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

[Killer Cyborg]

Here's another thing I found...

RUE 347
Under Hand to Hand Combat Skills

ALL bonuses are accumulative. That means each new level offers bonuses and combat capabilities that are added to those previously acquired.

Unlike the WP section, the HTH section explains what "ALL bonuses are accumulative" means.

[Axelmania]

But physical skills don't add per level you get them at first.

[Killer Cyborg]

But physical skills don't add per level you get them at first.

HTH skills are Physical Skills.

[HWalsh]

But physical skills don't add per level you get them at first.

Uh, you actually do get bonuses from some physical skills. Gymnastics and Acrobatics noteably do.

Either way KC has you dead to rights here. We now have a definition of accumulative as far as RUE goes.

[Blue_Lion]

So what we have is a dentition for all bonuses are accumulative as it applies to hand to hand, this limits it to just bonuses from 1 hand to hand style. It is also in line with converted charters from Ninjas and super spies that may have more than 1 hand to hand style but only use 1 at a time.

As KC pointed out the limit is not found in weapon proficiency where it says all bonuses are accumulative. A restriction to a skill bonus typically needs to be with where you define the skills or say how they work. A limit like that not put in place until 27 pages later in a different topic not addressing WP seams a stretch to say it applies to WP.

So while it clearly limits all bonuses are accumulative to level based increases in hand to hand styles in RAW, the distance and disconnect between that and WP means it is a bit of a logical stretch to say it applies to an earlier usage of the term. (Logically if you define a term you must start with telling how it is defined or where it is defined you only wait to tell a limit to the term when the limit is a change.)

[Killer Cyborg]

So what we have is a dentition for all bonuses are accumulative as it applies to hand to hand, this limits it to just bonuses from 1 hand to hand style. It is also in line with converted charters from Ninjas and super spies that may have more than 1 hand to hand style but only use 1 at a time.

As KC pointed out the limit is not found in weapon proficiency where it says all bonuses are accumulative. A restriction to a skill bonus typically needs to be with where you define the skills or say how they work. A limit like that not put in place until 27 pages later in a different topic not addressing WP seams a stretch to say it applies to WP.

Not at all.
Palladium defined the key phrase in question.
Do definitions only apply to the paragraph or section that they're listed in?

[Blue_Lion]

So what we have is a dentition for all bonuses are accumulative as it applies to hand to hand, this limits it to just bonuses from 1 hand to hand style. It is also in line with converted charters from Ninjas and super spies that may have more than 1 hand to hand style but only use 1 at a time.

As KC pointed out the limit is not found in weapon proficiency where it says all bonuses are accumulative. A restriction to a skill bonus typically needs to be with where you define the skills or say how they work. A limit like that not put in place until 27 pages later in a different topic not addressing WP seams a stretch to say it applies to WP.

Not at all.
Palladium defined the key phrase in question.
Do definitions only apply to the paragraph or section that they're listed in?

They defined it for hand to hand combat, that does not mean that every time it was used bofore then it had the same meaning. If it always had that restriction then it would make sense to tell it up front right away. Not wait until you used the same term multiple times.

Context is important, the context of that meaning is hand to hand, by context of what they are talking about there is no reason to assume it includes earlier usage of the term, as the context is to address something specific.

In addition reading it in the book how they defined it does not limit it to one skill.
The way it is written anything that provides a bonus at a new level is adding in as it does not limit it to just one source.

The way it is written if leveling up provided a bonus then you add it in, with nothing in the text limiting the source of the bonus to just one skill. The context it self is addressing hand to hand skills so it is safe by the context to assume they are talking about hand to hand skills.

[Blue_Lion]

But physical skills don't add per level you get them at first.

Uh, you actually do get bonuses from some physical skills. Gymnastics and Acrobatics noteably do.

Either way KC has you dead to rights here. We now have a definition of accumulative as far as RUE goes.

Nope we have a definition of accumulative as it applies to hand to hand. It is not a general statement on what it means but a statement on what it means in hand to hand.

[eliakon]

But physical skills don't add per level you get them at first.

Uh, you actually do get bonuses from some physical skills. Gymnastics and Acrobatics noteably do.

Either way KC has you dead to rights here. We now have a definition of accumulative as far as RUE goes.

Nope we have a definition of accumulative as it applies to hand to hand. It is not a general statement on what it means but a statement on what it means in hand to hand.

By this logic then NOTHING applies to anything unless it is defined in that section to.
Which is pretty absurd
it is pretty safe to assume that when someone says provides a +1 to strike that they don't need to define what the words "plus" "one" and "Strike" mean.
We already know what those words mean in Palladium.
The only time that we need to know is if there are multiple uses of a definition used.
If you can find a different usage of the word "Accumulative" then you might have a basis for arguing that we don't know what usage they mean.
But the argument that we can ignore the definition used in one area because it is not defined in another area is patently absurd.

[Axelmania]

But physical skills don't add per level you get them at first.

Uh, you actually do get bonuses from some physical skills. Gymnastics and Acrobatics noteably do.

Either way KC has you dead to rights here. We now have a definition of accumulative as far as RUE goes.

Bonuses per level.

KC pointing out a separate statement about accumulative bonuses for HTH skills from the one for physical skills doesn't out anything "dead to rights", not sure what argument this is perceived as supporting.

Pretty sure the basics if this is stuff like being +3 parry/dodge for Athletics/Boxing or +4 to PS for Bodybuilding/Wrestling. That is about separate skills both contributing to a better end, not level advancement for a single skill.

Why they rephrase it in HTH is probably to contrast with how bonuses appeared to work in the Palladium RPG where the total bonus was listed every time one improved.

If I'm wrong about that and Palladium RPG hand to hands were cumulative... Then they were pretty awesome. I just noticed that the higher level bonuses always exceeded the lower and drew the conclusion.

[dreicunan]

Strictly speaking, the phrase that KC quoted doesn't preclude two different WPs from applying to the same weapons (though I would consider it to be a potential sign of authorial intent); after all, the bonuses apply whenever a weapon of that particular "type" is used.

Another find - "Combat Bonuses" are defined on page 344: "All appropriate bonuses available to the character are added to the various fighting abilities such as strike, parry or dodge, as well as initiative and saving throws. High physical attributes, certain Physical Skills, Weapon Proficiencies (W.P.), the occasional O.C.C. bonus, racial bonus, and genetic enhancement may provide one or more combat bonuses. All applicable bonuses are combined and added to the character's dice rolls. Do not combine the strike bonus with the parry bonus, and so on; each combat maneuver is considered a separate category, so only the various bonuses to strike are added to the strike roll, bonuses to parry added to the parry roll and so forth."

"All applicable bonuses are combined." So it comes down to if you consider the bonuses from two WPs to be "applicable." There still is no clear indication that only one WP can apply if a character is wielding a weapon that falls under multiple "types" of weapons.

[Axelmania]

>All applicable bonuses are combined and added

This. Basically we need a.condition of nonapplicability. To exclude.

[J_cobbers]

Here's another thing I found...

RUE 347
Under Hand to Hand Combat Skills

ALL bonuses are accumulative. That means each new level offers bonuses and combat capabilities that are added to those previously acquired.

Unlike the WP section, the HTH section explains what "ALL bonuses are accumulative" means.

A good find for the definition of accumulative in general, and for HTH specifically. Since combat with ancient weapons falls under hand to hand combat, as opposed to modern weapon ranged combat, the operative question is, does this definition act as an exclusion for weapons falling into multiple WPs? What it does tell us is that for a H2H skill, every time there is a new bonus from leveling up, that bonus is added to it's appropriate category of bonuses already accumulated at prior levels i.e. Strike, Parry, Throw, Entangle, Roll with Impact, etc. What it doesn't tell us is that this definition of accumulative only allows a single WP to be sourced to a given type of weapon, i.e. staffs. And again the ancient WP definition states that those WP for bonuses that particular weapon are accumulative and combined with H2H skill, PP, and OCC bonuses. If we incorporate the H2H definition of accumulative to the WP rule, all I see is that it means appropriate WP's bonuses are added to the appropriate bonus category for that particular weapon when they accrue due to leveling up. I still don't see a clear exclusion for preventing stacking of weapons listed in multiple WPs under RAW

That being said, as I have stated in earlier posts, I like the pick only on WP to apply to a weapon house rule, or take the best bonuses for a weapon from each applicable WP, but don't actually stack them. But as this discussion is about what the RAW definition is, even though I don't particularly like it, I think stacking applies for staves (and probably tridents) RAW.

P.S. I think this is one of the best rules discussions I've seen on the board for a long time as it is not an easy question to answer. I totally have a love/hate relationship with PB rules, I love discussing and debating them outside of the game, as they are often not as clear as they could be and open to some interpretation, but as a player of RPGs, I hate that ambiguity in the game. If I haven't told ya'll I just took the WI bar exam (10+ years after graduating Law School and taking a stint enlisted in the Army after that) so I find a lot of parallels in these rule discussions to researching and making arguments for legal briefs and exam questions. Helps me keep my professional skills sharp, while enjoying one of my favorite hobbies.

[eliakon]

Here's another thing I found...

RUE 347
Under Hand to Hand Combat Skills

ALL bonuses are accumulative. That means each new level offers bonuses and combat capabilities that are added to those previously acquired.

Unlike the WP section, the HTH section explains what "ALL bonuses are accumulative" means.

A good find for the definition of accumulative in general, and for HTH specifically. Since combat with ancient weapons falls under hand to hand combat, as opposed to modern weapon ranged combat, the operative question is, does this definition act as an exclusion for weapons falling into multiple WPs? What it does tell us is that for a H2H skill, every time there is a new bonus from leveling up, that bonus is added to it's appropriate category of bonuses already accumulated at prior levels i.e. Strike, Parry, Throw, Entangle, Roll with Impact, etc. What it doesn't tell us is that this definition of accumulative only allows a single WP to be sourced to a given type of weapon, i.e. staffs. And again the ancient WP definition states that those WP for bonuses that particular weapon are accumulative and combined with H2H skill, PP, and OCC bonuses. If we incorporate the H2H definition of accumulative to the WP rule, all I see is that it means appropriate WP's bonuses are added to the appropriate bonus category for that particular weapon when they accrue due to leveling up. I still don't see a clear exclusion for preventing stacking of weapons listed in multiple WPs under RAW

That being said, as I have stated in earlier posts, I like the pick only on WP to apply to a weapon house rule, or take the best bonuses for a weapon from each applicable WP, but don't actually stack them. But as this discussion is about what the RAW definition is, even though I don't particularly like it, I think stacking applies for staves (and probably tridents) RAW.

P.S. I think this is one of the best rules discussions I've seen on the board for a long time as it is not an easy question to answer. I totally have a love/hate relationship with PB rules, I love discussing and debating them outside of the game, as they are often not as clear as they could be and open to some interpretation, but as a player of RPGs, I hate that ambiguity in the game. If I haven't told ya'll I just took the WI bar exam (10+ years after graduating Law School and taking a stint enlisted in the Army after that) so I find a lot of parallels in these rule discussions to researching and making arguments for legal briefs and exam questions. Helps me keep my professional skills sharp, while enjoying one of my favorite hobbies.

Then what about the statement that WPs combine 'rarely' when discussing targeting/archery.
If every WP stacks automatically then 1) there is no need to call out that these two WPs stack, as it should be simply assumed that they do and 2) they are not rare, its rare when they don't...
Both of which seem to fly in the opposition of the text.

[Killer Cyborg]

Here's another thing I found...

RUE 347
Under Hand to Hand Combat Skills

ALL bonuses are accumulative. That means each new level offers bonuses and combat capabilities that are added to those previously acquired.

Unlike the WP section, the HTH section explains what "ALL bonuses are accumulative" means.

A good find for the definition of accumulative in general, and for HTH specifically. Since combat with ancient weapons falls under hand to hand combat, as opposed to modern weapon ranged combat, the operative question is, does this definition act as an exclusion for weapons falling into multiple WPs? What it does tell us is that for a H2H skill, every time there is a new bonus from leveling up, that bonus is added to it's appropriate category of bonuses already accumulated at prior levels i.e. Strike, Parry, Throw, Entangle, Roll with Impact, etc.
What it doesn't tell us is that this definition of accumulative only allows a single WP to be sourced to a given type of weapon, i.e. staffs. And again the ancient WP definition states that those WP for bonuses that particular weapon are accumulative and combined with H2H skill, PP, and OCC bonuses.

Yes. It states that those bonuses are:
1) accumulative (presumably as per the definition given in the HTH section)
and
2) combined with HTH skill, PP, and OCC bonuses.

There is nothing stating that they are combined with other WPs, and "other WPs" is absent from that list.

If we incorporate the H2H definition of accumulative to the WP rule, all I see is that it means appropriate WP's bonuses are added to the appropriate bonus category for that particular weapon when they accrue due to leveling up. I still don't see a clear exclusion for preventing stacking of weapons listed in multiple WPs under RAW

There is no clear exclusion in RAW. What we'd need there is a specific statement of "WPs do not stack with other WPs unless specified," and know of no such entry.
But I do believe that we have plenty of indications that WPs do not stack with other WPs (unless specified) as per RAI.

But as this discussion is about what the RAW definition is, even though I don't particularly like it, I think stacking applies for staves (and probably tridents) RAW.

Rifts doesn't work RAW.
Discussing rules strictly RAW is fruitless, because it always results in a broken game in the long run.

P.S. I think this is one of the best rules discussions I've seen on the board for a long time as it is not an easy question to answer. I totally have a love/hate relationship with PB rules, I love discussing and debating them outside of the game, as they are often not as clear as they could be and open to some interpretation, but as a player of RPGs, I hate that ambiguity in the game. If I haven't told ya'll I just took the WI bar exam (10+ years after graduating Law School and taking a stint enlisted in the Army after that) so I find a lot of parallels in these rule discussions to researching and making arguments for legal briefs and exam questions. Helps me keep my professional skills sharp, while enjoying one of my favorite hobbies.

[Axelmania]

If every WP stacks automatically then 1) there is no need to call out that these two WPs stack, as it should be simply assumed that they do

Sort of like "Mega: Damage: 1D6 MD" Palladium sometimes throws out unnecessary instructions.

2) they are not rare, its rare when they don't...

It's still pretty rare even with the proposed Blunt/Shield Blunt/Staff combos, that's still less than half of the weapons.

[Killer Cyborg]

If every WP stacks automatically then 1) there is no need to call out that these two WPs stack, as it should be simply assumed that they do

Sort of like "Mega: Damage: 1D6 MD" Palladium sometimes throws out unnecessary instructions.

2) they are not rare, its rare when they don't...

It's still pretty rare even with the proposed Blunt/Shield Blunt/Staff combos, that's still less than half of the weapons.

"Less than half" is not a likely standard for "rare."

Neither is "as a default."

[Axelmania]

Less than a third?

Default policy doesn't matter if it doesn't come into play often.

[Killer Cyborg]

Less than a third?

Seems a stretch, but I guess it's possible?
What's the math?

Default policy doesn't matter if it doesn't come into play often.

If my GM ran the rules that way, it'd come into play almost every game.

[J_cobbers]

Then what about the statement that WPs combine 'rarely' when discussing targeting/archery.
If every WP stacks automatically then 1) there is no need to call out that these two WPs stack, as it should be simply assumed that they do and 2) they are not rare, its rare when they don't...
Both of which seem to fly in the opposition of the text.

Rarely doesn't mean never, and it certainly doesn't mean all, and while targeting and archery are specific examples, the use of the word rarely, doesn't mean that those are the exclusive instances where WP stacking may apply. WP's don't "stack automatically;" there has to be either a write up in the WP stating that they do, as in targeting/archery, or the weapon in question has to be listed under more than one WP.

I think the term 'rarely' has been discuss quite a bit already, but to be brief, one or two instances where more than one WP specifically lists a specific weapon as falling under it's purview (as WP Staff and WP Blunt specifically list staff) seems relatively 'rare' to me. We aren't given much other context as to how to interpret it, but to borrow the approach of strict construction of rules, if multiple WPs specifically lists a particular weapon (not just conjecturing that a given weapon might fall under them) then the bonuses should apply to the weapon.

[J_cobbers]

Here's another thing I found...

RUE 347
Under Hand to Hand Combat Skills

ALL bonuses are accumulative. That means each new level offers bonuses and combat capabilities that are added to those previously acquired.

Unlike the WP section, the HTH section explains what "ALL bonuses are accumulative" means.

A good find for the definition of accumulative in general, and for HTH specifically. Since combat with ancient weapons falls under hand to hand combat, as opposed to modern weapon ranged combat, the operative question is, does this definition act as an exclusion for weapons falling into multiple WPs? What it does tell us is that for a H2H skill, every time there is a new bonus from leveling up, that bonus is added to it's appropriate category of bonuses already accumulated at prior levels i.e. Strike, Parry, Throw, Entangle, Roll with Impact, etc.
What it doesn't tell us is that this definition of accumulative only allows a single WP to be sourced to a given type of weapon, i.e. staffs. And again the ancient WP definition states that those WP for bonuses that particular weapon are accumulative and combined with H2H skill, PP, and OCC bonuses.

Yes. It states that those bonuses are:
1) accumulative (presumably as per the definition given in the HTH section)
and
2) combined with HTH skill, PP, and OCC bonuses.

There is nothing stating that they are combined with other WPs, and "other WPs" is absent from that list.

Which is where I think the use term accumulative is still open enough even under the H2H definition to include from other WPs, as the anchient WP section says all bonuses for THAT weapon (not WP) are accumulative. It's the use of the specific words "that weapon" are what my interpretation really turn on. If it has said all bonuses for "that WP are accumulative" instead, then I would probably interpret it differently when looking at things RAW.

This is a simple disagreement of RAI, and again even though it is my conclusion of what I think the rules actually mean, I'd house rule it to best bonuses of applicable WPs, not total combined bonuses of applicable WPs. I think it is fair to have a disagreement over equally logical conclusions.

If we incorporate the H2H definition of accumulative to the WP rule, all I see is that it means appropriate WP's bonuses are added to the appropriate bonus category for that particular weapon when they accrue due to leveling up. I still don't see a clear exclusion for preventing stacking of weapons listed in multiple WPs under RAW

There is no clear exclusion in RAW. What we'd need there is a specific statement of "WPs do not stack with other WPs unless specified," and know of no such entry.
But I do believe that we have plenty of indications that WPs do not stack with other WPs (unless specified) as per RAI.

Again a difference of interpretation, and a specific statement going either way would be super helpful, but there isn't which of course leads us all down the path of madness.

But as this discussion is about what the RAW definition is, even though I don't particularly like it, I think stacking applies for staves (and probably tridents) RAW.

Rifts doesn't work RAW.
Discussing rules strictly RAW is fruitless, because it always results in a broken game in the long run.

True story, RAW is broke, but it provides the lense to look at what works and what doesn't so you can apply your own fixes. For me the bonuses offered from WP staff are totally pointless/useless compared to WP blunt. WP blunt's bonuses are acquired at a faster rate than WP Staff. The exception is where WP Staff serves as a kind of prerequisite for certain OCCs who specialize in using staves, like the Monk in PF RPG or some OCCs in Rifts Japan, which are specifically built around using them.

[Axelmania]

Seems a stretch, but I guess it's possible? What's the math?

I didn't want to do it... hm... well I'll just use the ancient WP in RUE~326

[list=]
1. Archery
2. Axe
3. Blunt
4. Chain
5. Forked
6. Grappling Hook
7. Knife
8. Paired *
9. Pole Arm
10. Quick Draw *
11. Rope
12. Shield
13. Sling Shot *
14. Spear
15. Staff
16. Sword
17. Targeting
18. Whip
[/list]

I'm just going to go with 15 because Paired/Quick Draw seem like tactical stuff not weapony stuff, and Sling Shot just says to see Targeting so it's not an actual listing, even though Sling Shot did I think originally have its own WP in the Palladium RPG.

I'm not sure how to count in terms of fractions here though... are we talking about the number of 'nexus' skills which can apply to others?

Blunt has had arguments made for adding it to at least 2: Shield and Staff
Targeting seems to add to at least 3, Axe / Knife / Spear

So 3+4=7 which is less than half, anyway. If you view it as just the nexus/node skills, 2/15 is less than 1/5

[Killer Cyborg]

Seems a stretch, but I guess it's possible? What's the math?

I didn't want to do it... hm... well I'll just use the ancient WP in RUE~326

[list=]
1. Archery
2. Axe
3. Blunt
4. Chain
5. Forked
6. Grappling Hook
7. Knife
8. Paired *
9. Pole Arm
10. Quick Draw *
11. Rope
12. Shield
13. Sling Shot *
14. Spear
15. Staff
16. Sword
17. Targeting
18. Whip
[/list]

I'm just going to go with 15 because Paired/Quick Draw seem like tactical stuff not weapony stuff, and Sling Shot just says to see Targeting so it's not an actual listing, even though Sling Shot did I think originally have its own WP in the Palladium RPG.

I'm not sure how to count in terms of fractions here though... are we talking about the number of 'nexus' skills which can apply to others?

Blunt has had arguments made for adding it to at least 2: Shield and Staff
Targeting seems to add to at least 3, Axe / Knife / Spear

So 3+4=7 which is less than half, anyway. If you view it as just the nexus/node skills, 2/15 is less than 1/5

If we're looking for WPs that "stack by default" with other WPs under various weapons, then by my count, it's the bolded in the list below.

[list=]
1. Archery
2. Axe
3. Blunt
4. Chain
5. Forked
6. Grappling Hook
7. Knife
8. Paired *
9. Pole Arm
10. Quick Draw *
11. Rope
12. Shield
13. Sling Shot *
14. Spear
15. Staff
16. Sword (Bokken fits this and blunt)
17. Targeting
18. Whip
[/list]

That's 9 our of 18 WPs.
Ditching the odd stuff, for the reasons you said, then that's 9 out of 15 WPs that are able to default stack with other WPs for certain weapons.

[J_cobbers]

If we're looking for WPs that "stack by default" with other WPs under various weapons, then by my count, it's the bolded in the list below.

[list=]
1. Archery
2. Axe
3. Blunt
4. Chain
5. Forked
6. Grappling Hook
7. Knife
8. Paired *
9. Pole Arm
10. Quick Draw *
11. Rope
12. Shield
13. Sling Shot *
14. Spear
15. Staff
16. Sword (Bokken fits this and blunt)
17. Targeting
18. Whip
[/list]

That's 9 our of 18 WPs.
Ditching the odd stuff, for the reasons you said, then that's 9 out of 15 WPs that are able to default stack with other WPs for certain weapons.

But is that all weapons in those categories stacking, or specific weapons that fall into more than one categories. I think rarity of stacking WP's depends on the individual weapon, not the WPs. As I stated in my last post above, that's what I think the stacking hinges on, specific weapons falling into multiple categories, where they are specifically listed. I.E. no specific listing, means no stacking. I don't think shield stacks with blunt, even with the description of the damage it does "as a blunt weapon." I think that's more a description of the fact that shields don't have sharp pointy bits for striking surfaces than a description of what kind of weapon it is, (it's a shield weapon). But I know there is an argument to be made for it. Bokkens may be an odd weapon that does fit 2 categories, and actually I can see a logical argument for it. Blunt weapon attacks are usually done by swinging it around, so are sword attacks, but swords can also be used for thrusting attacks, as can a bokken, which is a technique you'd pick up training in WP sword that you might not in WP blunt. Just wild conjecture on my part.

Also this list should exclude those WPs that specifically stack with targeting to assess rarity, we know targeting overlaps by it's own description, rarity should be assessed outside that context. In which case I think we are left with much fewer weapons that fall into multiple WPs.

[Prysus]

Also this list should exclude those WPs that specifically stack with targeting to assess rarity, we know targeting overlaps by it's own description, rarity should be assessed outside that context. In which case I think we are left with much fewer weapons that fall into multiple WPs.

Greetings and Salutations. Palladium includes Targeting within its "rare" term though, so removing it would skew the results. We need to include Targeting to accurately assess Palladium's usage. Of course, Palladium used the term in RGMG, so looking at that list would probably produce more accurate results as well.

Spoiler:

W.P. Archery and Targeting +
W.P. Battle Axe ? (depends if we want to include axes as a whole into this category or not)
W.P. Blunt >
W.P. Bola
W.P. Boomerang *
W.P. Bow & Arrow *
W.P. Chain
W.P. Crossbow *
W.P. Deadball
W.P. Forked *
W.P. Grappling Hook
W.P. Knife *
W.P. Mouth Weapons
W.P. Net
W.P. Paired Weapons -
W.P. Pole Arm >
W.P. Shield
W.P. Siege Weapons ? (RUE specifically mentions this within Targeting, but it's not mentioned in RGMG, and hard to tell if that's a change or original intent)
W.P. Slightshot *
W.P. Small Thrown Weapons * >
W.P. Spear * >
W.P. Staff <
W.P. Sword
W.P. Whip

+ Clearly stated stacking W.P.
* Weapon clearly included in a "+"
> Potential stacking W.P. Some of these will also included with a different ">"
< Weapon that would be included with a "<"

That's 24 W.P., 23 when we exclude Paired Weapons as has been the pattern above (and I'm okay with that). Out of the 23, we have 1 that's clearly listed as stacking with 7 W.P. clearly included (arguably more), or 8 total. If we expand this to make stacking the default ruling, we have 5 W.P. that clearly create stacking (arguably more), and 12 total. While this doesn't generate much stacking with new W.P., there's a lot more synergy between them. That's, of course, only using the clearly listed and not applying any degree of logic beyond that (because the numbers would increase once we did that), and not including those that are questionable (such as W.P. Battle Axe to include axes in general, or W.P. Siege Weapons, which I left out due to the ? on them). Farewell and safe journeys.

Edit:: I realized I missed W.P. Trident in my previous list. I've also changed one of the symbols I used to make them easier to differentiate at a quick glance. To avoid anyone claims of altering information, I'm leaving the old list in a Spoiler tag. I'm also hesitant if we should include W.P. Deadball or exclude it on the similar principle to W.P. Paired, but will leave it included for now. See my next post for the newer list.

[Killer Cyborg]

That's 9 out of 18 WPs.
Ditching the odd stuff, for the reasons you said, then that's 9 out of 15 WPs that are able to default stack with other WPs for certain weapons.

But is that all weapons in those categories stacking, or specific weapons that fall into more than one categories.

I think rarity of stacking WP's depends on the individual weapon, not the WPs.

Nope.

The sentence from RGMG 32 is:
However, some different WPs may offer an accumulated bonus for the same type of weapon, like Archery and Targeting, or Sharpshooting, but these are very rare.

The subject of the sentence is "Some different WPs."
"These are very rare" modifies that subject.
The sentence is saying that WPs that offer accumulated bonus for the same type of weapon are "very rare."

The WPs that I indicate offer (allegedly) accumulated bonus for the same type of weapon in at least one case.

[Killer Cyborg]

[justify]

Also this list should exclude those WPs that specifically stack with targeting to assess rarity, we know targeting overlaps by it's own description, rarity should be assessed outside that context. In which case I think we are left with much fewer weapons that fall into multiple WPs.

Greetings and Salutations. Palladium includes Targeting within its "rare" term though, so removing it would skew the results. We need to include Targeting to accurately assess Palladium's usage. Of course, Palladium used the term in RGMG, so looking at that list would probably produce more accurate results as well.

All good points.

[Prysus]

Greetings and Salutations. I realized I missed W.P. Trident in my previous list, which changes a few of the numbers. I've also changed one of the symbols I used to make them easier to differentiate at a quick glance. To avoid anyone claims of altering information, I'm leaving the old list in a Spoiler tag above. I'm also hesitant if we should include W.P. Deadball or exclude it on the similar principle to W.P. Paired, but will leave it included for now.

W.P. Archery and Targeting +
W.P. Battle Axe ? (depends if we want to include axes as a whole into this category or not)
W.P. Blunt >
W.P. Bola
W.P. Boomerang *
W.P. Bow & Arrow *
W.P. Chain
W.P. Crossbow *
W.P. Deadball
W.P. Forked *
W.P. Grappling Hook
W.P. Knife *
W.P. Mouth Weapons
W.P. Net
W.P. Paired Weapons -
W.P. Pole Arm >
W.P. Shield
W.P. Siege Weapons ? (RUE specifically mentions this within Targeting, but it's not mentioned in RGMG, and hard to tell if that's a change or original intent)
W.P. Slightshot *
W.P. Small Thrown Weapons * >
W.P. Spear * >
W.P. Staff ~
W.P. Sword
W.P. Trident ~
W.P. Whip

+ Clearly stated stacking W.P.
* Weapon clearly included in a "+"
> Potential stacking W.P. Some of these will also be included with a different ">"
~ Weapon that would be included with a ">"

That's 25 W.P., 24 when we exclude Paired Weapons as has been the pattern above (and I'm okay with that). Out of the 24, we have 1 that's clearly listed as stacking with 7 W.P. clearly included (arguably more), or 8 total. If we expand this to make stacking the default ruling, we have 5 W.P. that clearly create stacking (arguably more), and 13 total. While this doesn't generate much stacking with new W.P., there's a lot more synergy between them. A knife, for instance, now stacks with W.P. Knife, W.P. Archery and Targeting, and W.P. Small Thrown Weapons (three different W.P.). Trident, as previously noted, stacks with four different W.P. That's, of course, only using the clearly listed and not applying any degree of logic beyond that (because the numbers would increase once we did that, such as the bokken including W.P. Sword and W.P. Blunt, or nunchaku including W.P. Chain and W.P. Blunt, or bolas/mouth weapons/nets including W.P. Archery and Targeting, or the Deadball including W.P. Archery and Targeting and/or W.P. Small Thrown Weapons), and not including those that are questionable (such as W.P. Battle Axe to include axes in general, or W.P. Siege Weapons, which I left out due to the ? on them), nor did I include Shield into the stacking list. Farewell and safe journeys.

[Axelmania]

I'm not prone to assume Carella's WP Trident or Wujcik's WP Staff was in mind by whoever wrote that part of the game master guide.

Was WP Targeting even around then? We can't consider post-GMG stuff we know from RUE. I recall Warlords added some WP but not sure when the 1st Eds came out in Respect, Warlords or GMG.

Another thing is "very rare" may not be describing in terms if the sum total of existing WP but could instead refer to the frequency at which.those WP are chosen.

[Killer Cyborg]

Another thing is "very rare" may not be describing in terms if the sum total of existing WP but could instead refer to the frequency at which.those WP are chosen.

What standard would be used there?
How is Archery and Targeting "very rare" in frequency of being chosen?

[Axelmania]

Rare in a world with.firearms perhaps.

[Killer Cyborg]

Rare in a world with.firearms perhaps.

Weren't you the guy arguing that bows and arrows and such would be more common than firearms, because they don't make monster-attracting noise?

[Axelmania]

Yes, but you don't need a WP to use those. If I'm going to bother to learn a WP I'd probably do it out of necessity.

[Killer Cyborg]

Yes, but you don't need a WP to use those. If I'm going to bother to learn a WP I'd probably do it out of necessity.

Necessity like depending on the skill for food?

[J_cobbers]

If we are using the RGMG quote on pg 32, and it includes sharpshooter for stacking, then we also need to include for our accurate totals, for the sake of completeness, Per the RGMG pg 81:

The Sharpshooting skill can be added to all modern guns, from revolvers (six-shooters) to energy rifles, but does not include W.P. Heavy and W.P. Heavy Energy Weapons; i.e. it cannot be applied to rail guns, rocket launchers, mini-missile launchers, bazookas, artillery weapons, vehicle or robot weapons, hand grenades, or explosives.

This adds 7-8 more WP's that stack (depending if you use the list from RUE or RGMG) with sharpshooter.

Also the pg 32 quote is on the question of being able to pick the same WP twice, which leads me to think that the full statement of

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

can be interpreted as 1) some different WPs means any WP's that apply to the same type of weapon, and 2) Archery and Targeting or Sharpshooting are simply examples laid out in their specific rules, and 3) "Very rare" means instances where WP's provide accumulated bonuses in the same manner as Archery and Targeting or Sharpshooting, but those instances outside of Archery and Targeting or Sharpshooting are the measure of how rare the instances are; i.e. rarity of stacking bonuses should not include Archery and Targeting or Sharpshooting.

Again as for rarity, I look the the individual weapon, There are hundreds of styles of swords, but a boken is the only type of sword that may also fall into the blunt category. Like wise there are many chain weapons, but nunchakus may be the only one of the few types that are also blunt. Tridents are a specific pole arm (not listed in WP spear) that also has it's own WP in the RGMG.

Where as in contrast the rest of you are simply focused on rarity in the context of the WP's which may have a weapon or 2 that stack with another WP, and include Archery and Targeting or Sharpshooting in that calculation rather than exclude it. Again all a matter of interpretation and I am playing a bit of devil's advocate here.

[Axelmania]

Yes, but you don't need a WP to use those. If I'm going to bother to learn a WP I'd probably do it out of necessity.

Necessity like depending on the skill for food?

Since anyone can fire a bow according to Palladium rules, skill isn't necessary, it's just helpful. It's for utility, not necessity.

[Killer Cyborg]

Yes, but you don't need a WP to use those. If I'm going to bother to learn a WP I'd probably do it out of necessity.

Necessity like depending on the skill for food?

Since anyone can fire a bow according to Palladium rules, skill isn't necessary, it's just helpful. It's for utility, not necessity.

Sure, but as we discussed earlier, you couldn't make Called Shots at the head or heart without the skill.
You'd also be missing out on accuracy from Aimed Shots and general strike bonuses.
If your ability to survive depended on your ability to hunt would you seriously NOT bother spending a skill or two on it?

[Axelmania]

I'm not sure you get a +2 for aimed shots with bows/crossbows since they're not modern WP. I still don't see the point in talking about called shots w/ arrows unless we know what the called shots actually do in terms of HP damage.

My ability to hunt might also rely on trapping or throwing spears. No telling who has access to fletching.

Didn't ancestral humans actually use to chase down prey with endurance running? That could possibly see a resurge in popularity in Rifts Earth, since running would already be more important to evade MD creatures.

[Killer Cyborg]

I'm not sure you get a +2 for aimed shots with bows/crossbows since they're not modern WP. I still don't see the point in talking about called shots w/ arrows unless we know what the called shots actually do in terms of HP damage.

What about in terms of shooting past cover?

My ability to hunt might also rely on trapping or throwing spears. No telling who has access to fletching.

It might rely on trapping, but that requires a lot more gear, and you'd still benefit highly from WP Blunt in order to put the animals down semi-humanely.

Spears, naturally, benefit greatly from WP Spear and Targeting.

Didn't ancestral humans actually use to chase down prey with endurance running? That could possibly see a resurge in popularity in Rifts Earth, since running would already be more important to evade MD creatures.

Yes, and you get points for knowing that.
But if we're not going to discuss Called Shots at the head and heart of animals because we don't know the rules for it, then we shouldn't discuss endurance hunting, because there are no rules for it.

Also, most MD creatures have a pretty high Speed attribute. Not sure how much Running would help people survive. I mean, it'd be better than nothing, just like a WP would be better than nothing, but most MDC critters could still run (or fly) you down.

Plus, they have supernatural endurance. So they could endurance hunt YOU.

[eliakon]

I'm not sure you get a +2 for aimed shots with bows/crossbows since they're not modern WP. I still don't see the point in talking about called shots w/ arrows unless we know what the called shots actually do in terms of HP damage.

What about in terms of shooting past cover?

My ability to hunt might also rely on trapping or throwing spears. No telling who has access to fletching.

It might rely on trapping, but that requires a lot more gear, and you'd still benefit highly from WP Blunt in order to put the animals down semi-humanely.

Spears, naturally, benefit greatly from WP Spear and Targeting.

Didn't ancestral humans actually use to chase down prey with endurance running? That could possibly see a resurge in popularity in Rifts Earth, since running would already be more important to evade MD creatures.

Yes, and you get points for knowing that.
But if we're not going to discuss Called Shots at the head and heart of animals because we don't know the rules for it, then we shouldn't discuss endurance hunting, because there are no rules for it.

Also, most MD creatures have a pretty high Speed attribute. Not sure how much Running would help people survive. I mean, it'd be better than nothing, just like a WP would be better than nothing, but most MDC critters could still run (or fly) you down.

Plus, they have supernatural endurance. So they could endurance hunt YOU.

THAT explains why the Russia book gives the peasantry MDC weapons and armor.
"In Sovietsky Russia prey animal endurance hunt you."

[Saitou Hajime]

You know haven't all the WP that have been created with the intent to stack had phrases saying they stack with other WP?

[J_cobbers]

You know haven't all the WP that have been created with the intent to stack had phrases saying they stack with other WP?

Whelp that's kinda what this thread is all about trying to figure out due to the ambiguous way the rules were written and trying to figure out what the heck "accumulative bonuses" actually means when a weapon falls under multiple WPs that don't specifically state they stack like targeting and sharpshooting. Things like this are why I think we need a re-edited (not by KS) RUE, an Ultimate Edition of Rifts Ultimate Edition if you will.

[lather]

I'm pretty quick to accept the "Game Masater's choice" answer on a lot of what goes on in the rules. It's pretty clear in things like NPC write ups that the rules are not followed. The one or two times KS has actually posted here all he answers is, essentially, "whatever makes sense to you." I know that drives some people nuts.

[Axelmania]

What about in terms of shooting past cover?

Doable but could simply circle til you found an able they weren't covered.

It might rely on trapping, but that requires a lot more gear, and you'd still benefit highly from WP Blunt in order to put the animals down semi-humanely.

If called shots to the head were a damage-enhancing thing accuracy would help. Otherwise a damage bonus from high PS would be better. Better 1d6+1 and make 16/20 swings than 1d6 and make 17/20

we shouldn't discuss endurance hunting, because there are no rules for it.

PE determines how long you can run so wouldn't that be rules?

most MD creatures have a pretty high Speed attribute. Not sure how much Running would help people survive. I mean, it'd be better than nothing, just like a WP would be better than nothing, but most MDC critters could still run (or fly) you down.

Plus, they have supernatural endurance. So they could endurance hunt YOU.

I will make a new thread where we analyze which monsters.have superhuman speeds or supernatural endurance. Isn't all of them.

[Killer Cyborg]

What about in terms of shooting past cover?

Doable but could simply circle til you found an able they weren't covered.

I think that strategy as a default would result in a significant number of missed meals.

It might rely on trapping, but that requires a lot more gear, and you'd still benefit highly from WP Blunt in order to put the animals down semi-humanely.

If called shots to the head were a damage-enhancing thing accuracy would help. Otherwise a damage bonus from high PS would be better. Better 1d6+1 and make 16/20 swings than 1d6 and make 17/20

I was just talking about general strike bonuses and such in this context, although yeah, called shots to the head would actually be pretty necessary in a lot of cases. Trapping is often done for fur as well as for food, and bludgeoning the main body to death could mess up both the meat and the fur.

we shouldn't discuss endurance hunting, because there are no rules for it.

PE determines how long you can run so wouldn't that be rules?

Because "you can no longer run" doesn't mean "your heart explodes" in game mechanics.

most MD creatures have a pretty high Speed attribute. Not sure how much Running would help people survive. I mean, it'd be better than nothing, just like a WP would be better than nothing, but most MDC critters could still run (or fly) you down.

Plus, they have supernatural endurance. So they could endurance hunt YOU.

I will make a new thread where we analyze which monsters.have superhuman speeds or supernatural endurance. Isn't all of them.

No, it's not all of them.
But it's the majority of them, or close enough that it doesn't matter a lot.

How many creatures are mega-damage in the first place? "Isn't all of them"
How many creatures are carnivores? "Isn't all of them"
How many creatures that are carnivores prey on humans? "Isn't all of them"
How many creatures that are carnivores that prey on humans run toward the sound of gunfire and attack? "Isn't all of them"

It doesn't seem that "isn't all of them" is a standard that typically impresses you.

[Axelmania]

After PE in minutes you can't run full speed. Although I am unclear what happens at that point.

Regarding monster demographics I feel like we know too little to generalize one way or the other. We would have to know what species there were more of.

Xiticix are one that work in your favor. They fly so fast running alone wouldn't be enough. Of.course it might simply be running for cover before you are spotted or to lose a tail than to outpace something keeping you in sight.

[Killer Cyborg]

After PE in minutes you can't run full speed. Although I am unclear what happens at that point.

Because the rules don't cover it.

Regarding monster demographics I feel like we know too little to generalize one way or the other. We would have to know what species there were more of.

Xiticix. There are more of xiticix than anything else.

Xiticix are one that work in your favor. They fly so fast running alone wouldn't be enough. Of.course it might simply be running for cover before you are spotted or to lose a tail than to outpace something keeping you in sight.

Since you've started another thread on speed, we can cover various monster speeds there.

Yes, it MIGHT be simply running for cover before you are spotted.
Then again, it MIGHT not.
Of all the scenarios in which a person might run from a predator, I don't think that "simply running for cover before you are spotted or to lose a tail" is going to be the most likely.

[Prysus]

After PE in minutes you can't run full speed. Although I am unclear what happens at that point.

Because the rules don't cover it.

Greetings and Salutations. This question is to anyone: Is P.E. in minutes for how long you can run full speed an actual rule? If so, where can I find it?

I ask because I know stuff like that can be a common house rule, or maybe in the FAQ of the forums and/or website, but can't say I ever saw it published in a book (to my recollection). The only exertion rules I can recall are the older "Movement and Exertion" rules (which I don't see in RUE, and think were removed) that determined physical exertion in terms of hours. Those rules, for note, included "jogging" as a "light" activity that could be conducted for hours without impairment. Which, to me, would indicate that running fell into the heavy exertion category, though being able to run for 5 hours straight and suffering only a -10 to Speed (and come combat penalties) and keep going (until either the G.M. ruled common sense or, presumably, the character's speed reached 0 and couldn't run any more). P.E., oddly, was irrelevant in determining the duration.

Any help in finding the actual "P.E. in minutes" rule (if it exists within a book, and I don't care if it's Rifts or other, as long as it's not an unofficial Rifter article) would be appreciated. Farewell and safe journeys.

[Axelmania]

It was in RMB right under PE at the start. The attribute overview on 279 no longer does this.

Closest I could find was the new modifiers for low/high attributes (283 mentions when you fatigue 25%/50%/75% faster or 50% slower)

HU2 split this into a separate "weight and movement" section. While this exists on RUE page 286 it only discusses movement while weighted... hm.

Closest I can find is 317 mentioning you can go at 60% max speed at a forced march, and that having the skill lets you last 5x longer than usual.

It refers to "the normal Physical Endurance rate as to how long an activity like marching can be maintained" so it should still presumably exist somewhere in the book... but I'm beginning to suspect it got lost in the RMB > Ultimate shuffle, can't seem to find it.

[guardiandashi]

there is a mention in running specifically in RUE
Running. A routine of running and exercise to build speed and endurance.
For game purposes, the character is able to run at an even pace
(half speed) for a half mile (0.8 km) for every one point of P.E. without
undue fatigue. If pushing oneself to the limit and running at maximum
speed, the character can run one third that distance before collapsing.
Bonuses: + 1 to P.E., +4D4 to Spd and + 1D6 to S.D.C.