Aug 04, 09:00 1998

To: Lindharin

From: Froccer

In response to your response to my email,

>I'm afraid you've lost me here. Where does it say an infantry weapon can do
>3d6 x7 damage? I don't have Rifts books immediately to hand.

My reference was to a common infantry weapon (such as the Coalition
C-14 Firebreather) that does 3d6 MDC on a single shot. If you empty
the entire clip as a wild burst, you can increase the damage by a
factor of x7 (as indicated in the RIFTS Conversion Book; revised
damage code rules about bursts). While I do realize that there
are many drawbacks to doing this, the many that I have heard do
not settle my uneasiness about the shear amount of damage that
can be done by the common infantryman.

From my GMing experience, I have seen a party of characters frag a
Coalition APC in short order with a couple of wild bursts. I then ask
myself, "Why don't they put weapons such as the ones that the
characters have on these vehicles to do more damage then they are
doing with big, huge rail guns?".

>I have reduced the number of SDC a Juicer gets. Check the my Rifts OCC
>file - I was considering 3d4x25 instead of what they got in Rifts, but
>actually decided to make it 4d4x10, as per the super power Extraordinary PE.
>The only reason they got hundreds of SDC in Rifts was so that an MDC pistol
>wouldn't guaranteedly blow them away. With my MDC replacement rules, they
>can get by with a lower amount of SDC and actually be tougher - even with
>only a +100 SDC on average, it would take a number of shots from an energy
>pistol (averaging 3d6-5d6 SDC damage under my system, not counting bursts).
>And wearing armor would add a significant bonus both in SDC and to overall
>toughness since the armor means they wouldn't take any damage at all (not
>even the armor) from normal human punches, etc.

Ah, I see. With the new rules, 4d4 x 10 SDC makes a lot more
sense then 1d4 x 100 SDC.

This still means that the average Juicer will have more SDC than
a set of average body armor. A Juicer will now be able to survive
a couple of bursts, even from an energy rifle (6d6 SDC for a
common energy rifle, x2 for a short burst, equals 72 SDC max.
damage). This means that you need to hit with at least three
short bursts, doing max. damage, to kill a common Juicer with
body armor. I am unsure of this type of implication to the game.
It may result in fearless characters who have no problems about
facing down a squad of troops because they know they will not
die. Considering the dodge bonus of some Juicers I have seen, I
can actually see this happening (bummer for the rest of the party
who might get killed just by colateral damage!).

>I haven't planned on the helmet having a separate amount at all. As per
>Rifts, a suit of standard body armor has a total amount of SDC, not each
>limb separately. However, if someone removes the helmet that will reduce
>the AR and also mean it is not environmentally sealed and any strike over
>the AR will do full damage to the victim. Remember that even in full,
>environmentally sealed armor, strike rolls over the AR will still do 1/2
>damage to the wearer.

My problem is with the reality of this. The SAMAS helmet, for
example, does not seem to be significantly larger than a normal
Coalition grunt's helmet. Yet you can aim for that specific part
of the power armour. Why would the same not be true for normal
armor? Why would you not be able to aim at anything? I think that
you would be able to aim at anything, even something as small as
a dime, except that you would get significant penalties to strike
and it would have to be a called shot.

>On the other hand, for Power Armor like the SAMAS that is not true - the
>wearer NEVER takes damage while the armor is functioning, so Palladium has
>rules for having lesser amounts of SDC at each body location and the
>attacker can try to wear through that location in order to strike the pilot,
>not to mention taking out sensors or other devices. My MDC replacement
>rules adds an AR to the powered armor, but strikes over the AR do not
>necessarily damage the pilot, they damage components of the power armor
>itself (one of which can be the pilot's compartment).
>
>What do you think?
>Lindharin
>

In general, these are excellant adaptations to a game system that is,
in my opinion, totally screwed. Don't get me wrong; I love the
Palladium multiverse, but I feel that the rules could have been more
thoroughly thought out than they currently are.

As for changing everything to SDC, I think it has great
potential. However, neither I, nor my players have started out
with conventional Palladium games (RIFTS is our first), so
changing from MDC will seem like a radical idea.

I will indicate your system to my players as a good system to
switch over to. The people I play with are all experienced
gamers, and I am sure they will have valuable insight. I will
consider your suggestions with my players, and will be sure to
contact you with our decisions.

I just had an idea! Weapons like energy rifles should have less
power than rail guns, and armor like vehicle armor should have more
protection than body armor. This would mean that an energy rifle would
not be as effective against an APC (which is supposed to protect
the people inside against small arms fire anyways), as a 1 ton
rail gun would be. This would totally nulify my concerns about
infantry weapons doing more damage than heavy mount vehicle
weapons.

I don't know what implications it would have to your current
damage scheme, but let me know what you think about this and the
other ponderings that I have commented on.

Froccer