Board index » Across the Megaverse® » Palladium Books® Games Q. & A.

 


Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
Unread postPosted: Sun Sep 01, 2019 6:47 pm
  

User avatar
Palladin

Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:40 pm
Posts: 9412
Comment: Palladium Books Canon is set solely by Kevin Siembieda, either in person, or by his approval of published material.
Killer Cyborg wrote:
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.
:p

Which is circular logic.
Saying that the reason that a fraction of a PPE gives any result instead of "a fraction returns no SDC" is because a fraction returns 1... is circular!
You can't claim that the reason something works a specific way is because it works that way.

_________________
The rules are not a bludgeon with which to hammer a character into a game. They are a guide to how a group of friends can get together to weave a collective story that entertains everyone involved. We forget that at our peril.

Edmund Burke wrote:
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Mon Sep 02, 2019 2:25 pm
  

User avatar
Priest

Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 2:01 am
Posts: 28237
Location: In the ocean, punching oncoming waves
Comment: "Your Eloquence with a sledge hammer is a beautiful thing..." -Zer0 Kay
eliakon wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:
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.
:p

Which is circular logic.
Saying that the reason that a fraction of a PPE gives any result instead of "a fraction returns no SDC" is because a fraction returns 1... is circular!
You can't claim that the reason something works a specific way is because it works that way.


I'm not claiming a reason: I'm pointing out evidence.
Do you understand the difference?

We have at least two cases where the rules go out of their way to avoid dealing with partial points of SDC, and we have zero cases where the rules use partial points of SDC.

_________________
Annual Best Poster of the Year Awards (2012)

"That rifle on the wall of the laborer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there." -George Orwell

Check out my Author Page on Amazon!


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Mon Sep 02, 2019 6:10 pm
  

User avatar
Palladin

Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:40 pm
Posts: 9412
Comment: Palladium Books Canon is set solely by Kevin Siembieda, either in person, or by his approval of published material.
Killer Cyborg wrote:
eliakon wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:
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.
:p

Which is circular logic.
Saying that the reason that a fraction of a PPE gives any result instead of "a fraction returns no SDC" is because a fraction returns 1... is circular!
You can't claim that the reason something works a specific way is because it works that way.


I'm not claiming a reason: I'm pointing out evidence.
Do you understand the difference?

I do. But this isn't that. You are not pointing out a neutral evidence you are making a value judgement on the evidence and explaining it... an explanation that IS the evidence itself.

Killer Cyborg wrote:
We have at least two cases where the rules go out of their way to avoid dealing with partial points of SDC, and we have zero cases where the rules use partial points of SDC.

That is, again, your contention.
Which works perfectly if you define all other cases as not existing :lol:
When your form of logic is "all evidence that doesn't fit my preconceived notion is to be discarded as simply being wrong." then your stance doesn't look very solid.
Especially when you have to resort to logical fallacies and semantic word games to justify it.

_________________
The rules are not a bludgeon with which to hammer a character into a game. They are a guide to how a group of friends can get together to weave a collective story that entertains everyone involved. We forget that at our peril.

Edmund Burke wrote:
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Tue Sep 03, 2019 3:38 pm
  

Hero

Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2014 12:49 am
Posts: 1291
I suppose that we should have expected that fractions would prove to be such a fractious issue.

_________________
Axelmania wrote:
You of course, being the ultimate authority on what is an error and what is not.
Declared the ultimate authority on what is an error and what is not by Axelmania on 5.11.19.


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Tue Sep 03, 2019 6:23 pm
  

User avatar
Palladin

Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:40 pm
Posts: 9412
Comment: Palladium Books Canon is set solely by Kevin Siembieda, either in person, or by his approval of published material.
dreicunan wrote:
I suppose that we should have expected that fractions would prove to be such a fractious issue.

:lol: you win :lol:

_________________
The rules are not a bludgeon with which to hammer a character into a game. They are a guide to how a group of friends can get together to weave a collective story that entertains everyone involved. We forget that at our peril.

Edmund Burke wrote:
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Wed Sep 04, 2019 6:57 pm
  

User avatar
Priest

Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 2:01 am
Posts: 28237
Location: In the ocean, punching oncoming waves
Comment: "Your Eloquence with a sledge hammer is a beautiful thing..." -Zer0 Kay
eliakon wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:
eliakon wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:
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.
:p

Which is circular logic.
Saying that the reason that a fraction of a PPE gives any result instead of "a fraction returns no SDC" is because a fraction returns 1... is circular!
You can't claim that the reason something works a specific way is because it works that way.


I'm not claiming a reason: I'm pointing out evidence.
Do you understand the difference?

I do. But this isn't that. You are not pointing out a neutral evidence you are making a value judgement on the evidence and explaining it... an explanation that IS the evidence itself.


Uh... no.

My main claim so far is that because the rules never describe fractional damage, it does not exist within the game rules.
This is a truism, but it's not circular logic.

As we've researched the issue, we've found further supporting evidence that my claim is correct, in that in every case so far where it would normally make sense to describe fractions of damage points, the writers have actively avoided doing so.
Which means it isn't just that no writers ever thought about the issue; it's that they've actively avoided it.

Quote:
When your form of logic is "all evidence that doesn't fit my preconceived notion is to be discarded as simply being wrong."


I'm sorry...
What evidence exactly do you have FOR the existence of fractional damage...?
:?

_________________
Annual Best Poster of the Year Awards (2012)

"That rifle on the wall of the laborer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there." -George Orwell

Check out my Author Page on Amazon!


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Thu Sep 05, 2019 1:37 am
  

User avatar
Knight

Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2015 1:13 pm
Posts: 5291
Killer Cyborg wrote:
Probably because "one SDC" is the minimum that can be returned.
:p

More like because 1 full PPE will restore 3D6 SDC + 1D6 HP.

Killer Cyborg wrote:
We have at least two cases where the rules go out of their way to avoid dealing with partial points of SDC, and we have zero cases where the rules use partial points of SDC.

You're assuming to know author motives.

Assuming this was done to avoid partial SDC is assuming that partial SDC is the next logical step in progression, which simply isn't so.

Something like 0.9 PPE restoring at least 2D6 SDC, for example, would seem a perfectly reasonable progression, but that's not how it's done.

So this was not done because they refuse to do amounts lower than 1 SDC, but rather because they are simplifying amounts of PPE between 0 and 1 as having a minimal benefit.

Killer Cyborg wrote:
My main claim so far is that because the rules never describe fractional damage, it does not exist within the game rules.

That's like saying the game rules never describe inflicting example 1,700 points of damage. Even if the particular example is never used, if mathematics as instructed lead us to that outcome, that does exist in the game rules, whether or not it was explicitly described.

Killer Cyborg wrote:
As we've researched the issue, we've found further supporting evidence that my claim is correct, in that in every case so far where it would normally make sense to describe fractions of damage points, the writers have actively avoided doing so.
Which means it isn't just that no writers ever thought about the issue; it's that they've actively avoided it.

You're misinterpreting the Dead Reign example, fractional or even 1 SDC isn't the next logical step below 4D6.

One could also argue that aside from the Wujcik example in N+SS that authors actively avoid instructing us to round fractions up or down, meaning they've actively avoided guiding us to do that.


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Thu Sep 05, 2019 4:18 am
  

Hero

Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2014 12:49 am
Posts: 1291
Axelmania wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:
My main claim so far is that because the rules never describe fractional damage, it does not exist within the game rules.

That's like saying the game rules never describe inflicting example 1,700 points of damage. Even if the particular example is never used, if mathematics as instructed lead us to that outcome, that does exist in the game rules, whether or not it was explicitly described.

That doesn't follow from what he said. 1,700 is a whole number. A fraction isn't. Killer Cyborg has not argued against whole number damage at any point, only fractional damage.

_________________
Axelmania wrote:
You of course, being the ultimate authority on what is an error and what is not.
Declared the ultimate authority on what is an error and what is not by Axelmania on 5.11.19.


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Thu Sep 05, 2019 4:41 am
  

User avatar
Priest

Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 2:01 am
Posts: 28237
Location: In the ocean, punching oncoming waves
Comment: "Your Eloquence with a sledge hammer is a beautiful thing..." -Zer0 Kay
Axelmania wrote:
this was not done because they refuse to do amounts lower than 1 SDC, but rather because they are simplifying amounts of PPE between 0 and 1 as having a minimal benefit.


Quite possibly, seeing how much SDC/HP a single PPE can heal.
So that leaves us with only one case where the authors avoid fractional damage, and zero where they use it.

Quote:
One could also argue that aside from the Wujcik example in N+SS that authors actively avoid instructing us to round fractions up or down, meaning they've actively avoided guiding us to do that.


If a rule is presented once, it doesn't need to be presented again.

_________________
Annual Best Poster of the Year Awards (2012)

"That rifle on the wall of the laborer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there." -George Orwell

Check out my Author Page on Amazon!


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Thu Sep 05, 2019 4:42 am
  

User avatar
Priest

Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 2:01 am
Posts: 28237
Location: In the ocean, punching oncoming waves
Comment: "Your Eloquence with a sledge hammer is a beautiful thing..." -Zer0 Kay
dreicunan wrote:
Axelmania wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:
My main claim so far is that because the rules never describe fractional damage, it does not exist within the game rules.

That's like saying the game rules never describe inflicting example 1,700 points of damage. Even if the particular example is never used, if mathematics as instructed lead us to that outcome, that does exist in the game rules, whether or not it was explicitly described.

That doesn't follow from what he said. 1,700 is a whole number. A fraction isn't. Killer Cyborg has not argued against whole number damage at any point, only fractional damage.


Yup.
:ok:

_________________
Annual Best Poster of the Year Awards (2012)

"That rifle on the wall of the laborer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there." -George Orwell

Check out my Author Page on Amazon!


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Thu Sep 05, 2019 6:24 am
  

User avatar
Priest

Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 2:01 am
Posts: 28237
Location: In the ocean, punching oncoming waves
Comment: "Your Eloquence with a sledge hammer is a beautiful thing..." -Zer0 Kay
Let's see what I can find...

RGMG 135
Blow Gun
Damage: None; the dart stings, but causes no damage unless coated with poison or drugs

RGMG 129
Tranquilizer Rifle
also
Dart Gun
Damage section only lists effects of drugs/poisons, not any damage for the needle poking a hole in you.

N&S 128
Fingertip Attack
Damage: 1 point

RUE 53
Wrist Needle & Drug Dispenser
Again, there is no mention of any damage for the needle, only the drugs/poison

RUE 283
A character with PS of 3-4 inflicts 1/2 damage on punches
If fractional damage were a thing, that would mean that a punch from one of these characters would inflict 1/2-2 points of damage instead of 1-4.
Characters with PS of 1-2 inflict 1 point of physical damage from punches, meaning that their weakest punch is 2x stronger than the weakest punch of somebody with 2-4x their PS score. IF fractional damage is a thing.

RUE 177
Bio-Manipulation: Pain
Victims lose 1 HP per minute.
NOT 1/2 HP per 2 melees.
NOT 1/4 HP per melee.
Another case of Palladium describing damage by the minimal timeframe it takes to get to 1 point of damage, instead of using a more typical timeframe and listing partial points of damage.

CB1 103
Faerie weapons inflict 1 point of SDC per attack.
(Which doesn't necessarily mean anything; just making a note)

HU2 235
List of kinetic weapons and their damages.
A Frisbee inflicts "no damage."
A marble or a snowball inflicts 1 point of damage.
There are no items that inflict a partial point of damage.
As always, there is a gap between 0 and 1, as if nothing in-between existed, even when discussing damage on a level of granularity along the lines of "which would do more damage, a marble or a Frisbee?"
They determined that a marble not only does more damage, but that it does infinitely more damage.
(as a side note: a softball inflicts 2 points of damage.)

HU2 262-266
Various insects are described, and virtually all of them inflict "no damage unless 30 or more individuals attack," then they list a damage by type.
29 Common Red Ants biting you inflicts 0 damage, for example, but when you add 1 more ant, the damage jumps up to 1d4/melee.
29 Carpenter Ants inflict 0 damage. 30 inflict 1d6/melee.
29 Wasps inflict 0 damage. 30 inflict 3d6/melee.
Yet again, we see the pattern: writes will assign ZERO damage to something again and again, rather than assign fractional damage.

A Greater Stag Beetle inflicts 1 point of damage per bite.

HU2 301
An ectoplasmic punch or kick inflicts 1 point of damage.
(just a fun fact)

HUGMG 191
Metaphorphosis: Insect
Non-poisonous bite does 1 point of damage.

...and that's all the stuff I've found so far.
I'll look in more books later.

_________________
Annual Best Poster of the Year Awards (2012)

"That rifle on the wall of the laborer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there." -George Orwell

Check out my Author Page on Amazon!


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Thu Sep 05, 2019 8:41 am
  

User avatar
Champion

Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 7:48 pm
Posts: 2461
Location: Boise, ID (US)
Greetings and Salutations. I just want to go on the record and state that N&S does NOT have a rule against fractional damage. What N&S has is the same, unspecified, general wording as the other settings (or equivalent, a few words might be slightly different).

What N&S does have is an example of how that generic, unspecified rule works. I find it important to distinguish between the two. As an individual, I find the example far more important as it shows how the unspecified rule works without feeling the need to clarify the wording of the rule itself. Just my thoughts. Farewell and safe journeys.

_________________
Living the Fantasy (fan website)

Rifter #45; Of Bows & Arrows (Archery; expanding rules and abilities)
Rifter #52; From Ruins to Runes (Living Rune Weapons; playable characters and NPC)
Rifter #55; Home Away From Home (Quorian Culture; expanded from PF Book 9: Baalgor Wastelands)

Official PDF versions of Rifter #45, #52, and #55 can be found at DriveThruRPG.


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Thu Sep 05, 2019 7:52 pm
  

User avatar
Adventurer

Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2006 1:46 pm
Posts: 491
Location: "The Guides to the Megaverse(tm)" Podcast
Comment: "Setting the Stage" - Rifter 79
"Hitting the Streets" - Rifter 81
"Hitting the Gym" - Rifter 82
gents I think this isn't going anywhere.

_________________
"The Guides to the Megaverse(tm)" Podcast at https://guidesmegaverse.podbean.com/
Author of "Setting the Stage" - Rifter 79, "Hitting the Streets" - Rifter 81, "Hitting the Gym" - Rifter 82
"Saving the World", and "On the Hunt" - Rifter 83
and lastly, my baby, my long term project... The Dark City of Cascade - Rifter 84.


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Thu Sep 05, 2019 8:47 pm
  

User avatar
Priest

Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 2:01 am
Posts: 28237
Location: In the ocean, punching oncoming waves
Comment: "Your Eloquence with a sledge hammer is a beautiful thing..." -Zer0 Kay
Prysus wrote:
Greetings and Salutations. I just want to go on the record and state that N&S does NOT have a rule against fractional damage. What N&S has is the same, unspecified, general wording as the other settings (or equivalent, a few words might be slightly different).

What N&S does have is an example of how that generic, unspecified rule works. I find it important to distinguish between the two. As an individual, I find the example far more important as it shows how the unspecified rule works without feeling the need to clarify the wording of the rule itself. Just my thoughts. Farewell and safe journeys.


Huh.
Excellent point!
:ok:

_________________
Annual Best Poster of the Year Awards (2012)

"That rifle on the wall of the laborer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there." -George Orwell

Check out my Author Page on Amazon!


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Thu Sep 05, 2019 11:06 pm
  

User avatar
Demon Lord Extraordinaire

Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 3:28 pm
Posts: 6267
Location: Apocrypha
Comment: You probably think this comment is about you, don't you?
The only place I've seen fractions is on page 17 of the modern weapons book. That book said that if you use the HP to Body Location breakdown that any fractions get rounded up to the nearest whole number (example given was 2.1 went to 3).

This however doesn't necessarily mean that damage was meant to be rounded up as well. In my first gaming group I recall we dropped fractions off entirely, but I don't know if this was a house rule or if it was written down somewhere.

EDIT: Doing a quick glance-through there's a couple places where it mentions that bleed-through damage does half, and one where it says quarter the damage rolled, but nothing about fractions.


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Sat Sep 07, 2019 7:01 pm
  

User avatar
Knight

Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2015 1:13 pm
Posts: 5291
dreicunan wrote:
That doesn't follow from what he said. 1,700 is a whole number. A fraction isn't. Killer Cyborg has not argued against whole number damage at any point, only fractional damage.

If you're talking about "types" of numbers, then I could also argue we've never seen a damage example where it is possible to inflict a multiple of 683 damage. That is a "type" of number, just as "even" numbers are multiples of 2.

Killer Cyborg wrote:
If a rule is presented once, it doesn't need to be presented again.

I see, would you apply that to other N&SS rules, like "roll with blow" being free (doesn't cost an attack), or "dodge" being a single roll which applies to anyone targeting you that round?

Killer Cyborg wrote:
Let's see what I can find...

RGMG 135
Blow Gun
Damage: None; the dart stings, but causes no damage unless coated with poison or drugs

This simply means that there is some threshold (not necessarily 1.0, could be 0.1 or 0.001) below which damage is negligible and only painful.

Killer Cyborg wrote:
RGMG 129
Tranquilizer Rifle
also
Dart Gun
Damage section only lists effects of drugs/poisons, not any damage for the needle poking a hole in you.

Not actually listing small amounts of damage because they don't seem important doesn't mean that small amounts of damage don't exist. Unless you're expecting someone to get hit with dozens of darts (which would be unusual for these weapons, where you might expect only 1 or 2 shots per target) , something that might do 0.1 SDC isn't going to make enough of a difference to bother with listing.

Interestingly enough, "Dart" does appear on various games illustrated weapons list (Miscellaneous) doing 1D4, but I expect that refers to the bar-room game and those are thicker than those used to dispense drugs.

Killer Cyborg wrote:
N&S 128
Fingertip Attack
Damage: 1 point

Don't forget to add PS bonus!

I'm not seeing the point in listing this. Having a fixed (no dice) amount of damage doesn't mean anything, we also see that for Vibrating Palm.

Killer Cyborg wrote:
RUE 53
Wrist Needle & Drug Dispenser
Again, there is no mention of any damage for the needle, only the drugs/poison

As above, these were all in the original RMB too.

Killer Cyborg wrote:
RUE 283
A character with PS of 3-4 inflicts 1/2 damage on punches
If fractional damage were a thing, that would mean that a punch from one of these characters would inflict 1/2-2 points of damage instead of 1-4.

Correct.

Killer Cyborg wrote:
Characters with PS of 1-2 inflict 1 point of physical damage from punches, meaning that their weakest punch is 2x stronger than the weakest punch of somebody with 2-4x their PS score. IF fractional damage is a thing.

So what? Their strongest punch is still twice as good.

Plus there's no telling when this "maximum 1" applies: does it apply before or after doubling for a power punch (RUE 345) ?

Chock that down to bad writing: 1D4 on a kick isn't any worse than 1/2 damage on kicks (RUE 345: 1D8 untrained) and there's no difference (1/2 damage in both cases) in the damage done with hand-to-hand weapons either.

Killer Cyborg wrote:
RUE 177
Bio-Manipulation: Pain
Victims lose 1 HP per minute.
NOT 1/2 HP per 2 melees.
NOT 1/4 HP per melee.
Another case of Palladium describing damage by the minimal timeframe it takes to get to 1 point of damage, instead of using a more typical timeframe and listing partial points of damage.

That or it simply works in "waves".

Killer Cyborg wrote:
CB1 103
Faerie weapons inflict 1 point of SDC per attack.
(Which doesn't necessarily mean anything; just making a note)

Agreed.

Killer Cyborg wrote:
HU2 235
List of kinetic weapons and their damages.
A Frisbee inflicts "no damage."
A marble or a snowball inflicts 1 point of damage.
There are no items that inflict a partial point of damage.

There would be in an MKE v MKE duel. If you're hit with a metal discus that rolls 3 on 2D4, ability 1 will reduce that to 1.5

Realistically speaking a snowball isn't always going to be more damaging than a toy frisbee, so what's somewhat of a wonky chart... they probably mean it to be a "tightly packed" one like on pg 244 (APS Ice)

Killer Cyborg wrote:
(as a side note: a softball inflicts 2 points of damage.)

I think you should have a serious problem with this, given that it does more minimum damage than the 1D4 that Darts do, basically the same problem that exists between the PS2 punch and the PS3 punch.

Killer Cyborg wrote:
HU2 262-266
Various insects are described, and virtually all of them inflict "no damage unless 30 or more individuals attack," then they list a damage by type.
..
29 Wasps inflict 0 damage. 30 inflict 3d6/melee.
Yet again, we see the pattern: writes will assign ZERO damage to something again and again, rather than assign fractional damage.

That's just rules-wonkiness as usual. Obviously even without veering into fractions: if 30 do 3d6 then 20 should do 2d6 and 10 should do 1d6. The 29=fail means there's some strange cumulative aspect about wasps.

Killer Cyborg wrote:
HU2 301
An ectoplasmic punch or kick inflicts 1 point of damage.
(just a fun fact)

What about HTH bonuses?


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Sat Sep 07, 2019 11:41 pm
  

Hero

Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2014 12:49 am
Posts: 1291
Axelmania wrote:
dreicunan wrote:
That doesn't follow from what he said. 1,700 is a whole number. A fraction isn't. Killer Cyborg has not argued against whole number damage at any point, only fractional damage.

If you're talking about "types" of numbers, then I could also argue we've never seen a damage example where it is possible to inflict a multiple of 683 damage. That is a "type" of number, just as "even" numbers are multiples of 2.

You could make that arguement, but it would have no bearing on what is being discussed here, so why would you?

_________________
Axelmania wrote:
You of course, being the ultimate authority on what is an error and what is not.
Declared the ultimate authority on what is an error and what is not by Axelmania on 5.11.19.


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Sun Sep 08, 2019 1:31 pm
  

User avatar
Priest

Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 2:01 am
Posts: 28237
Location: In the ocean, punching oncoming waves
Comment: "Your Eloquence with a sledge hammer is a beautiful thing..." -Zer0 Kay
Axelmania wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:
If a rule is presented once, it doesn't need to be presented again.

I see, would you apply that to other N&SS rules, like "roll with blow" being free (doesn't cost an attack), or "dodge" being a single roll which applies to anyone targeting you that round?


Unless contradicted by later books or something, yeah.

But Prysus made an important distinction here:
viewtopic.php?p=3029515#p3029515
Prysus wrote:
Greetings and Salutations. I just want to go on the record and state that N&S does NOT have a rule against fractional damage. What N&S has is the same, unspecified, general wording as the other settings (or equivalent, a few words might be slightly different).

What N&S does have is an example of how that generic, unspecified rule works. I find it important to distinguish between the two.




Quote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:
Let's see what I can find...

RGMG 135
Blow Gun
Damage: None; the dart stings, but causes no damage unless coated with poison or drugs

This simply means that there is some threshold (not necessarily 1.0, could be 0.1 or 0.001) below which damage is negligible and only painful.


Then we agree that there IS a threshold.

A) If the threshold is NOT at 1 point, what's the likely candidate in your view?
B) We know that a marble inflicts 1 point of damage when thrown.
How much less damage does would a blowgun dart inflict than a marble, would you say?
Half as much? 3/4? 1/10th?

Quote:
Not actually listing small amounts of damage because they don't seem important doesn't mean that small amounts of damage don't exist.


Agreed.
But since blowgun darts inflict 0 damage, the lack of damage stats for tranq guns indicates that they also inflict 0 damage.

Quote:
Interestingly enough, "Dart" does appear on various games illustrated weapons list (Miscellaneous) doing 1D4, but I expect that refers to the bar-room game and those are thicker than those used to dispense drugs.


Actually, considering the damage, I suspect that they're even larger than standard barroom darts, something more like a Plumbata.

Quote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:
N&S 128
Fingertip Attack
Damage: 1 point

Don't forget to add PS bonus!

I'm not seeing the point in listing this. Having a fixed (no dice) amount of damage doesn't mean anything, we also see that for Vibrating Palm.


Fixing the damage at 1 full point instead of a partial point sticks with the overall pattern of avoiding partial points of damage.
Poking somebody with your finger does a full point of damage.
Why?
Most likely EITHER because the Palladium writers did a lot of numbers-crunching, and realized that physics-wise that kind of attack would inflict exactly 1 point of damage--not .9 damage, not .8 damage, not 1.000001 damage, not 1.1 damage, but EXACTLY 1.000000 points of damage...
OR because the writers decided that kind of attack would inflict the minimum amount of damage possible, and that minimum IS 1 point exactly.

Killer Cyborg wrote:
RUE 283
A character with PS of 3-4 inflicts 1/2 damage on punches
If fractional damage were a thing, that would mean that a punch from one of these characters would inflict 1/2-2 points of damage instead of 1-4.

Killer Cyborg wrote:
Characters with PS of 1-2 inflict 1 point of physical damage from punches, meaning that their weakest punch is 2x stronger than the weakest punch of somebody with 2-4x their PS score. IF fractional damage is a thing.

So what? Their strongest punch is still twice as good.


But the weakest punch from a weaker person should be weaker than the weakest punch from a stronger person.
So the stats don't make sense simulation-wise, as written, unless fractional damage is NOT a thing.

Quote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:
RUE 177
Bio-Manipulation: Pain
Victims lose 1 HP per minute.
NOT 1/2 HP per 2 melees.
NOT 1/4 HP per melee.
Another case of Palladium describing damage by the minimal timeframe it takes to get to 1 point of damage, instead of using a more typical timeframe and listing partial points of damage.


That or it simply works in "waves".


It works in "waves," sure.
But why does it work in "waves" of 1 minute, instead of any other time increment?
Because 1 is the minimum amount of damage possible, and inflicting that minimum takes a full minute.

Killer Cyborg wrote:
HU2 235
List of kinetic weapons and their damages.
A Frisbee inflicts "no damage."
A marble or a snowball inflicts 1 point of damage.
There are no items that inflict a partial point of damage.

There would be in an MKE v MKE duel. If you're hit with a metal discus that rolls 3 on 2D4, ability 1 will reduce that to 1.5[/quote]

:?:

Quote:
Realistically speaking a snowball isn't always going to be more damaging than a toy frisbee, so what's somewhat of a wonky chart... they probably mean it to be a "tightly packed" one like on pg 244 (APS Ice)


Yeah, I'm assuming they meant a rather sturdy snowball, but not an ice ball.

Quote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:
(as a side note: a softball inflicts 2 points of damage.)

I think you should have a serious problem with this, given that it does more minimum damage than the 1D4 that Darts do, basically the same problem that exists between the PS2 punch and the PS3 punch.


I certainly agree that this is an odd choice for damage, which is why I noted it.
I don't know of anything else that does a flat 2 damage; usually it's 1-2 damage.

_________________
Annual Best Poster of the Year Awards (2012)

"That rifle on the wall of the laborer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there." -George Orwell

Check out my Author Page on Amazon!


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Sun Sep 08, 2019 6:07 pm
  

User avatar
Knight

Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2015 1:13 pm
Posts: 5291
Killer Cyborg wrote:
Unless contradicted by later books or something, yeah.

So for example, when BTS gives random chances of psychic ability for ALL children (not just the ones who will grow up to be classified as Minor Psionics) we can assume this applies in all settings?

Or mages being able to draw on 3 people per level? Rifts' 2 per level and HU/PF 1per level are only affirmations and not denials, after all.

Killer Cyborg wrote:
But Prysus made an important distinction here:
https://palladiumbooks.com/forums/viewt ... 5#p3029515
Prysus wrote:
Greetings and Salutations. I just want to go on the record and state that N&S does NOT have a rule against fractional damage. What N&S has is the same, unspecified, general wording as the other settings (or equivalent, a few words might be slightly different).

What N&S does have is an example of how that generic, unspecified rule works. I find it important to distinguish between the two.


There are more reasons than just the "free rolls" policy NOT to use N&SS as a precedent for how RWB applies in other games.

Have you looked closely at the numbers it uses in the combat example? It basically involves rolling under the DAMAGE rather than the strike roll.

Killer Cyborg wrote:
How much less damage does would a blowgun dart inflict than a marble, would you say?
Half as much? 3/4? 1/10th?

Too many variables to answer, depends on the size/weight of the marble, the length/thickness of the dart, the strength you throw with, the strength you blow with, etc.

Of course, unless you have PS16+ to get a damage bonus, everyone throws stuff equally hard damage-wise in Palladium, so I don't know how sciencey we can really get here.

Killer Cyborg wrote:
Fixing the damage at 1 full point instead of a partial point sticks with the overall pattern of avoiding partial points of damage.

Poking somebody with your finger does a full point of damage.
Why?

You're a bad-ass Akemi-using martial artist with years of training, that's why.

Killer Cyborg wrote:
Most likely EITHER because the Palladium writers did a lot of numbers-crunching, and realized that physics-wise that kind of attack would inflict exactly 1 point of damage--not .9 damage, not .8 damage, not 1.000001 damage, not 1.1 damage, but EXACTLY 1.000000 points of damage...
OR because the writers decided that kind of attack would inflict the minimum amount of damage possible, and that minimum IS 1 point exactly.

The minimum amount of damage possible is 0, they could've chosen that if they wanted.

Killer Cyborg wrote:
But the weakest punch from a weaker person should be weaker than the weakest punch from a stronger person.

No, it shouldn't, because as we see, they are tied in their ability to inflict damage with weapons.

I think maybe you're arguing that the minimum damage of a weak person shouldn't be higher than the minimum damage of a strong person?

Palladium has wonky PS rules sometimes, that's why (RUE 285) a Robot with a PS of 26 doing a restrained punch to a Promethean will hurt him more (6d6/2) than a robot with a PS 40 doing a full-strength punch (2d6).

Killer Cyborg wrote:
why does it work in "waves" of 1 minute, instead of any other time increment?
Because 1 is the minimum amount of damage possible, and inflicting that minimum takes a full minute.

Interesting theory, but then why do we sometimes see stuff like bio-regeneration 4D6/minute instead of 1D6/melee?

There is clearly no minimum preventing higher-incidence waves here, yet it's delayed anyway. That's just how it is.

Killer Cyborg wrote:
I certainly agree that this is an odd choice for damage, which is why I noted it.
I don't know of anything else that does a flat 2 damage; usually it's 1-2 damage.
[/quote]
I don't suppose you found hardball damage anywhere?


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Tue Sep 10, 2019 11:32 am
  

User avatar
Priest

Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 2:01 am
Posts: 28237
Location: In the ocean, punching oncoming waves
Comment: "Your Eloquence with a sledge hammer is a beautiful thing..." -Zer0 Kay
Axelmania wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:
Unless contradicted by later books or something, yeah.

So for example, when BTS gives random chances of psychic ability for ALL children (not just the ones who will grow up to be classified as Minor Psionics) we can assume this applies in all settings?


Unless contradicted by later books or something, yeah.

Quote:
Or mages being able to draw on 3 people per level? Rifts' 2 per level and HU/PF 1per level are only affirmations and not denials, after all.


A different number is a contradiction.

Quote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:
But Prysus made an important distinction here:
viewtopic.php?p=3029515#p3029515
Prysus wrote:
Greetings and Salutations. I just want to go on the record and state that N&S does NOT have a rule against fractional damage. What N&S has is the same, unspecified, general wording as the other settings (or equivalent, a few words might be slightly different).

What N&S does have is an example of how that generic, unspecified rule works. I find it important to distinguish between the two.


There are more reasons than just the "free rolls" policy NOT to use N&SS as a precedent for how RWB applies in other games.


You mean "not to use N&SS as a precedent" in THIS specific case, or as a general rule?

Quote:
Have you looked closely at the numbers it uses in the combat example? It basically involves rolling under the DAMAGE rather than the strike roll.


No idea what you're talking about here.

Quote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:
How much less damage does would a blowgun dart inflict than a marble, would you say?
Half as much? 3/4? 1/10th?

Too many variables to answer, depends on the size/weight of the marble, the length/thickness of the dart, the strength you throw with, the strength you blow with, etc.


Go with an actual marble made of marble, not a glass marble.
And go with a standard low-tech amazon-type blowgun dart.

The strength you throw with is partly indicated by your damage roll, not by your base damage amount.
In this case, the damage is static, so the force doesn't matter; any force sufficient to count as a strike would inflict the set damage.

Quote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:
Fixing the damage at 1 full point instead of a partial point sticks with the overall pattern of avoiding partial points of damage.

Poking somebody with your finger does a full point of damage.
Why?

You're a bad-ass Akemi-using martial artist with years of training, that's why.


But not bad-ass enough to inflict 2 points of damage unless you crit.
It's always exactly ONE point, never a half-point, or 3/4 point, or 1.1 points.

Quote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:
Most likely EITHER because the Palladium writers did a lot of numbers-crunching, and realized that physics-wise that kind of attack would inflict exactly 1 point of damage--not .9 damage, not .8 damage, not 1.000001 damage, not 1.1 damage, but EXACTLY 1.000000 points of damage...
OR because the writers decided that kind of attack would inflict the minimum amount of damage possible, and that minimum IS 1 point exactly.

The minimum amount of damage possible is 0, they could've chosen that if they wanted.


An arbitrary, semantics-based claim that dodges the point:
Palladium never, ever, ever, EVER lists partial points of damage for anything.

Address the point.

_________________
Annual Best Poster of the Year Awards (2012)

"That rifle on the wall of the laborer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there." -George Orwell

Check out my Author Page on Amazon!


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 5:49 pm
  

User avatar
Knight

Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2015 1:13 pm
Posts: 5291
Killer Cyborg wrote:
It's always exactly ONE point, never a half-point, or 3/4 point, or 1.1 points.

Of course we've also seen exactly 2 points, as you pointed out, which proves that non-variable damage can happen without being mandated by some kind of minimum quantifiable amount.

I think the reason we don't see things with decimal damage capacity or decimal damage is because it looks clunky so they try to avoid it.

What you have to keep in mind is that with halving from RWB combined with pull punch (which can also do 1/2) you're looking at 1/4 damage which can already move you from 0 decimals to 2 decimals (0.25 increments) so if damage/capacity was already decimaled to begin with, you'd get even further into that, which is why I think they try to avoid it being an inherent property, so that when it does result from non-rounding fractioning instructions, the necessary amount of decimal places is limited.


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2019 11:55 pm
  

User avatar
Megaversal® Ambassador

Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 12:20 am
Posts: 432
Location: Las Vegas, NV
You ROUND UP. (See my previous post)

_________________
Image


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Sat Sep 14, 2019 1:35 am
  

User avatar
Priest

Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 2:01 am
Posts: 28237
Location: In the ocean, punching oncoming waves
Comment: "Your Eloquence with a sledge hammer is a beautiful thing..." -Zer0 Kay
Axelmania wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:
It's always exactly ONE point, never a half-point, or 3/4 point, or 1.1 points.

Of course we've also seen exactly 2 points, as you pointed out, which proves that non-variable damage can happen without being mandated by some kind of minimum quantifiable amount.


That doesn't interact with what I was talking about, which is that we NEVER see fractions or decimals.
Damage is always a minimum of 1 point.
Damage is always in whole numbers: 1d6 damage, not 1d6x.1 or 1d6+1/2.

In Palladium's entire history, they don't seem to have EVER ONCE listed a fractional or decimal damage, for any weapon ever.
It
Is
ALWAYS
whole numbers.

So if you want to claim that Palladium intends--and/or has always intended--for there to be damage that occurs in less than whole number increments, the burden is on you to explain why this has never, ever, EVER happened or been demonstrated in their rules.

Quote:
I think the reason we don't see things with decimal damage capacity or decimal damage is because it looks clunky so they try to avoid it.


Close.
Now try this:
"I think the reason there is no such thing as decimal damage capacity or decimal damage is because it looks clunky so the company only uses whole numbers."

Quote:
What you have to keep in mind is that with halving from RWB...


Foul!
Circular logic.
Your claim is that halving damage results in fractional damage.
You're trying to support your claim by telling me that I have to keep in mind that halving damage results in fractional damage.
You cannot use your claim to support your claim.

We have N&S (which has the same rules for taking 1/2 damage when Rolling With Impact as other games) giving us an example of how that rule works: you round up the 1/2 damage.
In order to over-rule that example, you'd need to find a counter-example where fractional damage is shown to be the result of Rolling With Impact.
Or that it even exists within the scope of the game.
Let me know if you can find that.

_________________
Annual Best Poster of the Year Awards (2012)

"That rifle on the wall of the laborer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there." -George Orwell

Check out my Author Page on Amazon!


          Top  
 
 
Post new topic Reply to topic



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users


Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Jump to:  

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group