an editor that played the game. Balance is SO important to a game lasting more than a month or two. If you don't believe me, just look at all the failed games on the forum for the Game Rooms. There aren't many games that last, I think that is something systemic and not he fault of ALL GM's.

Anyways, that is my 2 cents worth, YMMV

And in 25+ years of gaming the lack of "balance" in Rifts has never been an issue in any games I've run or ran in. Many of them had the "unbalance" that is complained about but the GMs made all adventures challenging and everyone had their turn in the spotlight. Our biggest issues with keeping campaigns going for extended periods of time had nothing to do with the "balance issues" and everything to do with real life and people moving, getting new jobs, having kids etc.

Also why is it anytime people complain about "balance issues" it is always combat related. There is so much more beyond combat in Rifts that unbalance between classes in combat really shouldn't be an issue. Furthermore, not everyone class SHOULD be balanced in combat. Why should a scholar be balanced with an RPA or Ley Line Walker? They shouldn't. Their focus isn't combat. If a GM repeatedly throws characters into combat all the time and does very little else then the problem isn't the game or setting, it's the GM. Just as spending the bulk of time skulking around and infiltrating bases and buildings would be unbalanced for an RPA since that isn't HIS focus. Again this isn't "unbalanced" for the RPA since he is out of his element to begin with. The fault lies at the feet of the GM.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Not every GM is cut out to run Rifts. A good D&D GM does not equate to a good GM in general. It takes a certain type of GM to be able to handle running a Rifts game or campaign.

Lastly, artificial balance is not balance.

[Daeglan]

So how do we help GMs with these problems?

[Athos]

Well Jaymz, if all your players are bailing on you for "RL" issues, there might be a problem. You might not be the uber-GM you think you are and they just don't want to upset/argue with you. When games don't last, it's usually because there is a problem with the game, of course, if time after time "RL" issues take all your players, it could just be an incredible coincidence, but I kind of doubt that.

IMO, there is a something wrong with the system of Rifts, and what you call forced parity, is to me the only way to overcome the inherent problems with the system. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and that is mine. Not sure what palladium can do to "fix" that, but until they do, Rifts will be a problem to run for a LOT of people.

[jaymz]

Athos - Actually I am not the one that generally runs the games, nor did I claim to be an uber GM in any way shape or form and I take offense to your condescending attitude in the matter. Also you know not what you speak as you don't play with my group of players so when I say real life issues I MEAN real life issues. As in, working schedules, children's recitals and sports practices, family functions so on and so forth. The people I play with know what each others lives outside the game are like and unlike what you insinuate, we actually care enough about each other to be honest.

[jaymz]

So how do we help GMs with these problems?

Honestly? I'd like to see something along the lines of Adventure Modules.....more like one off missions that aren't too detailed with guidelines as to the types of characters needed, what level is best for them, and challenges/opponents for said characters. Running a few of these would give GMs a working knowledge through examples of what kinds of challenges and opponents are appropriate.

In the end though not all GMs can run Rifts just as not all GMs can run Star Wars or D&D or Shadowrun. It's a rare breed that can GM any game in any setting.

[slade the sniper]

I dislike balance in games...and after the enforced balance of d20 leading to so many severely imbalanced PCs, I agree with jamyz in thinking "what's the point." To me, the best games are those where character creation occurs as a group so that all the players know what is being made, what to expect, and it eliminates the dreaded "intro scene." With group based PC creation, you can figure out character roles, backstory, metaplot, all that stuff that makes RPGs more than one combat after another. It makes the game much more enjoyable IMO. Showing up on game night with some random character that has no connection to the other characters, non-existent backstory, and a lot of combat skills makes for a...less than ideal gaming experience.

-STS

[BlueLion]

In my gaming experience balance in a RPG is a myth. The only way to have a perfectly balance is for every one to be exactly the same. I have never seen a group fall apart because one player is so powerful he over bears the rest the group. (If that ever happens we get a good laugh when he gets his just deserts.) Reason groups fall apart is use ally real life, they move, drift apart, have families.

Heck most games I have played the most fun part of the game has nothing to do with combat.

I have played in a few groups that would go way of story doing wacky stuff and getting funny stories to tell later.

Like a group of PC stealing Mopeds to make their getaway. Then when stopped by a biker gang collecting tolls for the road a player gave the gang member the moped. Then while the ganger was doing something funny to show off hoped on his Harley and drove away. Now granted the chased but the epic tail of trading a moped for a Harley.

[Daeglan]

I dislike balance in games...and after the enforced balance of d20 leading to so many severely imbalanced PCs, I agree with jamyz in thinking "what's the point." To me, the best games are those where character creation occurs as a group so that all the players know what is being made, what to expect, and it eliminates the dreaded "intro scene." With group based PC creation, you can figure out character roles, backstory, metaplot, all that stuff that makes RPGs more than one combat after another. It makes the game much more enjoyable IMO. Showing up on game night with some random character that has no connection to the other characters, non-existent backstory, and a lot of combat skills makes for a...less than ideal gaming experience.

-STS

i think there needs to be some guidelines in judging threats and tips for getting different power levels to work well together. As pregenerated adventures never really tell you what the thought process was in designing the threats or how to handle disperate power levels in a party.

[Sureshot]

I don't think the game has too much of a balance problem. So much that certain options in terms of equipment, classes and powers can imo be unbalanced. Cosmo Knights, Tattoo Men, Neo-humans all are somewhat more power than other options. Can they be included in a party of players sure. Just at a increase in headaches on both the players and GMs part. Yes a good GM can get around it that problem. Not everyone is a good GM. As well too often at least to me too many sourcebooks include more powerful stuff for the sake of it. Too much "would it be cool if we include this" and less "maybe we should do more quality control and not include everything in Rifts including the kitchen sink. I know balance in a rpg ir at least complete balabnce is impossible. I don't mind small does of it. I rather not see a rpg designed as a free for all by the developers.

If your going to accuse D20 of balance make sure to include 1E and 2E. Any edition past that is imo not balanced. Not broken yet no enforced balance. If one use say only the 3/5/Pathfinder core than yes almost everything is balanced except for arcan casters. When high level divine and arcane caster can cast this: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spell ... -demiplane . Balance is thrown out the window in D&D. Espcially when it lasts days per level. And its not even a 3PP spell. I have a Gunslinger who can do between 100-150 points of damage on good rolls with with his Musket. A Alchemist that not only can create bombs, he can add conditions and effects to them. As well as cast spells, create alchemical items and a mutagen. When I created a Wizard that specialized in crafting items. Yet also took some bread and butter offensive and defensive spells and still was able to be more effective than the Fighter. Yeah no anything past 2E has no balance. imo.

i think there needs to be some guidelines in judging threats and tips for getting different power levels to work well together. As pregenerated adventures never really tell you what the thought process was in designing the threats or how to handle disperate power levels in a party.

I think this is a good idea for any rpg. In the case of Pathfinder I thought their Adventure Paths would be the perfect solution What a mistake and such a overrated product imo. Their NPCs espcially the BBEG are designed poorly. When I have to rewrite the encounters it kind of defeats the purpose of being premade modules in the first place. I prefer PB Hook, Line and Sinker system.

[slade the sniper]

I never use pregenerated adventures as written. I might use them for hooks or ideas, but that is it.

1E and 2E were definitely broken...I had a elven archer in 2E that one shotted a dragon. It was...less than ideal, and led to a rant on the topic that ended up getting into Dragon magazine about how sucky dragons were.

-STS

[BlueLion]

3e/3.5e was possible to do much worse. I had a roommate that would research for hours to level up his charter was severly tweeked the mages in a high level campaign could not match his damage out put.

(Little confused at how you one shotted a dragon with a bow when the damage was only 1d8+X unless the GN rolled really bad for HP)

[slade the sniper]

3e/3.5e was possible to do much worse. I had a roommate that would research for hours to level up his charter was severly tweeked the mages in a high level campaign could not match his damage out put.

(Little confused at how you one shotted a dragon with a bow when the damage was only 1d8+X unless the GN rolled really bad for HP)

It was a definite munchkin build... using skills and powers, the complete book of elves, the fighters handbook, some other stuff. The adventure was Paladin in Hell. A dragon showed up, my PC (Jedrik, lovingly called "hillbilly" by the rest of the party) was a called shot to the eye, using some tricked out arrows, I think I was doing double shot (two arrows), rolled a crit, max damage... The dragon in that adventure was fairly low on HP for some reason (for a dragon) and...dead dragon.

OK...this is not really the build that I used, but it is pretty close:

Spoiler:

Bow Optimization

-Sylvan Elf - Get a +1 to Strength and Dex and -1 to Con and Charisma on top of the +1 to Dex and -1 to Con being an elf gets.

-Elves Racial ability - +1 to hit with a bow

-Strength of 18 gets you +1 to hit, +2 to damage while 18/00 is +3 to hit and +6 damage.

-Dexterity of 18 gets you +2 to hit. No bonuses for 18/00.

-Bow Specialization (Fighter's Handbook) pg 58 - You get +1 to hit and +2 to damage, but specializing in bows requires two slots. When firing at a range of 6-30 feet, you get an additional +2 to hit and if there is a enemy in sight, you can fire a shot off before initiative is rolled. (only fighters, paladins and rangers can take this.)

-Weapon Specialization (Player's Handbook) pg 52 - +1 to hit and +2 to damage. With a bow, you gain a point blank category (6-60 feet). In this range, you get +2 to attack. (Essentially the same as Bow Specializtion).

-Double-Arrow Shot (Complete book of Elves) pg 73 - Take a +1 penalty to initiative and -1 to hit & damage to fire two arrows at the same time. Both arrows can directed towards the same target.

-Archer Kit (Complete book of Elves) pg 84 - Can fire faster at 5/2 rather than 2/1. If you stand still, you can increase the rate of fire to 3/1. If you want to do a trick shot, you not only gain the usual bonus for specialization and high Dexterity but a +1 to attack for every 4 experience levels. If you care for your bow and arrow for more than a month (aka, they aren't new) then your arrows cause an additional 1hp in damage each attack.

-Enspelled Arrows - (Complete book of Elves) pg 105 - Fire Seeds: When the arrow strikes the target, the seeds detonate for 2d8 damage in a 10 foot radius. If the arrow hits an enemy, they take 1d4 damage as well as the 2d8 from the fire seed. The victim doesn't get a saving throw for half-damage. [You'll have to find this as you can't make them, maybe a druid can?]

-Bowyer/Fletcher, Crude Skill (Complete Barbarian's Handbook) - lets you make your own incendiary/poison arrows. 5 of them a day. (Incindiary arrows do 1 extra point of fire damage with a save vs. death magic, Poison Arrows do 2d4 damge with a save vs. poison to negate.

-Player's Handbook Bowyer/Fletcher - pg 58 - You can create your own bow that adds your Strength bonuses to attack and damage, the range is increased 10 yards as well.

-Weapon Specialization - pg 18 (Unearthed Arcana) - Point blank is still +2 to hit but now any damage you do against a target within point blank range does double damage (plus bonuses from strength).

-Double Specialization - pg 18 (Unearthed Arcana - Normally only melee fighters can take this but in the games I've played before, I was able to get this as a ranged fighter. Gives an additional +3 to hit and +3 to damage.

-Weapon Mastery (Skills & Powers) - You gain +2 attack on all ranges beyond point blank. At point blank range, you gain +3 attack and damage.

-Sheaf Arrows (Skills & Powers and I think in the PHB as well) - 1d8 damage and cost 3 silver for 6 instead of 3 silver for 12 like normal arrows.

-Quick Fire (Complete book of Elves) - Faster Rate of Fire. The first shot in a round is made at no penalty. The second shot is at -2. The third is at -4.The fourth is at -8, fifth shot penalty for it is -16. The archer gets off two shots on his first attack sequence. When all combatants have finished their first attacks, the archer may take the next two. Finally, after everyone has completed their second attacks, the archer may take one final shot. In such magically enhanced cases with haste, the first two shots are without penalty. The third and fourth are at -2. The fifth and sixth are at -4. The seventh is at -8. The eighth (and final) is at -16.

Your rate of fire is 5/2 (5 attacks every other round, 2 attacks every round [ex: your first barrage of arrows, you fire 2, next round, you fire 5, round after that, you fire 2 and so on]). In total, you'll be firing extra arrows per shot which is essentially 4 for the odd rounds and 10 for the even rounds.

With Quick Draw, you basically get another 8 shots with a slight penalty for the 8th (-4 as taken from the list below). Those 8 arrows are doubled up on each attack so realistically, that's another 16 arrows each doing near full damage (-1 damage from Double Arrow Shot).

This jumps up with haste but I'm not sure how by how much. I think it's an additional attack which would be 2 more arrows with Double Arrow Shot.

In Total, without haste, you'll be firing 12 arrows odd rounds and 34 arrows every even round.

To hit:
Elf +1
Strength 18 +1
Dexterity 18 +2
Bow Specialization +2 or +4 within 60 feet
Archer Kit +1 every 4 levels
Double Specicalization +3
Weapon Mastery +3
Double Arrow Shot -1
Total: 14 (at point blank range and only counting the first level of the Archer Kit)


Damage:
Strength 18 +2
Bow Specialization +2
Archer Kit +1
Bowyer Fletcher, Crude +2d4
Weapon Specialization +2d8 (double the sheaf arrows damage)
Double Specialization +3
Weapon Mastery +3
Double Arrow Shot +1d8 (for the additional arrow)
Double Arrow Shot -1
Total: 10+2d4+2d8 (Min: 14, Max: 34)

Total damage:
Odd Rounds: 12 arrows, Min: 168 damage, Max: 408
Even Rounds: 34 arrows, Min: 476, Max: 1,156

-STS

[Tor]

lost me at Orko.

because you dislike him or because you're terrified of his power which far exceeds that pathetic prince and his cringing tiger?

Perrin and not Mat? I'm goign to pretend that is Book 1 SoT;)

It's hard to see Mat as underpowered with his munchkin scythe and infinite knowledge and high rank. I know Perrin gets a pretty epic boost too, but it's nothing Egwene couldn't have managed with practice.

Rifts is the world's worst for this, the GB has 770 MDC and does 3d6x10 MD !!! Nothing comes close to this and it is in the basic game rules

Actually, prior to CB1's nerfing of bursting, a long burst with the CS Plasma rifle could do 6D6x5 in a single attack. It doesn't have the same ammo reserves, accuracy, defeaning audibility or range as a boom gun, but in pure damage over time, it's a match.

The NG-P7 Northern Gun Particle Beam Rifle could also exceed this and do more damage than a boom gun. By doing a 5-shot long burst it could inflict 1d4x50 damage in a single attack, which is more than 3d6x10.

In terms of armor I agree, but that's the GB armor, I consider it and the Boom Gun a separate entity.

Also, for less than the cost of a Glitter Boy, I could equip a thousand people with particle beam rifles. A GB would not last long in a confined space where each citizen has one of those.

how do you challenge the undead slayer with out killing the vagabond? How do you challenge the vagabond with out boring the undead slayer or have the undead slayer wipe everyone out?

Different fights, different opponents, different roles besides combat.

[Daeglan]

Or 1 opponent with the Undead slayer playing the tank. Or the Vagabond acts like infantry today act around tanks. Hid in cover and fire rockets etc. Keep moving to new cover.

[cosmicfish]

I have issues with balance in this game, but not really with the character classes. Simply put, you cannot really talk about balance unless you are comparing apples to apples, so to speak, and there really are not that many classes out there that are directly comparable to each other. Still, you want the characters to be about equally useful in a game to avoid having someone just sit sullenly in the corner all night while their vastly overmatched character "watches the horses", and that can be tricky at times. Dealing with this will always be a dynamic process, but it would certainly help if there was some guidance as to what "tiers" each class would be on.

Palladium already does this a bit - some classes come with warnings that they may be too powerful for some campaigns, for example - but I would say that if this is a real complaint, then perhaps it would be worthwhile to publish a tier system (Rifter article?) that let GM's and players know the relative "power" of each class. Maybe Vagabond is Tier 1, Coalition Soldiers are Tier 2, GB Pilots and Juicers are Tier 3, and Cosmo-knights are Tier 5. If the campaign is set for Tier 3 characters, you can advance or retard lower or higher tier characters respectively.

I have done something similar and off the cuff before without any real problems, either giving "underpowered" characters some advantages (an exceptional item, a few extra experience levels at the start, etc.) or giving "overpowered" characters some problems to overcome (perhaps that USA-G10 is old and glitch, maybe your godling is starting the campaign under some type of enchantment that is limiting their abilities, etc.). This serves to keep the game a little more realistic and colorful, and keeping it dynamic means you can tweak these during the campaign.

[Alrik Vas]

Balance exists in GMing style, not in the setting. The setting should be unbalanced, so that players understand there are certain things they maybe should really just NOT mess with unless they want to seriously risk a quick death. (The CS, X-Bugs, Splugorth etc all come to mind on this)

So, as an example of balancing things in game, i recently ran the latest installment of my campaign where the players were on a river boat, going through a swamp that had toxic enough atmosphere to currode MDC armor. A river creature lived there, a fungus monster with many seaweed like tenticles big enough to jam up the boat's motor and hold it still, then try to devour everyone on board.

It only had 350 MDC, there were a total of 9 active combatants on the boat, it still took them 6 melee rounds to kill the thing. Why? Because getting grabbed by one of it's 24 limbs meant that two actions later you were getting crunched by it's mandibles for 2d6x10+20 MD, then swallowed. Freeing their comrades when they were grabbed was much more important than dishing out obscene damage (as they didn't know how much MDC it really had). It rocked the boat, knocking them down from time to time, which cost them actions and it grappled them a lot as well.

When the Psi-Stalker and Cyberknight finally got a bit of free time they both leap attacked with dual weapons and that really sped things along, but everyone else was just trying to keep each other from being devoured.

It's situations like these, where you create difficulty and terrain problems, along with a clear danger and timetable for that danger that can make for a situation that's tough on everyone.

[Blue_Lion]

3e/3.5e was possible to do much worse. I had a roommate that would research for hours to level up his charter was severly tweeked the mages in a high level campaign could not match his damage out put.

(Little confused at how you one shotted a dragon with a bow when the damage was only 1d8+X unless the GN rolled really bad for HP)

It was a definite munchkin build... using skills and powers, the complete book of elves, the fighters handbook, some other stuff. The adventure was Paladin in Hell. A dragon showed up, my PC (Jedrik, lovingly called "hillbilly" by the rest of the party) was a called shot to the eye, using some tricked out arrows, I think I was doing double shot (two arrows), rolled a crit, max damage... The dragon in that adventure was fairly low on HP for some reason (for a dragon) and...dead dragon.

OK...this is not really the build that I used, but it is pretty close:

Spoiler:

Bow Optimization

-Sylvan Elf - Get a +1 to Strength and Dex and -1 to Con and Charisma on top of the +1 to Dex and -1 to Con being an elf gets.

-Elves Racial ability - +1 to hit with a bow

-Strength of 18 gets you +1 to hit, +2 to damage while 18/00 is +3 to hit and +6 damage.

-Dexterity of 18 gets you +2 to hit. No bonuses for 18/00.

-Bow Specialization (Fighter's Handbook) pg 58 - You get +1 to hit and +2 to damage, but specializing in bows requires two slots. When firing at a range of 6-30 feet, you get an additional +2 to hit and if there is a enemy in sight, you can fire a shot off before initiative is rolled. (only fighters, paladins and rangers can take this.)

-Weapon Specialization (Player's Handbook) pg 52 - +1 to hit and +2 to damage. With a bow, you gain a point blank category (6-60 feet). In this range, you get +2 to attack. (Essentially the same as Bow Specializtion).

-Double-Arrow Shot (Complete book of Elves) pg 73 - Take a +1 penalty to initiative and -1 to hit & damage to fire two arrows at the same time. Both arrows can directed towards the same target.

-Archer Kit (Complete book of Elves) pg 84 - Can fire faster at 5/2 rather than 2/1. If you stand still, you can increase the rate of fire to 3/1. If you want to do a trick shot, you not only gain the usual bonus for specialization and high Dexterity but a +1 to attack for every 4 experience levels. If you care for your bow and arrow for more than a month (aka, they aren't new) then your arrows cause an additional 1hp in damage each attack.

-Enspelled Arrows - (Complete book of Elves) pg 105 - Fire Seeds: When the arrow strikes the target, the seeds detonate for 2d8 damage in a 10 foot radius. If the arrow hits an enemy, they take 1d4 damage as well as the 2d8 from the fire seed. The victim doesn't get a saving throw for half-damage. [You'll have to find this as you can't make them, maybe a druid can?]

-Bowyer/Fletcher, Crude Skill (Complete Barbarian's Handbook) - lets you make your own incendiary/poison arrows. 5 of them a day. (Incindiary arrows do 1 extra point of fire damage with a save vs. death magic, Poison Arrows do 2d4 damge with a save vs. poison to negate.

-Player's Handbook Bowyer/Fletcher - pg 58 - You can create your own bow that adds your Strength bonuses to attack and damage, the range is increased 10 yards as well.

-Weapon Specialization - pg 18 (Unearthed Arcana) - Point blank is still +2 to hit but now any damage you do against a target within point blank range does double damage (plus bonuses from strength).

-Double Specialization - pg 18 (Unearthed Arcana - Normally only melee fighters can take this but in the games I've played before, I was able to get this as a ranged fighter. Gives an additional +3 to hit and +3 to damage.

-Weapon Mastery (Skills & Powers) - You gain +2 attack on all ranges beyond point blank. At point blank range, you gain +3 attack and damage.

-Sheaf Arrows (Skills & Powers and I think in the PHB as well) - 1d8 damage and cost 3 silver for 6 instead of 3 silver for 12 like normal arrows.

-Quick Fire (Complete book of Elves) - Faster Rate of Fire. The first shot in a round is made at no penalty. The second shot is at -2. The third is at -4.The fourth is at -8, fifth shot penalty for it is -16. The archer gets off two shots on his first attack sequence. When all combatants have finished their first attacks, the archer may take the next two. Finally, after everyone has completed their second attacks, the archer may take one final shot. In such magically enhanced cases with haste, the first two shots are without penalty. The third and fourth are at -2. The fifth and sixth are at -4. The seventh is at -8. The eighth (and final) is at -16.

Your rate of fire is 5/2 (5 attacks every other round, 2 attacks every round [ex: your first barrage of arrows, you fire 2, next round, you fire 5, round after that, you fire 2 and so on]). In total, you'll be firing extra arrows per shot which is essentially 4 for the odd rounds and 10 for the even rounds.

With Quick Draw, you basically get another 8 shots with a slight penalty for the 8th (-4 as taken from the list below). Those 8 arrows are doubled up on each attack so realistically, that's another 16 arrows each doing near full damage (-1 damage from Double Arrow Shot).

This jumps up with haste but I'm not sure how by how much. I think it's an additional attack which would be 2 more arrows with Double Arrow Shot.

In Total, without haste, you'll be firing 12 arrows odd rounds and 34 arrows every even round.

To hit:
Elf +1
Strength 18 +1
Dexterity 18 +2
Bow Specialization +2 or +4 within 60 feet
Archer Kit +1 every 4 levels
Double Specicalization +3
Weapon Mastery +3
Double Arrow Shot -1
Total: 14 (at point blank range and only counting the first level of the Archer Kit)


Damage:
Strength 18 +2
Bow Specialization +2
Archer Kit +1
Bowyer Fletcher, Crude +2d4
Weapon Specialization +2d8 (double the sheaf arrows damage)
Double Specialization +3
Weapon Mastery +3
Double Arrow Shot +1d8 (for the additional arrow)
Double Arrow Shot -1
Total: 10+2d4+2d8 (Min: 14, Max: 34)

Total damage:
Odd Rounds: 12 arrows, Min: 168 damage, Max: 408
Even Rounds: 34 arrows, Min: 476, Max: 1,156

-STS

Off the top of my head I see three errors in what you say you sued if I dig could probably find more. So that would be munchkin in the using misunderstanding of the rules, or personal errors to create something more powerful than it really should be?

[Killer Cyborg]

Balance exists in GMing style, not in the setting. The setting should be unbalanced, so that players understand there are certain things they maybe should really just NOT mess with unless they want to seriously risk a quick death. (The CS, X-Bugs, Splugorth etc all come to mind on this)

Yup.