Forums of the Megaverse®

or anything else which might halve damage. How do we deal with odd numbers?

1/2=0.5 and 3/2=1.5 for example.

I'm wondering if there is any canon answer anywhere about whether to round fractions up or down.

Axelmania wrote:or anything else which might halve damage. How do we deal with odd numbers?

1/2=0.5 and 3/2=1.5 for example.

I'm wondering if there is any canon answer anywhere about whether to round fractions up or down.

I've always wondered that myself. It's interesting to see what a PDF search will turn up, so I searched almost all the core rulebooks using the terms "round up" and "round down." There were random rules for rounding both ways, but they dealt with various powers or circumstances. There was one game that stood out, however. In Ninjas & Superspies, on page 126 (Hand to Hand Combat), it discusses resolving combat. It provides an example of a defender rolling with a knockout punch and in the example, it says to "always round up for fractions." Why is Ninjas & Superspies different than everything else? I suspect because it was written by Erick Wujcik and almost all the other games were written by Kevin. Different authors bringing their different perspectives, styles or nuances, I suppose.

I'd personally change the rounding to be favorable to what was being attempted, so in this case I'd round down (that likely isn't canon, however).

Axelmania wrote:or anything else which might halve damage. How do we deal with odd numbers?

1/2=0.5 and 3/2=1.5 for example.

I'm wondering if there is any canon answer anywhere about whether to round fractions up or down.

You round down the amount of damage taken, because there's no way to take a partial point of damage, and there's no rule increasing that partial point to a full point.

Hm... are we technically told you can't take a partial point of damage? I can't remember ever reading that, so perhaps we could just track 0.5 damage?

Axelmania wrote:Hm... are we technically told you can't take a partial point of damage? I can't remember ever reading that, so perhaps we could just track 0.5 damage?

We're never told that you CAN, and 1 point of SDC damage is the finest level of granualarity allowed by the rules.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Axelmania wrote:or anything else which might halve damage. How do we deal with odd numbers?

1/2=0.5 and 3/2=1.5 for example.

I'm wondering if there is any canon answer anywhere about whether to round fractions up or down.

You round down the amount of damage taken, because there's no way to take a partial point of damage, and there's no rule increasing that partial point to a full point.

Easy way to test that.
We can look and see if there are any cases of something saying "minimum one point" or the like.
We can also look and see if there are any examples of rounding in examples in books of an ability being used and see what is done there.

eliakon wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Axelmania wrote:or anything else which might halve damage. How do we deal with odd numbers?

1/2=0.5 and 3/2=1.5 for example.

I'm wondering if there is any canon answer anywhere about whether to round fractions up or down.

You round down the amount of damage taken, because there's no way to take a partial point of damage, and there's no rule increasing that partial point to a full point.

Easy way to test that.
We can look and see if there are any cases of something saying "minimum one point" or the like.
We can also look and see if there are any examples of rounding in examples in books of an ability being used and see what is done there.

See my above post. That may shed some light on it.

Jack Burton wrote:

eliakon wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Axelmania wrote:or anything else which might halve damage. How do we deal with odd numbers?

1/2=0.5 and 3/2=1.5 for example.

I'm wondering if there is any canon answer anywhere about whether to round fractions up or down.

You round down the amount of damage taken, because there's no way to take a partial point of damage, and there's no rule increasing that partial point to a full point.

Easy way to test that.
We can look and see if there are any cases of something saying "minimum one point" or the like.
We can also look and see if there are any examples of rounding in examples in books of an ability being used and see what is done there.

See my above post. That may shed some light on it.

With out knowing which way the various rounding up and downs went I can't really go further.
Its hard to extrapolate and figure out for example if some/all are one off rules about individual powers or if some/all are general rules.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Axelmania wrote:or anything else which might halve damage. How do we deal with odd numbers?

1/2=0.5 and 3/2=1.5 for example.

I'm wondering if there is any canon answer anywhere about whether to round fractions up or down.

You round down the amount of damage taken, because there's no way to take a partial point of damage, and there's no rule increasing that partial point to a full point.

Since Jack Burton says that there are rule citations that say to round up...
that would tell us that there are rules that increase partial points to a full point in at least some situations.

Aside from RWB, another combat example to look for would be "near miss" situations with blast radius, since that is also half damage.

RMB41 even talks about double-halving it when you RWB after being in blast radius, which would then bring up how you would round 0.25 or 0.75 (or if you must round at all).

Pulled Punches (which can halve or quarter damage) are another situation.

Jack Burton wrote:In Ninjas & Superspies, on page 126 (Hand to Hand Combat), it discusses resolving combat. It provides an example of a defender rolling with a knockout punch and in the example, it says to "always round up for fractions." Why is Ninjas & Superspies different than everything else? I suspect because it was written by Erick Wujcik and almost all the other games were written by Kevin. Different authors bringing their different perspectives, styles or nuances, I suppose.

I overlooked this! But IS it different if we can't find an example of Kevin using RWB and rounding down?

This is also a VERY ODDLY WRITTEN part... I mean just look at it...

That doesn't beat Bruno's Strike roll of 7. Kajo's defense fails
..
Bruno's successful punch does 1D4 worth of damage.
Bruno rolls a puny 1,
but his +4 bonus to Damage is added into make the total equal to 4.

That's probably intended as 1+4=5 or 1+3=4. I'm thinking the first one based on the following.

Kajo attempts to Roll with Bruno's successful punch.
His dice roll is 12, easily better than Bruno's Strike of 5.
That means Kajo only takes half damage,
half of 5 being 3
(always round up for fractions).

That could be a mistake too, I guess. The strike roll was 7, not 5. It specified earlier you need to beat the strike roll, not the damage.

Killer Cyborg wrote:We're never told that you CAN, and 1 point of SDC damage is the finest level of granualarity allowed by the rules.

Without a rule prohibiting decimals, I don't see how.

Axelmania wrote:Aside from RWB, another combat example to look for would be "near miss" situations with blast radius, since that is also half damage.

RMB41 even talks about double-halving it when you RWB after being in blast radius, which would then bring up how you would round 0.25 or 0.75 (or if you must round at all).

Pulled Punches (which can halve or quarter damage) are another situation.

Jack Burton wrote:In Ninjas & Superspies, on page 126 (Hand to Hand Combat), it discusses resolving combat. It provides an example of a defender rolling with a knockout punch and in the example, it says to "always round up for fractions." Why is Ninjas & Superspies different than everything else? I suspect because it was written by Erick Wujcik and almost all the other games were written by Kevin. Different authors bringing their different perspectives, styles or nuances, I suppose.

I overlooked this!

With so many books out there, it's amlost impossible to find things when you need to. I've come to rely on the search feature in Acrobat. Works awesome, provided you have the digital copies. (A good incentive to pick up as many as you can from DriveThruRPG!)

Axelmania wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:We're never told that you CAN, and 1 point of SDC damage is the finest level of granualarity allowed by the rules.

Without a rule prohibiting decimals, I don't see how.

There's no need for a rule prohibiting decimals.
There is no rule ALLOWING decimals.

Killer Cyborg wrote:There's no need for a rule prohibiting decimals.
There is no rule ALLOWING decimals.

Decimals are something adults inherently understand how to use in math. I think the target audience for all of Palladium's games is mature enough to use them, so they could be an assumed option.

BTW, is there also no need for a rule prohibiting water toxemiabecause there is no rule allowing water toxemia?

Axelmania wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:There's no need for a rule prohibiting decimals.
There is no rule ALLOWING decimals.

Decimals are something adults inherently understand how to use in math. I think the target audience for all of Palladium's games is mature enough to use them, so they could be an assumed option.

BTW, is there also no need for a rule prohibiting water toxemiabecause there is no rule allowing water toxemia?

Axel, do you play as a GM, player or go back and forth?

Yes, one of those.

Back to the topic please.

Axelmania wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:There's no need for a rule prohibiting decimals.
There is no rule ALLOWING decimals.

Decimals are something adults inherently understand how to use in math. I think the target audience for all of Palladium's games is mature enough to use them, so they could be an assumed option.

Nope.
If you want to claim that decimals are intended to be used, find a case in canon where they ARE used.

Axelmania wrote:Yes, one of those.

Back to the topic please.

It's a valid question. Which side of the screen a person is on more often does tend to influence how they interpret rules. .

Myrrhibis wrote:It's a valid question. Which side of the screen a person is on more often does tend to influence how they interpret rules.

Beg to differ. Feel free to answer how you feel about both groups.

Killer Cyborg wrote:If you want to claim that decimals are intended to be used, find a case in canon where they ARE used.

If you want to claim that rounding is intended to be used, find a case in canon when rounding up/down is used.

If you do, I will of course follow up with that setting a precedent that the default is NOT to round unless specified.

Axelmania wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:If you want to claim that decimals are intended to be used, find a case in canon where they ARE used.

If you want to claim that rounding is intended to be used, find a case in canon when rounding up/down is used.

Not near my books this week, but I bet that YOU could find cases, if you look.


Of you could just understand that the way games work is that they have set levels of granularity unless otherwise specified.
You can't have a PS score f 18.5 in Rifts or any other RPG that doesn't allow for decimals.
You can't pay somebody 50 cents in Monopoly.
You can't score half a basket in basketball.
And so forth.

Killer Cyborg wrote:You can't have a PS score f 18.5 in Rifts or any other RPG that doesn't allow for decimals.

If you have a PS of 37 and something says to halve your PS, and doesn't say to round up or down, then why not?

Unless decimals are DISallowed (outlawed) I think it's fair to assume we can use whatever numbers the rules call for.

Axelmania wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:You can't have a PS score f 18.5 in Rifts or any other RPG that doesn't allow for decimals.

If you have a PS of 37 and something says to halve your PS, and doesn't say to round up or down, then why not?

Because the rules don't allow for that level of granularity.

Why not? Do the rules also not allow me to cast a spell 1.5 feet away?

Axelmania wrote:Why not?

You'd have to ask the rule-makers.

Do the rules also not allow me to cast a spell 1.5 feet away?

Not if you roll dice to determine range, no.

But typically, the range of a spell is a maximum distance, not a specific distance, so it's not really comparable to damage: damage is specific.

Again, I'm away from my books this week.
But if you really want answers to the question "can SDC/HP damage be inflicted in fraction or decimal amounts,"
I think you can find places in the books where it describes an attack doing "no damage (less than 1 HP)" or similar such wording.
Might be under insects, blowgun needles, and other similar kinds of attacks.

Book of Magic
Page 179
Lesser Animal Drawing: Wasp or Bee "Causing one S.D.C. point of damage per every two stings"

I think that pretty much settles the issue of "can you do less than one point of damage" for good and all.
As their attack does 1/2 a point of damage

eliakon wrote:Book of Magic
Page 179
Lesser Animal Drawing: Wasp or Bee "Causing one S.D.C. point of damage per every two stings"

I think that pretty much settles the issue of "can you do less than one point of damage" for good and all.
As their attack does 1/2 a point of damage

Nice find, BUT...

Actually, I'd argue the other way!

The fact that the damage is listed as 1 point per TWO stings indicates that there is no way to deal less than 1 point of damage.
This limit is so concrete that the books list how many attacks it takes to get to that minimum, instead of stating that each sting does 1/2 a point of damage.
As written, what it means is that if a Wasp or Bee stings your character only once, then your character takes zero damage.
It's only after the second sting when the damage is high enough to count as damage.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

eliakon wrote:Book of Magic
Page 179
Lesser Animal Drawing: Wasp or Bee "Causing one S.D.C. point of damage per every two stings"

I think that pretty much settles the issue of "can you do less than one point of damage" for good and all.
As their attack does 1/2 a point of damage

Nice find, BUT...

Actually, I'd argue the other way!

The fact that the damage is listed as 1 point per TWO stings indicates that there is no way to deal less than 1 point of damage.
This limit is so concrete that the books list how many attacks it takes to get to that minimum, instead of stating that each sting does 1/2 a point of damage.
As written, what it means is that if a Wasp or Bee stings your character only once, then your character takes zero damage.
It's only after the second sting when the damage is high enough to count as damage.

I concur with KC here. If someone is stung 5 times, they took 2 damage, not 2.5.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

eliakon wrote:Book of Magic
Page 179
Lesser Animal Drawing: Wasp or Bee "Causing one S.D.C. point of damage per every two stings"

I think that pretty much settles the issue of "can you do less than one point of damage" for good and all.
As their attack does 1/2 a point of damage

Nice find, BUT...

Actually, I'd argue the other way!

The fact that the damage is listed as 1 point per TWO stings indicates that there is no way to deal less than 1 point of damage.
This limit is so concrete that the books list how many attacks it takes to get to that minimum, instead of stating that each sting does 1/2 a point of damage.
As written, what it means is that if a Wasp or Bee stings your character only once, then your character takes zero damage.
It's only after the second sting when the damage is high enough to count as damage.

They still took that '.5' damage
because unless they take .5 you can't ever get to 2
its pretty simple
If each sting rounds down to zero then NO number of stings will ever add up to 1.
The ONLY way to have the rule make sense is if the sting does .5 damage.
it just doesn't 'take effect' until the damage is a whole number. But it is still there...just off to the side in the realm of "not important for now but track this for later"
By your logic you have this...which is the opposite of the rules
Sting <round to zero>
Sting <round to zero>
Sting <round to zero>
Sting <round to zero>

The rules clearly demonstrate it is this
Sting for .5 effect is 0
Sting for .5 effect is 1
Sting for .5 effect is 0
Sting for .5 effect is 1


Kind of how you can have machine gun bursts that do 1 MD when no individual bullet does 1 MD?
Same exact thing.
Each bullet did a fraction of an MD. And they all added up to 1 MD.
Now yes, normally you ignore the fractions.
Normally.
But not always.
The fact that we can point to examples of where you DON'T means that you can't claim it is a universal rule. Simply the easier rule of thumb.

One interesting situation is HU2p259, the end note for "Encase in Earth" mentions for those "whose arms are pinned" that "flexing to break free inflicts 10% the normal damage of a punch".

Absolutely no reference to anything "so long as you do at least 10 damage", mind you, to rule out fractions or imply downward rounding. So someone with a 1D4 punch should be able to inflict somewhere between 0.1 and 0.4 damage per attack, eventually getting up to the 30 or 60 that's required.

eliakon wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

eliakon wrote:Book of Magic
Page 179
Lesser Animal Drawing: Wasp or Bee "Causing one S.D.C. point of damage per every two stings"

I think that pretty much settles the issue of "can you do less than one point of damage" for good and all.
As their attack does 1/2 a point of damage

Nice find, BUT...

Actually, I'd argue the other way!

The fact that the damage is listed as 1 point per TWO stings indicates that there is no way to deal less than 1 point of damage.
This limit is so concrete that the books list how many attacks it takes to get to that minimum, instead of stating that each sting does 1/2 a point of damage.
As written, what it means is that if a Wasp or Bee stings your character only once, then your character takes zero damage.
It's only after the second sting when the damage is high enough to count as damage.

They still took that '.5' damage
because unless they take .5 you can't ever get to 2
its pretty simple

Simple, but incorrect.

If each sting rounds down to zero then NO number of stings will ever add up to 1.

It's not that each sting rounds down to zero.
It's that every 2nd sting inflicts 1 point of damage.

[The ONLY way to have the rule make sense is if the sting does .5 damage.
it just doesn't 'take effect' until the damage is a whole number. But it is still there...just off to the side in the realm of "not important for now but track this for later"
By your logic you have this...which is the opposite of the rules
Sting <round to zero>
Sting <round to zero>[/quote]

Incorrect.
By my logic, it works exactly as the book clearly states:
Sting <Inflicts Zero Damage>
Sting <Inflicts 1 Damage>
Sting <Inflicts Zero Damage>
Sting <Inflicts 1 Damage>

Kind of how you can have machine gun bursts that do 1 MD when no individual bullet does 1 MD?
Same exact thing.

Yes, exact same thing.
A burst does 1 MD.
Individual rounds inflict 0 MD.
There is NO mega-damage inflicted at all, unless a certain described event occurs, and when it does occur, 1 MD is inflicted.
.5 MD never happens, nor any other fraction of a damage point.

Each bullet did a fraction of an MD.

Nope.
You cannot inflict a fraction of an MD.

Axelmania wrote:One interesting situation is HU2p259, the end note for "Encase in Earth" mentions for those "whose arms are pinned" that "flexing to break free inflicts 10% the normal damage of a punch".

Absolutely no reference to anything "so long as you do at least 10 damage", mind you, to rule out fractions or imply downward rounding. So someone with a 1D4 punch should be able to inflict somewhere between 0.1 and 0.4 damage per attack, eventually getting up to the 30 or 60 that's required.

If 10% of the normal damage of a punch is <1 point of damage, then 0 points of damage are inflicted.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

eliakon wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

eliakon wrote:Book of Magic
Page 179
Lesser Animal Drawing: Wasp or Bee "Causing one S.D.C. point of damage per every two stings"

I think that pretty much settles the issue of "can you do less than one point of damage" for good and all.
As their attack does 1/2 a point of damage

Nice find, BUT...

Actually, I'd argue the other way!

The fact that the damage is listed as 1 point per TWO stings indicates that there is no way to deal less than 1 point of damage.
This limit is so concrete that the books list how many attacks it takes to get to that minimum, instead of stating that each sting does 1/2 a point of damage.
As written, what it means is that if a Wasp or Bee stings your character only once, then your character takes zero damage.
It's only after the second sting when the damage is high enough to count as damage.

They still took that '.5' damage
because unless they take .5 you can't ever get to 2
its pretty simple

Simple, but incorrect.

Good thing your not taking an elitist attitude here where you talk down to those who disagree to you.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

eliakon wrote:If each sting rounds down to zero then NO number of stings will ever add up to 1.

It's not that each sting rounds down to zero.
It's that every 2nd sting inflicts 1 point of damage.

That's not what it says though.
It says every two stings, not every second.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

eliakon wrote:The ONLY way to have the rule make sense is if the sting does .5 damage.
it just doesn't 'take effect' until the damage is a whole number. But it is still there...just off to the side in the realm of "not important for now but track this for later"
By your logic you have this...which is the opposite of the rules
Sting <round to zero>
Sting <round to zero>

Incorrect.
By my logic, it works exactly as the book clearly states:
Sting <Inflicts Zero Damage>
Sting <Inflicts 1 Damage>
Sting <Inflicts Zero Damage>
Sting <Inflicts 1 Damage>

Which is saying that the sting does either 1 point or 0 points. which isn't what it says.
It says that two points CUMULATIVELY do 1 point.
Not that every second sting does 1 point all on its own.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

eliakon wrote:Kind of how you can have machine gun bursts that do 1 MD when no individual bullet does 1 MD?
Same exact thing.

Yes, exact same thing.
A burst does 1 MD.
Individual rounds inflict 0 MD.
There is NO mega-damage inflicted at all, unless a certain described event occurs, and when it does occur, 1 MD is inflicted.
.5 MD never happens, nor any other fraction of a damage point.

I would beg to differ.
They each did their fractional MD and when/if those fractions become a whole number *before* the slate is reset then 1 MD is inflicted.
But they inflicted damage, and that damage was a portion of the whole.
One bullet didn't do the 1MD and the rest just wave pom-poms and say 'go team'

Killer Cyborg wrote:

eliakon wrote:Each bullet did a fraction of an MD.

Nope.
You cannot inflict a fraction of an MD.

The math says otherwise
Because no bullet does 1 MD and the burst did.
Seriously you are using circular logic here
Your stance is that you can't do fractional damage... because all damage is whole, therefore you can't do fractional damage.
That's circular logic.
We can demonstrate with bursts and with the drawing examples of things that do less than 1 damage individually that cumulatively do 1 point of damage.
Heck we see this all the time.
Shotgun? Cumulative damage
Burst? Cumulative damage
Rail gun? Cumulative damage
Fragmentation grenade/missile/shell? Cumulative damage
Basically all DoT? Cumulative damage

You may not track the fractions but they are there. Because if you round every fractional source down to zero... then all railguns do 0. All shotguns do 0. Acids and poisons and machineguns and more do 0.
You are confusing "can you do a fraction" and "do you actually track those fractions on your sheet" aka MDC: 23.87765
Answer to #1 is yes and #2 is no.

Killer Cyborg wrote:If 10% of the normal damage of a punch is <1 point of damage, then 0 points of damage are inflicted.

CEF: Earth makes no mention of that, what in HU2 are you basing that on?

Axelmania wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:If 10% of the normal damage of a punch is <1 point of damage, then 0 points of damage are inflicted.

CEF: Earth makes no mention of that, what in HU2 are you basing that on?

I'm basing it on there being no mechanism for finer granularity than 1 HP/SDC when it comes to damage.
Eliakon's example shows what I'm talking about: It doesn't say "1/2 HP per attack," because it's impossible to do a fraction of a HP.
It says "1 damage per 2 attacks," because the lowest amount of damage that you can inflict is 1 point.
Any damage of less than 1 point of SDC/HP effectively does not exist, just like you can't inflict .5 MD to a MD structure.

eliakon wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

eliakon wrote:If each sting rounds down to zero then NO number of stings will ever add up to 1.

It's not that each sting rounds down to zero.
It's that every 2nd sting inflicts 1 point of damage.

That's not what it says though.
It says every two stings, not every second.

Nets out the same, though.
Since the damage is 1 point per 2 stings, then...
When somebody is stung once, the listed criteria have not been met, therefore no damage is dealt.
When somebody is stung for a second time, the criteria have been met, therefore 1 point is inflicted.

Killer Cyborg wrote:it works exactly as the book clearly states:
Sting <Inflicts Zero Damage>
Sting <Inflicts 1 Damage>
Sting <Inflicts Zero Damage>
Sting <Inflicts 1 Damage>

Which is saying that the sting does either 1 point or 0 points. which isn't what it says.
It says that two points CUMULATIVELY do 1 point.
Not that every second sting does 1 point all on its own.

I don't recall the word "cumulatively" being in the book.
(scrolls back)

YOU quoted the book as saying, "Causing one S.D.C. point of damage per every two stings."
That means that every two stings, one point of damage is inflicted.
That's NOT the same as inflicting .5 damage per sting.
And unless you quoted the book incorrectly, the word "cumulatively" is NOT part of the equation.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

eliakon wrote:Kind of how you can have machine gun bursts that do 1 MD when no individual bullet does 1 MD?
Same exact thing.

Yes, exact same thing.
A burst does 1 MD.
Individual rounds inflict 0 MD.
There is NO mega-damage inflicted at all, unless a certain described event occurs, and when it does occur, 1 MD is inflicted.
.5 MD never happens, nor any other fraction of a damage point.

I would beg to differ.
They each did their fractional MD and when/if those fractions become a whole number *before* the slate is reset then 1 MD is inflicted.

Care to quote the rules that say that?
Because I can't find them.
I've NEVER seen any rules that discuss or allow for fractional MD.

But they inflicted damage, and that damage was a portion of the whole.

No. There are no portions of a whole. There is only the one damage inflicted from the one burst.
It's one attack. It has one listed damage.
There are no portions in the rules.

One bullet didn't do the 1MD and the rest just wave pom-poms and say 'go team'

Agreed.
The burst overall does 1 MD.
Fractions of the burst inflict nothing, which is why there are no damage listings for fractions of a burst.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

eliakon wrote:Each bullet did a fraction of an MD.

Nope.
You cannot inflict a fraction of an MD.

The math says otherwise

Not at all.
The math is that <1 MD = 0 MD.
The math is that 1 burst does 1 MD.
Fractions of bursts do not exist in canon--that's something that you're assuming, but that is nowhere in the rules.

Seriously you are using circular logic here
Your stance is that you can't do fractional damage... because all damage is whole, therefore you can't do fractional damage.
That's circular logic.

No.
My stance is that you can't do fractional damage, because nowhere in the books do we ever see fractional damage, and nowhere in the books do the rules allow for fractional damage.
If the rules said you took .5 damage per sting, that would be one thing.
But what they say is that you take 1 point of damage per 2 stings, and THAT is because 1 damage is the absolute minimum that the rules allow for.

We can demonstrate with bursts and with the drawing examples of things that do less than 1 damage individually that cumulatively do 1 point of damage.
Heck we see this all the time.
Shotgun? Cumulative damage
Burst? Cumulative damage
Rail gun? Cumulative damage
Fragmentation grenade/missile/shell? Cumulative damage
Basically all DoT? Cumulative damage

Incorrect.
In each of those cases, what we're actually looking at is the same thing: Attack X inflicts Y damage.
A double-blast from a shotgun is not two different attacks that accumulate. It's one attack that inflicts one listed damage.
Bursts are not multiple attacks that accumulate; they're a single attack that inflict a single listed damage.
Right on down the list.

You're looking at a game as if it were reality, or as if there were a larger reality than what's in the rules, but there isn't.
The reason why a double blast from a shotgun usually inflicts twice the damage of a single shot is NOT because there are two rounds hitting the target.
There aren't two rounds hitting the target.
There aren't two rounds.
There aren't any rounds.
It's all a fantasy.
The reason why a double-blast from a shotgun usually inflicts twice the damage of a single shot is simply because that's what the rules decree the damage to be.
That is the only reason.
Standard shotgun shells inflict 4d6 SDC (RGMG 112) because that's the damage listed, NOT because that's the accumulated damage of each pellet.
A double blast with standard shells inflict 8d6 SDC because that's the damage listed, NOT because that's the accumulated damage of each pellet.
The writer could just have easily listed 100d6, and that would still be canon.
An explosive plasma shotgun shell inflicts 3d6 MD because that's the listed damage for that kind of attack, not because it's the accumulated damage of all the bits of plasma.
There are no bits of plasma.
A double blast with explosive plasma shotgun shells inflict 5d6 MD, NOT because that's the accumulated damage of 3d6 from one barrel, and 3d6 from another barrel--it's NOT.
It inflicts 5d6 MD because that's the listed damage for that attack.
That's all.
That's all there IS.

Once you try to extrapolate anything more, you're making up house rules.

Re "fractional MDC" idea: what would happen to a creature with 10 MDC who via Universal Balance has 1000 SDC and suffers 50 SDC of damage, reducing them to 950 SDC, and then the spell ends. How much MDC would they have?

Killer Cyborg wrote:I'm basing it on there being no mechanism for finer granularity than 1 HP/SDC when it comes to damage.

Math is the mechanism.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Eliakon's example shows what I'm talking about: It doesn't say "1/2 HP per attack," because it's impossible to do a fraction of a HP.

It says "1 damage per 2 attacks," because the lowest amount of damage that you can inflict is 1 point.
Any damage of less than 1 point of SDC/HP effectively does not exist, just like you can't inflict .5 MD to a MD structure.

You're jumping to conclusions as to the why here.

Perhaps it just works like Nigeki Kessatsu.

MD follows unique rules, we should not extrapolate MD rules to SDC.

Axelmania wrote:Re "fractional MDC" idea: what would happen to a creature with 10 MDC who via Universal Balance has 1000 SDC and suffers 50 SDC of damage, reducing them to 950 SDC, and then the spell ends. How much MDC would they have?

9.

Killer Cyborg wrote:I'm basing it on there being no mechanism for finer granularity than 1 HP/SDC when it comes to damage.

Math is the mechanism.[/quote]

Nope.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Eliakon's example shows what I'm talking about: It doesn't say "1/2 HP per attack," because it's impossible to do a fraction of a HP.

It says "1 damage per 2 attacks," because the lowest amount of damage that you can inflict is 1 point.
Any damage of less than 1 point of SDC/HP effectively does not exist, just like you can't inflict .5 MD to a MD structure.

You're jumping to conclusions as to the why here.

Perhaps it just works like Nigeki Kessatsu.[/quote]

?

MD follows unique rules, we should not extrapolate MD rules to SDC.

Source?

If you want to make guesses about extrapolating MDC rules to SDC then I think you'd be the one expected to provide a source.

Decimal points are a well-understood granularity. We've seen Palladium use them for converting imperial to metric. Due to this, the precedent is set that they expect readers to understand how to use them, at least to one place (tenths).

Axelmania wrote:If you want to make guesses about extrapolating MDC rules to SDC then I think you'd be the one expected to provide a source.

I'm not making any such claim.
YOU made a claim that it isn't so, though, so it's up to you to support that claim.

Decimal points are a well-understood granularity. We've seen Palladium use them for converting imperial to metric. Due to this, the precedent is set that they expect readers to understand how to use them, at least to one place (tenths).

So... because Palladium maths in one place, they must different math in another?

We are well into the weeds here.

Well anyway, we at least know that we round up fractional damage in N&SS. Since other games don't specify that... you divide, and you don't do more than you're told to do.

Just for WIW...
It is now offiical that you can have fractional PPE points as the 1/2 PPE point has been observed in canon.
This means that we can no longer claim that all other values must be quantal, or that if they are that 1 is the lowest value.

Prysus wrote:

eliakon wrote:It is now offiical that you can have fractional PPE points as the 1/2 PPE point has been observed in canon.

Greetings and Salutations. Out of curiosity, where is that half P.P.E. point in canon mentioned? Good to know for the future. Farewell and safe journeys.

Ripper Fruit Wasp
Rifts Bestiary page 218-220
Page 219 P.P.E.: Half of one point each

Axelmania wrote:Well anyway, we at least know that we round up fractional damage in N&SS. Since other games don't specify that... you divide, and you don't do more than you're told to do.

As in, "You don't make up fractional points unless you're told that such a thing can exist within the game rules," I agree.

eliakon wrote:

Prysus wrote:

eliakon wrote:It is now offical that you can have fractional PPE points as the 1/2 PPE point has been observed in canon.

Greetings and Salutations. Out of curiosity, where is that half P.P.E. point in canon mentioned? Good to know for the future. Farewell and safe journeys.

Ripper Fruit Wasp
Rifts Bestiary page 218-220
Page 219 P.P.E.: Half of one point each

Interesting find!

I wonder if there's a way to exploit this.
Like if there are any ill effects that kick in at 0 PPE that could be avoided, or any positive effects that work as long as the character has more than 0 PPE.

eliakon wrote:

Prysus wrote:

eliakon wrote:It is now offiical that you can have fractional PPE points as the 1/2 PPE point has been observed in canon.

Greetings and Salutations. Out of curiosity, where is that half P.P.E. point in canon mentioned? Good to know for the future. Farewell and safe journeys.

Ripper Fruit Wasp
Rifts Bestiary page 218-220
Page 219 P.P.E.: Half of one point each

"Borrow PPE from Plants" (Spirit West 51) sort of hinted at this too, where you draw a random amount from vegetation in general rather than a singular plant, which at 1D4 in sparse conditions might involve drawing 1 PPE from 2 plants.

Dead Reign 38 also has "A fraction of one PPE point returns one SDC only"

Axelmania wrote:Dead Reign 38 also has "A fraction of one PPE point returns one SDC only"

Probably because "one SDC" is the minimum that can be returned.