Have a player looking for arrows, need some help

Ley Line walkers, Juicers, Coalition Troops, Samas, Tolkeen, & The Federation Of Magic. Come together here to discuss all things Rifts®.

Moderators: Immortals, Supreme Beings, Old Ones

User avatar
Killer Cyborg
Priest
Posts: 27954
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 2:01 am
Comment: "Your Eloquence with a sledge hammer is a beautiful thing..." -Zer0 Kay
Location: In the ocean, punching oncoming waves
Contact:

Re: Have a player looking for arrows, need some help

Unread post by Killer Cyborg »

Prysus wrote:[justify]
Killer Cyborg wrote:Some people play that ONLY abilities/skills/effects that specifically mention increasing ROF actually affect ROF, but PFRPG p. 59 states:
Note: The long bow is exclusive to the Long Bowman and Ranger OCCs. Skilled archers who are NOT long bowmen can use the weapon but find it awkward, all bonuses to strike are half, and the rate of fire is equal to the archer's normal hand to hand attacks per melee (no bonus shots from the WP).
IF a group plays that bonus attacks from speed and other effects do not stack with ROF, then you end up with a situation where somebody who specializes in the long bow has a ROF of 2 at first level, but somebody who has zero special training with the weapon, who finds it "awkward" and who loses half their strike bonuses with the weapon, gets a ROF of 4-5 on average.
Which does not make any sense.

Greetings and Salutations. I agree, for the most part. I've never liked that statement either. Still, with that said, your argument is based upon Rifts, even though you're quoting PF2. That is where there is a logic break down.


I disagree.

In PF2, I don't believe you'll find any note of two attacks for living or two attacks for being a hero (if you do find it, let me know, but I don't know of it mentioned anywhere in the book).


I don't believe you'll find any such note in Rifts either.

What you'll find in both books are passages that are remarkably similar:
Rifts, 37
All player characters automatically start off with two attacks/actions per 15 second melee. Additional attacks per melee are gained from the hand to hand skills and boxing. A typical non-player character gets only two attacks per melee pluss hand to hand combat and/or boxing skill additions.

PFRPG2, 48
Most player characters start off with two attacks per 15 second melee round. Additional attacks may be acquired as one advances in hand to hand combat experience and from the boxing skill, special bonuses or magic.

People took the Rifts passage to mean that PCs started off with 4 attacks per melee (2 base attacks mentioned there, plus 2 attacks from the base of the hand to hand combat skills), but it never meant that.
It simply assumes that PCs and NPCs are going to have HTH basic, expert, or martial arts, and refers to the "two attacks per melee to start" that these HTH forms provide.

There was much argument about it, which is why the PFRPG2 passage has been clarified a bit, even though it says the same thing.

With Rifts, some time around the Atlantis book, Palladium suddenly upped everybody's attacks by 2, the dreaded "two attacks for living."
They did not explain this. They did not mention that they were doing it.
Maryann and other staffers claimed that it was always this way.
When asked why every single NPC, sample character, and sample combat lacked those extra two attacks per melee, their response was "Not every NPC is created by the same rules used to generate player characters" (or words to that effect).

I finally got an official explanation from Kevin at GenCon 2005:
He was a fan of boxing, and noticed that people get off a lot more than just 2 attacks per 15 seconds of combat, so he changed the rules.
I asked him about the responses from Maryann and other staffers, and he said: "That doesn't make any sense."

Things were officially changed in the RGMG, not by including +2 attacks for PCs or for character in general, but simply by increasing the base number of attacks for the various HTH forms.

With Palladium's Fantasy setting, as in Rifts before the RGMG, there has been no mention that I know of of those additional two attacks.
As with Rifts, this does not mean that they have not been introduced.

LoB 59
Ondemere the White is an elven wizard (8th level) with HTH Expert and 5 attacks per melee.
HTH Expert only provides a total of three attacks per melee by level 8 (PFRPG2 47), two short of his total.

Nyodo Skatelin, 7th level Priest of Light with HTH Basic, also has 5 attacks per melee.
HTH Basic only provides 3 attacks per melee by level 7, two short of his total.

P. 60
Galathan of the Gate is a 9th level knight with HTH Martial Arts and Boxing.
He has 7 attacks per melee.
HTH Martial Arts provides 4 attacks per melee by 9th level, Boxing provides +1 attack for a total of 5, which is two short of his total number of attacks.

P. 61
Sanister Lenox is a 7th level diabolist with HTH Basic and 5 attacks per melee. Again, +2 attacks over where his HTH skill would place him.

But here's the REALLY fun NPC from that book (p.62):
Agrippa Khejas, Scholar of Bletherad
6th level scholar, and 1st level longbowman
HTH: Expert
Attacks per melee: 5 attacks per melee (7 with a bow)

Again, a 6th level character with HTH Expert should only have 3 attacks per melee, but she has 5, two more than she should.

And apparently, she has two extra attacks on top of that when she uses the bow.
A first level Longbow Man has a ROF of 2.

So going by that one NPC, it looks like in PFRPG not only do the TAFL exist, but ROF stacks on top of attacks per melee.
Naturally, I wouldn't go off of that one NPC, but it goes to show that it's nowhere nearly as simple as you seem to think.

If you want a clearer answer, start going through all your PFRPG books and calculating up the NPC attacks per melee.
Keep your eyes out for archers; I'd be interested to hear what any others are like, and if they work the same way.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Also, there's the reference to "bonus shots from the WP." This indicates that the ROF of an archer is supposed to grant more attacks with the bow than they would normally have in melee combat, which certainly is not the case if you go strictly off of the listed ROF for the weapon.
It's a case where the letter of the law seems to go against the spirit of the law, and we ruled in favor of the spirit. ;)

See above.

Though, if you wanted to go strictly by the "bonus shots from WP" ONLY, then you'd have to figure ROF actually is added on top of APM (not instead of).


ONLY if you assume that Palladium is using the term "bonus" in the most literal sense, not in the sense that simply having more attacks with a bow than a melee weapon would be a "bonus."
Being very familiar with the writing style of Palladium writers, I saw no reason to make that assumption.
With the LoB NPC above, though, I suppose that might actually BE the correct interpretation.

In the future, before trying to tell me where my logic falls apart, you might try gaining a bit more information as to what my logic IS, and where it comes from.
Since you generally seem to try to come off as polite and inoffensive.
My feathers get ruffled at times when people just assume that I don't know what I'm talking about. ;)
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!
User avatar
Killer Cyborg
Priest
Posts: 27954
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 2:01 am
Comment: "Your Eloquence with a sledge hammer is a beautiful thing..." -Zer0 Kay
Location: In the ocean, punching oncoming waves
Contact:

Re: Have a player looking for arrows, need some help

Unread post by Killer Cyborg »

Later in LoB, p. 65, there is a human 9th level ranger that is listed as having HTH Basic and 6 attacks per melee.
Again, he seems to include the T.A.F.L.

He is listed as having 7 attacks per melee with the bow, though, which seems in line with the ROF for WP Archery- NOT stacked with melee attacks as with the other character in the same book.

This indicates to me that the other one is likely a mistake or typo, and it illustrates the issue that I addressed:
Here you have a 9th level archer who has only 1 extra attack with the bow than in melee combat.
This is not "bonus attacks," this is only "bonus attack."
At 9th level, which is higher than I've ever gotten any of my characters, and he's only got one extra attack with a bow if you include the TAFL, instead of THREE extra attacks over melee without the TAFL.

Hence my ruling that archers benefit from TAFL like everybody else (except robots, mages, vampires, animals, various monsters, etc. etc. etc....)
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!
User avatar
Prysus
Champion
Posts: 2593
Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Boise, ID (US)
Contact:

Re: Have a player looking for arrows, need some help

Unread post by Prysus »

Killer Cyborg wrote:In the future, before trying to tell me where my logic falls apart, you might try gaining a bit more information as to what my logic IS, and where it comes from.
Since you generally seem to try to come off as polite and inoffensive.
My feathers get ruffled at times when people just assume that I don't know what I'm talking about. ;)

Greetings and Salutations. Okay, I'll apologize if I offended you. I'll try to come at this a different way, because I think you missed the point I was trying to make (or maybe you saw it and I'm missing yours). I'll start by quoting the part where I that I disagree with.

Killer Cyborg wrote:PFRPG p. 59 states:
Note: The long bow is exclusive to the Long Bowman and Ranger OCCs. Skilled archers who are NOT long bowmen can use the weapon but find it awkward, all bonuses to strike are half, and the rate of fire is equal to the archer's normal hand to hand attacks per melee (no bonus shots from the WP).
IF a group plays that bonus attacks from speed and other effects do not stack with ROF, then you end up with a situation where somebody who specializes in the long bow has a ROF of 2 at first level, but somebody who has zero special training with the weapon, who finds it "awkward" and who loses half their strike bonuses with the weapon, gets a ROF of 4-5 on average.
Which does not make any sense.
Also, there's the reference to "bonus shots from the WP." This indicates that the ROF of an archer is supposed to grant more attacks with the bow than they would normally have in melee combat, which certainly is not the case if you go strictly off of the listed ROF for the weapon.
It's a case where the letter of the law seems to go against the spirit of the law, and we ruled in favor of the spirit. ;)

I put a couple parts in bold just to highlight them. I agree and disagree with that statement. I'll start with what I agree with:

Using Two Attacks For Living (TAFL), this rules (quoted above) would make no sense. I also agree that PF (currently) uses the TAFL rule.

I believe we can agree on this, yes?

I think so, so I'll move on. Now I'm going to quote you a bit more, and this is not to twist your words but to show what I'm reading and what I'm thinking. If I'm misunderstanding something, then by all means correct me.

Killer Cyborg wrote:I don't believe you'll find any such note in Rifts either.

What you'll find in both books are passages that are remarkably similar:
Rifts, 37
All player characters automatically start off with two attacks/actions per 15 second melee. Additional attacks per melee are gained from the hand to hand skills and boxing. A typical non-player character gets only two attacks per melee pluss hand to hand combat and/or boxing skill additions.

PFRPG2, 48
Most player characters start off with two attacks per 15 second melee round. Additional attacks may be acquired as one advances in hand to hand combat experience and from the boxing skill, special bonuses or magic.

People took the Rifts passage to mean that PCs started off with 4 attacks per melee (2 base attacks mentioned there, plus 2 attacks from the base of the hand to hand combat skills), but it never meant that.
It simply assumes that PCs and NPCs are going to have HTH basic, expert, or martial arts, and refers to the "two attacks per melee to start" that these HTH forms provide.

There was much argument about it, which is why the PFRPG2 passage has been clarified a bit, even though it says the same thing.

So PFRPG2 states "most," as if to indicate the few without a HtH won't? In the main books neither Rifts (original) nor PF2 had TAFL. In both settings, characters only started with 2 per their HtH. We can even look in the back of the Rifts (original) main book to see some quick stats mentioning NPC having only 2 attacks. I think this is your point, and if so I can again agree.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Things were officially changed in the RGMG, not by including +2 attacks for PCs or for character in general, but simply by increasing the base number of attacks for the various HTH forms.

And you're saying that this was officially changed in RGMG, correct? So far I'm not disagreeing. And that the change also included PF, even though the rule (HtH notes) were never officially changed, yes? This is proven by the NPC. Right now, I'd like to think I'm understanding you correctly so far, and that we both agree on this.

Now this is where I start to disagree with your previous logic. PFRPG2 (main book) is using the older rules of only 2 APM (no TAFL rule!). This was addressed above. They have a rule about the long bow in this book, the book that's following ONLY 2 APM. In this book alone, following the rules of this book, this rule makes perfect sense (barring Boxing, but that would only be for one level before that at least evens out).

If characters only start with 2 APM, and the ROF is 2 (but advances more quickly) reducing a character to APM is a penalty (at least their intention). Can we agree on this?

Now RGMG changes the rule (which also affects PF). ROF is not changed in Rifts or any other setting, showing it's now slower than APM (at least at start, but will eventually surpass at higher levels). Can we agree on this?

My issue comes in using a rule (from BEFORE the change) to show that ROF should be changed. I disagree with this logic, and I personally just find it flawed. If I'm missing something at this point, please correct me.

To my logic, if APM and ROF are both in the newer, updated books, then they're more likely the ones that are right. The old, outdated rule that used old, outdated rules as a basis and has not been reprinted since the change is what should be changed. That's the logical conclusion to me. If you think my logic is somehow flawed, I'd love to hear it now because I'm not seeing how the other way is the logical way. This is why I see yours as a logical breakdown. If I'm misunderstanding something (and that is possible) then I apologize and please correct me because I'm not following.

Now, I will say that looking at more PF books for NPC and their ROF will be an interesting test. I'll do that because I'd love to see how they do it out of curiosity for a better understanding of the official rules (even if it won't change how I personally run as a GM). I'll be honest, it hadn't occured to me to check the NPC (I knew the new ones had the TAFL rule included though, but what's in the new books is a separate topic of what's in the PF2 main book). I'll post again if I find anything interesting. Thank you for your time and patience, please have a nice day. Farewell and safe journeys for now.
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.
User avatar
Killer Cyborg
Priest
Posts: 27954
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 2:01 am
Comment: "Your Eloquence with a sledge hammer is a beautiful thing..." -Zer0 Kay
Location: In the ocean, punching oncoming waves
Contact:

Re: Have a player looking for arrows, need some help

Unread post by Killer Cyborg »

Prysus wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:Things were officially changed in the RGMG, not by including +2 attacks for PCs or for character in general, but simply by increasing the base number of attacks for the various HTH forms.

And you're saying that this was officially changed in RGMG, correct?


The RGMG is where the base number of HTH attacks was officially changed to reflect the unwritten TAFL that were introduced some time around the Atlantis book.

So far I'm not disagreeing. And that the change also included PF, even though the rule (HtH notes) were never officially changed, yes?


More or less, yes.

This is proven by the NPC. Right now, I'd like to think I'm understanding you correctly so far, and that we both agree on this.


Seemingly.

If characters only start with 2 APM, and the ROF is 2 (but advances more quickly) reducing a character to APM is a penalty (at least their intention). Can we agree on this?


In the same sense that a faster-advancing ROF is a bonus, I suppose, yes.

Now RGMG changes the rule (which also affects PF).


I'm not sure when the rule for PFRPG changed. I'd have to go through the different books and look over the NPCs, then compare the printing date with the RGMG.

ROF is not changed in Rifts or any other setting, showing it's now slower than APM (at least at start, but will eventually surpass at higher levels). Can we agree on this?


Yes.

My issue comes in using a rule (from BEFORE the change) to show that ROF should be changed. I disagree with this logic, and I personally just find it flawed. If I'm missing something at this point, please correct me.


Palladium changed one rule that had rippling implications throughout the megaverse, but didn't do anything to fix all the other problems that their one change caused.
When Kevin decided to introduce those bonus attacks, he did NOT (as far as I can tell) think about the implications of the change.
He didn't think about the fact that Juicers went from 2x faster than the average person to only being 50% faster than the normal person.
Or that mages were suddenly getting shot or stabbed twice for every one spell they got off.
Or that robots and vampires went from being as fast as juicers to being as slow as normal people.
Or that animals went from being as fast as a normal human to being half as fast as a normal human on average.
Or that supernatural predators from the main book, with their 1d4 attacks per melee, went from ranging between untrained human speed (1 attack) to Juicer speed) 4 attacks, to only being as fast as a normal human with basic training.
Or that Mummies went from being 50% faster than a normal human to being 25% slower.
Or any of the other problems that went along with this one rule change.

Including the fact that novice archers went from being as fast as a novice swordsman to being half as fast, and that more skilled archers went from being significantly faster (almost 50% in the case of one of our NPCs I mentioned above) to being only slightly faster (one extra attack at 9th level).

To my logic, if APM and ROF are both in the newer, updated books, then they're more likely the ones that are right. The old, outdated rule that used old, outdated rules as a basis and has not been reprinted since the change is what should be changed. That's the logical conclusion to me. If you think my logic is somehow flawed, I'd love to hear it now because I'm not seeing how the other way is the logical way. This is why I see yours as a logical breakdown. If I'm misunderstanding something (and that is possible) then I apologize and please correct me because I'm not following.


You seem to be assuming that the rippling effects of the TAFL were deliberate on the part of Palladium, that Kevin intended to nerf juicers, mages, archers, every animal, many monsters, robots, etc. by increasing the number of attacks per melee for the average character, and I am assuming the opposite.
Given the lack of care that Palladium uses when changing and modifying their rules, I feel that my assumption is much more logical.
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!
Giant2005
Knight
Posts: 3209
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 4:57 am

Re: Have a player looking for arrows, need some help

Unread post by Giant2005 »

Prysus, when using the Acher's h2h skills in your article, the 2 attacks at level one are they in addition to the regular 2 you would have due to the Archery W.P. for a total of 4, or is it just 2?
User avatar
Prysus
Champion
Posts: 2593
Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Boise, ID (US)
Contact:

Re: Have a player looking for arrows, need some help

Unread post by Prysus »

Giant2005 wrote:Prysus, when using the Acher's h2h skills in your article, the 2 attacks at level one are they in addition to the regular 2 you would have due to the Archery W.P. for a total of 4, or is it just 2?

Greetings and Salutations. Neither. Now as you may see from the conversation between Killer Cyborg and myself, we have a slightly different view on how Attacks Per Melee and Rate of Fire mix. Per my belief (and as a result the way I wrote the article) the two are separate and shouldn't be confused. Those hand to hand styles are in place of a normal hand to hand (such as Basic, Expert, Martial Arts, or Assassin). As a result, you need to start off with attacks per melee. Because PF2 was never updated with the TAFL rule, I listed it as only 2 (because I know some PF players never adapted and updated). In a setting like Rifts, I'd say they start with 4 attacks per melee. Bonuses to Rate of Fire are listed as such.

Example: Page 40 (HtH: Bow Combat); APM is listed at level 1 and 7 (so they'll be slower in melee combat than an average melee fighter). This means the character will end with only 3 (or 5) APM (plus 1 if Boxing is selected), while a character with HtH: Basic, Expert, or MA would end with 5 (or 7) APM. Their ROF increases (in addition to W.P. Archery or O.C.C. listing) at levels 4, 9, and 14 (making them faster in their specialty). A character with W.P. Archery and HtH: Bow Combat would end with a ROF at 11 while the typical archer (W.P. Archery only, no specialized HtH) would end with only 8. I did this to show that they focused more on their archery (and excel at it as a result), but as a result their melee combat has suffered (a sacrifice for their improved ROF, and they're not perfect at everything).

Does that make sense? If not, I can try to clarify a different way. Anyways, thank you for your time and patience, please have a nice day. Farewell and safe journeys for now.
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.
User avatar
Prysus
Champion
Posts: 2593
Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Boise, ID (US)
Contact:

Re: Have a player looking for arrows, need some help

Unread post by Prysus »

Killer Cyborg wrote:You seem to be assuming that the rippling effects of the TAFL were deliberate on the part of Palladium, that Kevin intended to nerf juicers, mages, archers, every animal, many monsters, robots, etc. by increasing the number of attacks per melee for the average character, and I am assuming the opposite.
Given the lack of care that Palladium uses when changing and modifying their rules, I feel that my assumption is much more logical.

Greetings and Salutations. Well, I will note that I didn't start playing Palladium until basically the TAFL was standard. So I have to make the mental effort to retro-fit how things work prior to that. Some things (for me) are more obvious than others. There are a few things I hadn't realized quite the same extent (such as Juicers and Robots/PA pilots).

Now I will say I did notice/realize how this "nerfed" mages and archers. Actually, I have to admit I kind of liked this for my personal reasons. No, not because I hate these classes or hate magic. I'll explain in a spoiler below for those curious. Though I will say this is partly a matter of setting as I am, predominantly, a PF player. But, I'll admit because I like it, that will influence my judgment to say that this is intentional (while you dislike it, so it will help influence to say this is unintentional and an oversight).

As for a lot of the others, such as vampires, animals, and other monsters, I've always chalked most of this to the fact that those stats never received an update. And I don't just mean they forgot, but I'm not sure how many of those have been printed in books since RGMG. So if they don't get printed in a newer book, they can't be updated (kind of like that PF rule discussed above, it hasn't been reprinted since the new TAFL rule become official).

Anyways, agree or not, I at least understand your logic now so I thank you for that. Other points of view are always a plus, and could always help in future discussions. I think that's all for now. Thank you for your time and patience, please have a nice day. Farewell and safe journeys for now.


Spoiler:
Why do I like Mages and Archers with a slower Spell casting/ROF than APM?

Well, first let's understand that I'm a Palladium Fantasy player. In a setting like PF, where range can be a huge advantage, I don't mind seeing them with a handicap. Magic can be a major battle changer. In Rifts if someone gets caught in a Carpet of Adhesion, he can shoot back. In PF if someone gets caught in Carpet of Adhesion, it can be game over. In Rifts, a character with a bow doesn't have a real edge over a guy with a laser pistol. In PF, a character with a bow and arrow has a serious range advantage over the guy with a sword who could be riddled with arrows (especially with the -10 rule in PF) and/or dead by the time he can close the distance. So, as a PF player, I like these classes having limitations for their special powers. This helps (in my opinion) to balance out the advantage they have.

I realize in a setting like Rifts, where ranged combat is the basic, that these limitations are far more of a handicap. Using a bow that cuts your attacks in half can be suicide. Taking 2 or 3 actions per spell while anyone with a gun can easily break your casting can be insane (which lead to the new casting rules in R:UE, which I agree with FOR Rifts). This is a matter of setting. What many feel a "nerf" in Rifts I find a great feature in PF.
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.
Giant2005
Knight
Posts: 3209
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 4:57 am

Re: Have a player looking for arrows, need some help

Unread post by Giant2005 »

Prysus wrote:
Giant2005 wrote:Prysus, when using the Acher's h2h skills in your article, the 2 attacks at level one are they in addition to the regular 2 you would have due to the Archery W.P. for a total of 4, or is it just 2?

Greetings and Salutations. Neither. Now as you may see from the conversation between Killer Cyborg and myself, we have a slightly different view on how Attacks Per Melee and Rate of Fire mix. Per my belief (and as a result the way I wrote the article) the two are separate and shouldn't be confused. Those hand to hand styles are in place of a normal hand to hand (such as Basic, Expert, Martial Arts, or Assassin). As a result, you need to start off with attacks per melee. Because PF2 was never updated with the TAFL rule, I listed it as only 2 (because I know some PF players never adapted and updated). In a setting like Rifts, I'd say they start with 4 attacks per melee. Bonuses to Rate of Fire are listed as such.

Example: Page 40 (HtH: Bow Combat); APM is listed at level 1 and 7 (so they'll be slower in melee combat than an average melee fighter). This means the character will end with only 3 (or 5) APM (plus 1 if Boxing is selected), while a character with HtH: Basic, Expert, or MA would end with 5 (or 7) APM. Their ROF increases (in addition to W.P. Archery or O.C.C. listing) at levels 4, 9, and 14 (making them faster in their specialty). A character with W.P. Archery and HtH: Bow Combat would end with a ROF at 11 while the typical archer (W.P. Archery only, no specialized HtH) would end with only 8. I did this to show that they focused more on their archery (and excel at it as a result), but as a result their melee combat has suffered (a sacrifice for their improved ROF, and they're not perfect at everything).

Does that make sense? If not, I can try to clarify a different way. Anyways, thank you for your time and patience, please have a nice day. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

No that makes perfect sense, I didn't notice the H2H was increasing both the regular attacks per melee and rate of fire. It is clear now.
User avatar
Killer Cyborg
Priest
Posts: 27954
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 2:01 am
Comment: "Your Eloquence with a sledge hammer is a beautiful thing..." -Zer0 Kay
Location: In the ocean, punching oncoming waves
Contact:

Re: Have a player looking for arrows, need some help

Unread post by Killer Cyborg »

Prysus wrote:Anyways, agree or not, I at least understand your logic now so I thank you for that. Other points of view are always a plus, and could always help in future discussions. I think that's all for now. Thank you for your time and patience, please have a nice day. Farewell and safe journeys for now.


Back atcha. :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!
User avatar
Razzinold
Hero
Posts: 1568
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 7:51 pm
Comment: HTTP 404 [witty comment not found]
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Have a player looking for arrows, need some help

Unread post by Razzinold »

Killer Cyborg wrote:
The 3d6 MD explosive arrows cost CR 900 each and would be easily available.
Making a 1d4x10 MD Plasma arrow from a Naruni Plasma Cartridge would cost slightly more than CR 40 each, and availability would depend on how common Naruni gear is in the game world.

So I guess it depends on what you mean by "less hassle."


All I meant by "less hassle" is, like you stated above, he could pretty much go anywhere and buy those 3d6 MD explosive arrows. The other way, he'd have to track down some a place where they sell Naruni gear (I say track down because where they are now is a small town out in Texas that does not have the sort of Hi-Tech "alien" gear.) I'm not suggesting he wouldn't be able to find Naruni gear in my setting, just not currently where they are.Then he would have to pay someone to make the arrows for him since he does not have the technical skills to preform such a task. Don't get me wrong I like your idea, but as I mentioned before, for this particular player, I believe he is using a bow more because of the "look" instead of actual game mechanics. I'm sure if he was a dedicated archer he would look into more powerful arrows, but he also carries, two laser pistols, and a laser rifle.

That being said I won't limit a player's imagination. If he comes up in game with an idea like this then I will deffinatly allow him to try and obtain custom arrows of this sort.
Post Reply

Return to “Rifts®”