Forums of the Megaverse®

Summon rodents for animal sacrifice. Thoughts, ideas, suggestions, comments, etc?

for the most part, sacrifice needs to be a pretty personal thing. you could maybe summon a ton of rodents and sacrifice them, but you wouldn't be looking at a situation where you could just get them all to step into a trap, press the button, and get your PPE. you could presumably sacrifice them one by one, which is going to take a while.

I tend to suggest it, in Palladium Fantasy. The Summon Animal circle can be used to summon the creature need as a sacrifice for another circle.

Mark Hall wrote:I tend to suggest it, in Palladium Fantasy. The Summon Animal circle can be used to summon the creature need as a sacrifice for another circle.

That will work sure.
If you need a specific animal it is certainly the way to get it.
But summoning a horde of rats as a way to 'get PPE for nothing' is a non-starter.
You can't do mass sacrifices of a few hundred rats all at once and get all of their PPE in one go.

Shark_Force wrote:for the most part, sacrifice needs to be a pretty personal thing. you could maybe summon a ton of rodents and sacrifice them, but you wouldn't be looking at a situation where you could just get them all to step into a trap, press the button, and get your PPE. you could presumably sacrifice them one by one, which is going to take a while.

I used a bucket, around half full of water, have them jump in it and use energy bolt. Dump the water, then teleport it to a restaurant I hated.

A few people have suggested that you can't do mass sacrifices of rodents to get their PPE. WHY NOT? Where in the rules does it prohibit that? On page 181 of Palladium Fantasy 2nd Edition, it discusses blood sacrifices. I don't see anything there listing the reasons previously cited. It simply says that a sorcerer can use DOUBLE the PPE of whatever is being killed. If I'm missing something, please let me know, because I might not have all the information.

As far as the spell of summoning rodents, it says you can summon up to 30 mice or rats per level. I'd choose rats, on page 156, because it states rats possess 2D4 PPE (twice as much as mice). Yes, you'd expend 70 PPE, but you could potentially absorb much more, especially if your character is a higher leveled one who can summon a lot of rats! The part that would take a little doing is figuring out how to kill them all at once. A pit of fire? That would be my choice. But.......

Here's the REAL problem and why it likely won't work. Notice I say "likely" instead of "won't." The catch here is the book says only characters of an evil alignment will consider blood sacrifice and that Principled or Scrupulous characters will not even consider it. Selfish aligned characters aren't mentioned. I suppose characters of a selfish alignment WILL consider it, but since they're not evil, they won't actually do it. (Presumably, your character is not of an evil alignment, but maybe he/she is!)

Had that caveat of alignments not been there, if I were your GM, I would have absolutely allowed it. I wouldn't have prevented that just because you were clever enough to find a loophole or because it doesn't fit nicely into my idea of what a blood sacrifice is. A player's resourcefulness should be rewarded, not discouraged or disallowed.

Only if it became a problem by causing unbalanced gameplay would I have presented consequences if this was used by a character (yes, this takes effort, but ohh, is it worth it!). Maybe someone who was unseen by the mage witnessed the heinous and ungodly act and reported it to the local populace, whose turning stomachs made them pay your character a visit with torches and pitchforks in the middle of the night. Maybe a very politically-connected mage who has a rat as a familiar heard about this and didn't like it, so he sent word to you to stop, or else face the consequences. Maybe a super high-level evil sorcerer heard about your shenanigans and now wants to recruit you into the fold because you're assumed to also be evil, which is surely going to cause some super high-level problems with the group. I'd actually love for this to be tried so those twists can be thrown into the mix!

Jack Burton wrote:A few people have suggested that you can't do mass sacrifices of rodents to get their PPE. WHY NOT? Where in the rules does it prohibit that? On page 181 of Palladium Fantasy 2nd Edition, it discusses blood sacrifices. I don't see anything there listing the reasons previously cited. It simply says that a sorcerer can use DOUBLE the PPE of whatever is being killed. If I'm missing something, please let me know, because I might not have all the information.

We are told pretty clearly that you can't harvest the PPE from combat for example. If you have a way to kill all the animals *simultaneously* and that method is something you can incorporate into your spell ritual and that still follows the "the mage murders their victim" statement... then you might have a case.

But so far no one has ever presented a plausible way to do it that doesn't violate the "you can't harvest the PPE from combat" rule or that doesn't require other people/things to do the killing for them. If you feel that you can do so, with out using house rules... be my guest.

eliakon wrote:

Jack Burton wrote:A few people have suggested that you can't do mass sacrifices of rodents to get their PPE. WHY NOT? Where in the rules does it prohibit that? On page 181 of Palladium Fantasy 2nd Edition, it discusses blood sacrifices. I don't see anything there listing the reasons previously cited. It simply says that a sorcerer can use DOUBLE the PPE of whatever is being killed. If I'm missing something, please let me know, because I might not have all the information.

We are told pretty clearly that you can't harvest the PPE from combat for example. If you have a way to kill all the animals *simultaneously* and that method is something you can incorporate into your spell ritual... then you might have a case.

But so far no one has ever presented a plausible way to do it that doesn't violate the "you can't harvest the PPE from combat" rule. If you feel that you can do so, with out using house rules... be my guest.

Who said anything about combat? No one. My example was a pit of fire. That's not combat and it would kill all of them simultaneously.

Jack Burton wrote:

eliakon wrote:

Jack Burton wrote:A few people have suggested that you can't do mass sacrifices of rodents to get their PPE. WHY NOT? Where in the rules does it prohibit that? On page 181 of Palladium Fantasy 2nd Edition, it discusses blood sacrifices. I don't see anything there listing the reasons previously cited. It simply says that a sorcerer can use DOUBLE the PPE of whatever is being killed. If I'm missing something, please let me know, because I might not have all the information.

We are told pretty clearly that you can't harvest the PPE from combat for example. If you have a way to kill all the animals *simultaneously* and that method is something you can incorporate into your spell ritual... then you might have a case.

But so far no one has ever presented a plausible way to do it that doesn't violate the "you can't harvest the PPE from combat" rule. If you feel that you can do so, with out using house rules... be my guest.

Who said anything about combat? No one. My example was a pit of fire. That's not combat and it would kill all of them simultaneously.

And violates the rules
No seriously. The mage must be the one that murders the animal. It specifically states those exact words in the text.
Dropping them into a fire pit is not murdering them yourself.

Let me try again.

If you have a way to kill all the animals:
1) Simultaneously
and
2) That method is something you can incorporate into your spell ritual
and
3) That still follows the "the mage murders their victim" statement.
and
4) does not involve "combat" (so no using killing spells for example)
Then you might have a case.

But so far no one has ever presented a plausible way to do it that doesn't violate one or more of the prongs of the "Is this rules legal" test.

eliakon wrote:

Jack Burton wrote:

eliakon wrote:

Jack Burton wrote:A few people have suggested that you can't do mass sacrifices of rodents to get their PPE. WHY NOT? Where in the rules does it prohibit that? On page 181 of Palladium Fantasy 2nd Edition, it discusses blood sacrifices. I don't see anything there listing the reasons previously cited. It simply says that a sorcerer can use DOUBLE the PPE of whatever is being killed. If I'm missing something, please let me know, because I might not have all the information.

We are told pretty clearly that you can't harvest the PPE from combat for example. If you have a way to kill all the animals *simultaneously* and that method is something you can incorporate into your spell ritual... then you might have a case.

But so far no one has ever presented a plausible way to do it that doesn't violate the "you can't harvest the PPE from combat" rule. If you feel that you can do so, with out using house rules... be my guest.

Who said anything about combat? No one. My example was a pit of fire. That's not combat and it would kill all of them simultaneously.

And violates the rules
No seriously. The mage must be the one that murders the animal. It specifically states those exact words in the text.
Dropping them into a fire pit is not murdering them yourself.

Let me try again.

If you have a way to kill all the animals:
1) Simultaneously
and
2) That method is something you can incorporate into your spell ritual
and
3) That still follows the "the mage murders their victim" statement.
and
4) does not involve "combat" (so no using killing spells for example)
Then you might have a case.

But so far no one has ever presented a plausible way to do it that doesn't violate one or more of the prongs of the "Is this rules legal" test.

pretty much this.

you are performing a sacrifice. not just waiting for things to die somewhere in your vicinity and absorbing doubled PPE. if you have 2,000 arms and hands and you use 1,000 of those arms to hold rats and the other 1,000 to use sacrificial knives on them, sure. or maybe if you're, like, some absurdly large being that can eat 1,000 rats in a single mouthful (and are also willing to eat 1,000 rats), i'd probably allow that. but for a regular person? nah. i'd totally allow you to sacrifice them, one by one, and eventually build up a pool of PPE (not sure if that's rules-legal, but i feel like there are irl rituals that involves sacrificing things one after another, so i'm ok with it), but it isn't going to be just some environmental thing that kills them. and of course, you're going to be subject to the normal rules for going over your maximum PPE using ley lines and such, so you only have so long to perform those sacrifices before you can't hold on to the PPE any more.

on a side note, mysteries of magic (a palladium fantasy book) seems pretty clear that you can sacrifice animals to perform magic even if you're a good alignment (and then typically put the animal's carcass to standard uses, like using them for food, leather, etc). it's pretty common there. i'm not certain why only evil people would sacrifice a cow or a goat, so i'd go with that source over the ones that say you have to be super evil before you're willing to kill an animal to perform magic.

Get a massive, ceremonial stone that is suspended over the sacred pit of rodent smashing, and then drop and crush them all at once.

If you can weild a knife to kill them, you can use a stone to do it, too. Otherwise, you'd best be strangling all your victims, since it would be the knife, not you, doing the killing by that logic.

Where does it specifically state that you can not use a spells to kill a sacrifice?

pblackcrow wrote:Where does it specifically state that you can not use a spells to kill a sacrifice?

That would be "combat"
It is an "attack" and that is pretty much the definition of combat and combat is pretty clearly explicitly forbidden.

eliakon wrote:If you have a way to kill all the animals *simultaneously*

Given the long casting times of rituals, why would the deaths have to be simultaneous? Why not space them out killing one rat per minute over an hour to get 60 PPE?

eliakon wrote:

pblackcrow wrote:Where does it specifically state that you can not use a spells to kill a sacrifice?

That would be "combat"
It is an "attack" and that is pretty much the definition of combat and combat is pretty clearly explicitly forbidden.

Stabbing someone with a dagger is also combat. Combat usually implies someone fighting back, I think if someone's tied up and you're shooting fish in a barrel that it wouldn't really fit that label.

Axelmania wrote:

eliakon wrote:If you have a way to kill all the animals *simultaneously*

Given the long casting times of rituals, why would the deaths have to be simultaneous? Why not space them out killing one rat per minute over an hour to get 60 PPE?

eliakon wrote:

pblackcrow wrote:Where does it specifically state that you can not use a spells to kill a sacrifice?

That would be "combat"
It is an "attack" and that is pretty much the definition of combat and combat is pretty clearly explicitly forbidden.

Stabbing someone with a dagger is also combat. Combat usually implies someone fighting back, I think if someone's tied up and you're shooting fish in a barrel that it wouldn't really fit that label.

Finally have access to my books again. Book of Magic page 21 makes it clear that you actually CAN draw the PPE from someone you slay in combat. To do so you have to be the one who delivers the death blow and also KNOW that you delivered a death blow so that you can be prepared to absorb the PPE. Thus, you generally can't absorb it in conflict due to the lack of being prepared to absorb the PPE (because you are busy fighting), not because combat prevents it in and of itself.

The same clarification makes it clear that you can absorb the PPE from someone dying in your arms or on their deathbed if the mage is prepared to do so. Blood sacrifice is a convenient way of making sure that you are ready to absorb the PPE at the moment of death, not a prerequisite for doing so.

@Eliakon: if you have a different source to cite, please let us know.

eliakon wrote:

pblackcrow wrote:Where does it specifically state that you can not use a spells to kill a sacrifice?

That would be "combat"
It is an "attack" and that is pretty much the definition of combat and combat is pretty clearly explicitly forbidden.

And stabbing something with a sword/dagger isn't? Combat is one thing, Mate. And I happen to disagree with you, sure what book it's in, but it does state that you can do it during a combat situation! However, this is NOT a combat situation.

dreicunan wrote:

Axelmania wrote:

eliakon wrote:If you have a way to kill all the animals *simultaneously*

Given the long casting times of rituals, why would the deaths have to be simultaneous? Why not space them out killing one rat per minute over an hour to get 60 PPE?

eliakon wrote:

pblackcrow wrote:Where does it specifically state that you can not use a spells to kill a sacrifice?

That would be "combat"
It is an "attack" and that is pretty much the definition of combat and combat is pretty clearly explicitly forbidden.

Stabbing someone with a dagger is also combat. Combat usually implies someone fighting back, I think if someone's tied up and you're shooting fish in a barrel that it wouldn't really fit that label.

Finally have access to my books again. Book of Magic page 21 makes it clear that you actually CAN draw the PPE from someone you slay in combat. To do so you have to be the one who delivers the death blow and also KNOW that you delivered a death blow so that you can be prepared to absorb the PPE. Thus, you generally can't absorb it in conflict due to the lack of being prepared to absorb the PPE (because you are busy fighting), not because combat prevents it in and of itself.

The same clarification makes it clear that you can absorb the PPE from someone dying in your arms or on their deathbed if the mage is prepared to do so. Blood sacrifice is a convenient way of making sure that you are ready to absorb the PPE at the moment of death, not a prerequisite for doing so.

@Eliakon: if you have a different source to cite, please let us know.

Thanks for that clarification.

I would like to point out that magic in Rifts works differently than magic in Palladium Fantasy.
Thus while this might work therefore in Rifts
It won't work in PF or HU or BTS

If you doubt me, go read the rules about drawing PPE from people. They are similar, but not the same.

Assuming you can arrange for the mass killing, I don't see a problem with gathering PPE from a bunch of rodents at once... or, really, a bunch of anything at once. RBoM allows for the absorption of well above the normal maximum of PPE, and so a mage prepared for the deaths shouldn't have a problem manipulating the surge of PPE. If you're dumping them in a big fire, they're all going to die more or less simultaneously, and, well, sacrifice by burning has a long history.

One BIG question about this...
Can you absorb the PPE from more than one subject at a time? Or can you only absorb PPE from one source at a time?
If you are allowed to absorb from lots of point sources all at once, unlike when taking PPE from people... then this will work.
If you are only allowed to absorb from one source at a time, just like when taking PPE from people ... then it won't work.

Honestly the same question is the one that bogs down discussions about stacking Talismans, or hording Energy Spheres, or any of the other "Infinite PPE" shenanigans of which this is only one.

eliakon wrote:One BIG question about this...
Can you absorb the PPE from more than one subject at a time? Or can you only absorb PPE from one source at a time?
If you are allowed to absorb from lots of point sources all at once, unlike when taking PPE from people... then this will work.
If you are only allowed to absorb from one source at a time, just like when taking PPE from people ... then it won't work.

For a ritual, I'd allow it. The character has had time to prepare, knows what's about to happen, and the event is conducted in a controlled manner.

In combat, or if things go sideways during the ritual, not so much.


If Jerry distracts me one more time while I'm attempting this, I'll add him to the sacrifices...

eliakon wrote:I would like to point out that magic in Rifts works differently than magic in Palladium Fantasy.
Thus while this might work therefore in Rifts
It won't work in PF or HU or BTS

If you doubt me, go read the rules about drawing PPE from people. They are similar, but not the same.

Which 2 system differences are we focusing on here? I'd like to know what pages/passages to look for differences in. Obviously some elaborate more than others or may even contradict, I guess?

One glaring difference I can think of is how RUE 186 requires you to make a subject aware of your intentions "BWAHAHA I WILL STEAL YOUR ENERGY TO CAST MY SPELL" whereas I seem to recall in other systems no requirement for that so you could pilfer PPE without people knowing any better.

That 0% on a successful save 1% on a failed save is also pretty pathetic... how do you deal with fractions anyway? If some guy has 10 PPE then do you only get 0.1 PPE and need to repeat it 10x (10 melee actions? doesn't specify how long it takes to cause these throws/sucks) to get a single point of PPE put together?

If it was "round down" then it'd be useless for any creature with less than 100 PPE (most of them) and if it was "round up" then it wouldn't be half bad.

RMB used to distinctish (pg 162) between "without one's knowledge" and "from an unwilling subject". You never used to be able to draw from unwilling at all, so 1% is a huge step up from there...

RUE 186 seems to have forgotten the "without one's knowledge" thing altogether, or else lumped it in together. "Unwilling" being broadened from a narrow "resisting" to a broad "absence of consent".

The way it used to work was you made a magic save and if you failed you lost HALF (rather than the 70% you lose if willingly) and it had a sweet radius of 10 feet per level, 2 targets simultaneously per level.

RUE didn't explicitly deny that, but I can't see it reprinted either...

PF2pg181 basically has the exact same PPE-drawing rules as RMB did, combined with the PPE/melee round we eventually saw RUE inherit. BEST OF BOTH WORLDS.

Nightbane 122-123 only seems to discuss getting PPE from ley lines (and at the lower, RMB levels, not the awesoem PF levels, which makes sense since NB preceded PF2) I can't find anything about taking it from people (even voluntarily!) does that mean CJ didn't intend it for the setting or that it was an oversight during C+P from preceding books' rules?

HU2p316 is an interesting middle ground...
it still had the ability to steal up to 1/2 PPE from unaware ("without one's knowledge") subjects like RMB/PF2 had, but like them, it wasn't in one fell swoop. Instead, you get it in 1D4 increments which you can repeat ad nauseum until building up to half.

I never really knew how to play those 50%/70% cutoffs. Is that like, if someone is at 50% / 30% they are immune to losing PPE to unaware/willing means? Or is it like, if 1 mage can only take 50% of an unaware guy's PPE, 2 mages can each take 50% and reduce them to 0?

HU2 is otherwise the same as RMB/PF2 was, 1 person per level within 10ft radius per level, presumably per melee action since we're never told how long it takes to do.

Since it is a "save vs magic attack" perhaps you might argue it counts like casting a lesser spell and takes 2 melee attacks to do?

Mark Hall wrote:Assuming you can arrange for the mass killing, I don't see a problem with gathering PPE from a bunch of rodents at once... or, really, a bunch of anything at once. RBoM allows for the absorption of well above the normal maximum of PPE, and so a mage prepared for the deaths shouldn't have a problem manipulating the surge of PPE. If you're dumping them in a big fire, they're all going to die more or less simultaneously, and, well, sacrifice by burning has a long history.

I'm thinking at least 1 melee action to absorb PPE per target, so I could see a problem with pulling a lever and dropping 100 rats into lava and getting all their PPE instantly, but if you had the time anyway (some 10 minute ritual) where throughout the ritual you can walk around slowly alternating between spending 1 action to stomp a rat, 2nd action to absorb 1st rat, 3rd action to stop 2nd rat, 4th action to absorb 2nd rat) all as part of a ritualistic rat-stomping dance ritual, then that would seem okay.

Kind of helps to unify sacrificing with rituals, which seems appropriate anyway.

eliakon wrote:One BIG question about this...
Can you absorb the PPE from more than one subject at a time? Or can you only absorb PPE from one source at a time?
If you are allowed to absorb from lots of point sources all at once, unlike when taking PPE from people... then this will work.
If you are only allowed to absorb from one source at a time, just like when taking PPE from people ... then it won't work.

Honestly the same question is the one that bogs down discussions about stacking Talismans, or hording Energy Spheres, or any of the other "Infinite PPE" shenanigans of which this is only one.

Is whether or not you can draw PPE from 1 or multiple targets another one of those setting-specific things? RUE 186 allows unlimited numbers within 20ft (or no range limit at all in a ritual... does that mean I can do a planet-wide spirit-bomb then?)

eliakon wrote:I would like to point out that magic in Rifts works differently than magic in Palladium Fantasy.
Thus while this might work therefore in Rifts
It won't work in PF or HU or BTS

If you doubt me, go read the rules about drawing PPE from people. They are similar, but not the same.

Feel free to show your work and cite some pages. I find nothing on p. 183 of Palldium Fantasy 2E that would prevent it from working, nor on page 317 of HU 2E, nor on BTS 1E p. 94.

dreicunan wrote:

eliakon wrote:I would like to point out that magic in Rifts works differently than magic in Palladium Fantasy.
Thus while this might work therefore in Rifts
It won't work in PF or HU or BTS

If you doubt me, go read the rules about drawing PPE from people. They are similar, but not the same.

Feel free to show your work and cite some pages. I find nothing on p. 183 of Palldium Fantasy 2E that would prevent it from working, nor on page 317 of HU 2E, nor on BTS 1E p. 94.

Then you can show that you are allowed to use combat?
Because those three say "blood sacrifice" and "where the mage murders the victim" not "combat where the mage kills their foe with a strike roll"

While your at it I would love to see a citation saying that you can tap into more than one PPE source at one time. Since the rules state "the sacrifice" not "Sacrifices" so if you want to claim you can draw upon a couple hundred separate PPE sources all at once that's cool... show your work that you can do that.

eliakon wrote:

dreicunan wrote:

eliakon wrote:I would like to point out that magic in Rifts works differently than magic in Palladium Fantasy.
Thus while this might work therefore in Rifts
It won't work in PF or HU or BTS

If you doubt me, go read the rules about drawing PPE from people. They are similar, but not the same.

Feel free to show your work and cite some pages. I find nothing on p. 183 of Palldium Fantasy 2E that would prevent it from working, nor on page 317 of HU 2E, nor on BTS 1E p. 94.

Then you can show that you are allowed to use combat?
Because those three say "blood sacrifice" and "where the mage murders the victim" not "combat where the mage kills their foe with a strike roll"

While your at it I would love to see a citation saying that you can tap into more than one PPE source at one time. Since the rules state "the sacrifice" not "Sacrifices" so if you want to claim you can draw upon a couple hundred separate PPE sources all at once that's cool... show your work that you can do that.

I already showed that combat is allowable per Book of Magic, p. 21, earlier in the thread. Thank you for clarifying that you have absolutely no support for your assertion. The mage doesn't kill their foe with a strike roll, of course. They likely use a weapon of some kind, or perhaps a spell. Perhaps their bare hands, or a guillotine. Saying that the mage has to murder somone does not in any way, shape, or form exclude combat. You can murder someone in a Palladium game in a situation that would require a player to roll to strike for a character.

The rules make clear that a mage can tap into more than one source of PPE in numerous places, such as RUE p. 186, as Axelmania cited. But to help make this abundantly clear, BTS 1E p. 94 allowed a mage to tap into PPE from both the sacrifice and the cult leader, and has several other statements allowing a mage to get PPE from multiple sources. HU 2E p. 316-317 also mentions multiple ways to absorb PPE from multiple sources, as does Palladium Fantasy 2E p. 183. (In other words, the same pages, plus p. 316 of HU 2E, that I previiusly mentioned, and als).

As for sacrifice issue, it is true that the language used in the varying game lines is oriented around a singular victim. So if you want to take that to mean that it has to be one at a time, fine, though I personally agree with Mack that multiple sacrifices in a ritual would be fine. But even in the case that you are correct, I would just need to alter my device to move a bunch of rats through a killing ground in an efficient way so that I can rapidly absorb their PPE one after another.

@Axelmania: Through the Glass Darkly has the bloodmage limitation, which does mentikn PPE doubling on death. It does seem odd that Nightbane, of all game lines, would not have clearer rules for getting PPE through blood sacrifice!

dreicunan wrote:

eliakon wrote:

dreicunan wrote:

eliakon wrote:I would like to point out that magic in Rifts works differently than magic in Palladium Fantasy.
Thus while this might work therefore in Rifts
It won't work in PF or HU or BTS

If you doubt me, go read the rules about drawing PPE from people. They are similar, but not the same.

Feel free to show your work and cite some pages. I find nothing on p. 183 of Palldium Fantasy 2E that would prevent it from working, nor on page 317 of HU 2E, nor on BTS 1E p. 94.

Then you can show that you are allowed to use combat?
Because those three say "blood sacrifice" and "where the mage murders the victim" not "combat where the mage kills their foe with a strike roll"

While your at it I would love to see a citation saying that you can tap into more than one PPE source at one time. Since the rules state "the sacrifice" not "Sacrifices" so if you want to claim you can draw upon a couple hundred separate PPE sources all at once that's cool... show your work that you can do that.

I already showed that combat is allowable per Book of Magic, p. 21, earlier in the thread. Thank you for clarifying that you have absolutely no support for your assertion. The mage doesn't kill their foe with a strike roll, of course. They likely use a weapon of some kind, or perhaps a spell. Perhaps their bare hands, or a guillotine. Saying that the mage has to murder somone does not in any way, shape, or form exclude combat. You can murder someone in a Palladium game in a situation that would require a player to roll to strike for a character.

The rules make clear that a mage can tap into more than one source of PPE in numerous places, such as RUE p. 186, as Axelmania cited. But to help make this abundantly clear, BTS 1E p. 94 allowed a mage to tap into PPE from both the sacrifice and the cult leader, and has several other statements allowing a mage to get PPE from multiple sources. HU 2E p. 316-317 also mentions multiple ways to absorb PPE from multiple sources, as does Palladium Fantasy 2E p. 183. (In other words, the same pages, plus p. 316 of HU 2E, that I previiusly mentioned, and als).

As for sacrifice issue, it is true that the language used in the varying game lines is oriented around a singular victim. So if you want to take that to mean that it has to be one at a time, fine, though I personally agree with Mack that multiple sacrifices in a ritual would be fine. But even in the case that you are correct, I would just need to alter my device to move a bunch of rats through a killing ground in an efficient way so that I can rapidly absorb their PPE one after another.

@Axelmania: Through the Glass Darkly has the bloodmage limitation, which does mentikn PPE doubling on death. It does seem odd that Nightbane, of all game lines, would not have clearer rules for getting PPE through blood sacrifice!

Thank you!

So, say I am going to set up a ritual space in the abandon subway station close to my apartments (which in the game is where I do them)...I start will start by cleaning off a work space. And start setting up my space. Start with marking compass points, and for them place stones, then doing the banishing, followed by the invoking, lighting the candles and incense as I progress outwords, lay out the items to be charged, do a short meditation. And then draw the circle to summon and control rats, all the time preparing myself mentally to receive the energy flow. Summon some rats and telling them to get into a metal bucket, half full of water, and than putting ones hand about 2 inches from the bucket, and casting the spell energy bolt...channeling the energy through that hand, which I might add has a dodge to save against...(so, you do not have to roll to hit. When the target is a bucket and said bucket is at point blank range. There is zero point to roll to hit.) This is clearly not a combat situation, okay? There are no distractions. No bullets flying past me, or anything else.

And your argument about a mage not being able to absorb from multiple targets at once is more that a bit odd...especially when you consider what a nexus is! 2 OR MORE Ley lines converging into a single spot.

Mysteries of Magic, page 25 points out that drawing a sacrifice's PPE for a ritual requires two actions, one to kill the sacrifice and one to absorb the PPE. It also states that if someone dies nearby, they had nothing to do with the ritual and therefore the mage can't absorb the PPE from that death.

Page 24 states that you can't draw PPE from someone while in combat because they see you as an enemy, and you can't draw from wild animals for the same reason. It also states that a pet will instinctively resist such attempts as well.

I also recall reading a line that stated mages can't walk around an active battlefield and absorb the PPE from the fallen, due to the mage needing to be mystically prepared to receive the PPE. However I can't seem to find that line right now. I thought it was in Mysteries of Magic, but I don't see it in there. Maybe it was a Rifter Q&A. Perhaps someone here knows what I'm talking about and can point it out for us.

Anyway, when taking the above into consideration, I would say that all the summoned rodents would have to be killed at the climax of a ritual by either the mage performing it, or by those participating in it. Their deaths would have to occur fairly quickly, unless the mage had made some sort of alter or something to collect all the PPE in, similar to the slaughterhouse in TtGD.

i don't see why deaths could not occur in sequence. you'd need to respect the rules on how much extra PPE you can store at a time, but i could very easily see a ritual that incorporates sacrifices one after the other, sort of building up to the final point that way.

The Beast wrote:
Anyway, when taking the above into consideration, I would say that all the summoned rodents would have to be killed at the climax of a ritual by either the mage performing it, or by those participating in it. Their deaths would have to occur fairly quickly, unless the mage had made some sort of alter or something to collect all the PPE in, similar to the slaughterhouse in TtGD.

This seems a reasonable way to address the situation. It allows for the desired outcome while respecting the rules. All it requires is careful preparation, which is an element of ritual casting anyway, so should not be seen as inconvenient or unexpected.

The Beast wrote:Mysteries of Magic, page 25 points out that drawing a sacrifice's PPE for a ritual requires two actions, one to kill the sacrifice and one to absorb the PPE. It also states that if someone dies nearby, they had nothing to do with the ritual and therefore the mage can't absorb the PPE from that death.

Page 24 states that you can't draw PPE from someone while in combat because they see you as an enemy, and you can't draw from wild animals for the same reason. It also states that a pet will instinctively resist such attempts as well.

I also recall reading a line that stated mages can't walk around an active battlefield and absorb the PPE from the fallen, due to the mage needing to be mystically prepared to receive the PPE. However I can't seem to find that line right now. I thought it was in Mysteries of Magic, but I don't see it in there. Maybe it was a Rifter Q&A. Perhaps someone here knows what I'm talking about and can point it out for us.

Anyway, when taking the above into consideration, I would say that all the summoned rodents would have to be killed at the climax of a ritual by either the mage performing it, or by those participating in it. Their deaths would have to occur fairly quickly, unless the mage had made some sort of alter or something to collect all the PPE in, similar to the slaughterhouse in TtGD.

I would also note that every instance of where we are told that you can absorb PPE from more than one source at a single time limits you to one source per level.
So at best, this would net you 2d4 PPE per caster level...
...that isn't really all that impressive.

I would also note that the discrepancies here between MoM and BoM are a good example of why the games are different games... the rules for magic in each game are different, and thus the rules in Rifts are different than in PF which are different than in HU which are different than in BTS which are....
Since MoM explicitly forbids drawing PPE in combat while BoM allows it.
either:
1) MoM as the newer rule overrides all other rules and you can't do it anywhere
or
2) Magic works differently in Rifts and Palladium Fantasy.

The Beast wrote:Mysteries of Magic, page 25 points out that drawing a sacrifice's PPE for a ritual requires two actions, one to kill the sacrifice and one to absorb the PPE. It also states that if someone dies nearby, they had nothing to do with the ritual and therefore the mage can't absorb the PPE from that death.

Page 24 states that you can't draw PPE from someone while in combat because they see you as an enemy, and you can't draw from wild animals for the same reason. It also states that a pet will instinctively resist such attempts as well.

I also recall reading a line that stated mages can't walk around an active battlefield and absorb the PPE from the fallen, due to the mage needing to be mystically prepared to receive the PPE. However I can't seem to find that line right now. I thought it was in Mysteries of Magic, but I don't see it in there. Maybe it was a Rifter Q&A. Perhaps someone here knows what I'm talking about and can point it out for us.

Anyway, when taking the above into consideration, I would say that all the summoned rodents would have to be killed at the climax of a ritual by either the mage performing it, or by those participating in it. Their deaths would have to occur fairly quickly, unless the mage had made some sort of alter or something to collect all the PPE in, similar to the slaughterhouse in TtGD.

Thank you for citing things!

Page 24 says that you can't draw PPE from someone else while in combat in the context of that person still being alive. It doesn't say that you can't absorb the PPE if you slay someone. It also says that it "USUALLY" takes two actions to absorb it, and that it is "TYPICALLY" part of a ritual. The use of those terms means, of course, that there are contexts where that isn't the case; in traditional Palladium fashion, it doesn't bother to list where it wouldn't apply. Book of Magic p. 21 talks about how you can't normally draw PPE in combat because you aren't prepared to do so. Actually, I'll just quote what I wrote before:

Book of Magic page 21 makes it clear that you actually CAN draw the PPE from someone you slay in combat. To do so you have to be the one who delivers the death blow and also KNOW that you delivered a death blow so that you can be prepared to absorb the PPE. Thus, you generally can't absorb it in conflict due to the lack of being prepared to absorb the PPE (because you are busy fighting), not because combat prevents it in and of itself.

The same clarification makes it clear that you can absorb the PPE from someone dying in your arms or on their deathbed if the mage is prepared to do so. Blood sacrifice is a convenient way of making sure that you are ready to absorb the PPE at the moment of death, not a prerequisite for doing so.

dreicunan wrote:

The Beast wrote:Mysteries of Magic, page 25 points out that drawing a sacrifice's PPE for a ritual requires two actions, one to kill the sacrifice and one to absorb the PPE. It also states that if someone dies nearby, they had nothing to do with the ritual and therefore the mage can't absorb the PPE from that death.

Page 24 states that you can't draw PPE from someone while in combat because they see you as an enemy, and you can't draw from wild animals for the same reason. It also states that a pet will instinctively resist such attempts as well.

I also recall reading a line that stated mages can't walk around an active battlefield and absorb the PPE from the fallen, due to the mage needing to be mystically prepared to receive the PPE. However I can't seem to find that line right now. I thought it was in Mysteries of Magic, but I don't see it in there. Maybe it was a Rifter Q&A. Perhaps someone here knows what I'm talking about and can point it out for us.

Anyway, when taking the above into consideration, I would say that all the summoned rodents would have to be killed at the climax of a ritual by either the mage performing it, or by those participating in it. Their deaths would have to occur fairly quickly, unless the mage had made some sort of alter or something to collect all the PPE in, similar to the slaughterhouse in TtGD.

Thank you for citing things!

Page 24 says that you can't draw PPE from someone else while in combat in the context of that person still being alive. It doesn't say that you can't absorb the PPE if you slay someone. It also says that it "USUALLY" takes two actions to absorb it, and that it is "TYPICALLY" part of a ritual. The use of those terms means, of course, that there are contexts where that isn't the case; in traditional Palladium fashion, it doesn't bother to list where it wouldn't apply. Book of Magic p. 21 talks about how you can't normally draw PPE in combat because you aren't prepared to do so. Actually, I'll just quote what I wrote before:

Book of Magic page 21 makes it clear that you actually CAN draw the PPE from someone you slay in combat. To do so you have to be the one who delivers the death blow and also KNOW that you delivered a death blow so that you can be prepared to absorb the PPE. Thus, you generally can't absorb it in conflict due to the lack of being prepared to absorb the PPE (because you are busy fighting), not because combat prevents it in and of itself.

The same clarification makes it clear that you can absorb the PPE from someone dying in your arms or on their deathbed if the mage is prepared to do so. Blood sacrifice is a convenient way of making sure that you are ready to absorb the PPE at the moment of death, not a prerequisite for doing so.

You realize you are proving my point for me?
That the rules of magic in PF (which are governed by the various PF books only) and the rules of magic in Rifts (which are governed by the various Rifts books only) are different?
that citing a rifts rule in PF is pointless?
We already conceded that this trick would allow you to kill things en-mass in Rifts... but that as there is no rule in Rifts allowing mages to tap multiple sources at once it would require the GMs permission to let you tap even 1 rat per level (the maximum number of sources a mage can tap in all the other games) let alone all of them

And it just flatly won't work at all in PF where you are explicitly prohibited from doing this sort of thing.

Its ability to work in HU and BTS is conjectural at this point (and would still be limited to 1 rat per level based on the PPE rules of those games)

pblackcrow wrote:...And your argument about a mage not being able to absorb from multiple targets at once is more that a bit odd...especially when you consider what a nexus is! 2 OR MORE Ley lines converging into a single spot.

But you're not drawing the PPE from two ley lines. You're drawing it from the nexus, which is a single target.

eliakon wrote:

dreicunan wrote:

The Beast wrote:Mysteries of Magic, page 25 points out that drawing a sacrifice's PPE for a ritual requires two actions, one to kill the sacrifice and one to absorb the PPE. It also states that if someone dies nearby, they had nothing to do with the ritual and therefore the mage can't absorb the PPE from that death.

Page 24 states that you can't draw PPE from someone while in combat because they see you as an enemy, and you can't draw from wild animals for the same reason. It also states that a pet will instinctively resist such attempts as well.

I also recall reading a line that stated mages can't walk around an active battlefield and absorb the PPE from the fallen, due to the mage needing to be mystically prepared to receive the PPE. However I can't seem to find that line right now. I thought it was in Mysteries of Magic, but I don't see it in there. Maybe it was a Rifter Q&A. Perhaps someone here knows what I'm talking about and can point it out for us.

Anyway, when taking the above into consideration, I would say that all the summoned rodents would have to be killed at the climax of a ritual by either the mage performing it, or by those participating in it. Their deaths would have to occur fairly quickly, unless the mage had made some sort of alter or something to collect all the PPE in, similar to the slaughterhouse in TtGD.

Thank you for citing things!

Page 24 says that you can't draw PPE from someone else while in combat in the context of that person still being alive. It doesn't say that you can't absorb the PPE if you slay someone. It also says that it "USUALLY" takes two actions to absorb it, and that it is "TYPICALLY" part of a ritual. The use of those terms means, of course, that there are contexts where that isn't the case; in traditional Palladium fashion, it doesn't bother to list where it wouldn't apply. Book of Magic p. 21 talks about how you can't normally draw PPE in combat because you aren't prepared to do so. Actually, I'll just quote what I wrote before:

Book of Magic page 21 makes it clear that you actually CAN draw the PPE from someone you slay in combat. To do so you have to be the one who delivers the death blow and also KNOW that you delivered a death blow so that you can be prepared to absorb the PPE. Thus, you generally can't absorb it in conflict due to the lack of being prepared to absorb the PPE (because you are busy fighting), not because combat prevents it in and of itself.

The same clarification makes it clear that you can absorb the PPE from someone dying in your arms or on their deathbed if the mage is prepared to do so. Blood sacrifice is a convenient way of making sure that you are ready to absorb the PPE at the moment of death, not a prerequisite for doing so.

You realize you are proving my point for me?
That the rules of magic in PF (which are governed by the various PF books only) and the rules of magic in Rifts (which are governed by the various Rifts books only) are different?
that citing a rifts rule in PF is pointless?
We already conceded that this trick would allow you to kill things en-mass in Rifts... but that as there is no rule in Rifts allowing mages to tap multiple sources at once it would require the GMs permission to let you tap even 1 rat per level (the maximum number of sources a mage can tap in all the other games) let alone all of them

And it just flatly won't work at all in PF where you are explicitly prohibited from doing this sort of thing.

Its ability to work in HU and BTS is conjectural at this point (and would still be limited to 1 rat per level based on the PPE rules of those games)

Sure, the different lines have different rules (I was mentioning Mysteries of Magic again as a potential source of where The Beast might have read the line about mages not being able to walk around an active battlefield).

There is a rule in Rifts allowing you to take the PPE from anyone with 20 ft who gives it up voluntarily and from anyone in an unlimited range when done as part of a ritual on p. 186 that has already been cited by Axelmania, so clearly there are rules in Rifts allowing mages to tap multiple sources at once.

You are also wrong about your previous assertion that every instance of absorbing from multiple sources outside of the Rifts line limits it to 1 source per level. From what I can tell, none of the lines that allow it (near as I can tell, Nightbane doesn't have anything to say on the matter).

Palladium Fantasy 2E p. 181 makes it clear that you can absorb the PPE from up to 10 participants at once without any kind of ritual, and places no limits on the number of people beyond that involved in a ritual. Mysteries of Magic p. 24 has the same text, this time noting that when done without a ritual there is also a radius limit of 10 ft per level of experience.

Heroes Unlimited 2E has the same rules about up to 10 without a ritual and more than 10 with a ritual on page 316.

BTU 1E allows you tap up to THREE people per level who are unwilling or unaware (also a static 60 ft range). For willing participants, the range is 60 ft plus 100 ft per level of experience, and the limit is SIX people per level, or 12 if you have an MA of 22. As written, it is exactly 22, though I would imagine that most people would read that as 22+. In rituals, it allows you to get the full amount of PPE from each participant +1, though they have some odd semi-limits on that, with the "optimal" number being 12, but then an ME of 17 letting you manage 13-20, ME 22 letting the leader handle 21-32, and ME 26+ letting them handle 33-56 members.

The use of multiple animals in PF, at least in series, is clearly allowed, or it would make no sense for p. 25 of Mysteries of Magic to talk about how 20 cattle a day can provide the PPE necessary for a Summoner to do their thing or for a Wizard to stop a storm.

So, what is the sort of thing that you are claiming is explicitly forbidden in Palladium Fantasy, and would you mind citing the text that you feel explicitly forbids it?

dreicunan wrote:

eliakon wrote:

dreicunan wrote:

The Beast wrote:Mysteries of Magic, page 25 points out that drawing a sacrifice's PPE for a ritual requires two actions, one to kill the sacrifice and one to absorb the PPE. It also states that if someone dies nearby, they had nothing to do with the ritual and therefore the mage can't absorb the PPE from that death.

Page 24 states that you can't draw PPE from someone while in combat because they see you as an enemy, and you can't draw from wild animals for the same reason. It also states that a pet will instinctively resist such attempts as well.

I also recall reading a line that stated mages can't walk around an active battlefield and absorb the PPE from the fallen, due to the mage needing to be mystically prepared to receive the PPE. However I can't seem to find that line right now. I thought it was in Mysteries of Magic, but I don't see it in there. Maybe it was a Rifter Q&A. Perhaps someone here knows what I'm talking about and can point it out for us.

Anyway, when taking the above into consideration, I would say that all the summoned rodents would have to be killed at the climax of a ritual by either the mage performing it, or by those participating in it. Their deaths would have to occur fairly quickly, unless the mage had made some sort of alter or something to collect all the PPE in, similar to the slaughterhouse in TtGD.

Thank you for citing things!

Page 24 says that you can't draw PPE from someone else while in combat in the context of that person still being alive. It doesn't say that you can't absorb the PPE if you slay someone. It also says that it "USUALLY" takes two actions to absorb it, and that it is "TYPICALLY" part of a ritual. The use of those terms means, of course, that there are contexts where that isn't the case; in traditional Palladium fashion, it doesn't bother to list where it wouldn't apply. Book of Magic p. 21 talks about how you can't normally draw PPE in combat because you aren't prepared to do so. Actually, I'll just quote what I wrote before:

Book of Magic page 21 makes it clear that you actually CAN draw the PPE from someone you slay in combat. To do so you have to be the one who delivers the death blow and also KNOW that you delivered a death blow so that you can be prepared to absorb the PPE. Thus, you generally can't absorb it in conflict due to the lack of being prepared to absorb the PPE (because you are busy fighting), not because combat prevents it in and of itself.

The same clarification makes it clear that you can absorb the PPE from someone dying in your arms or on their deathbed if the mage is prepared to do so. Blood sacrifice is a convenient way of making sure that you are ready to absorb the PPE at the moment of death, not a prerequisite for doing so.

You realize you are proving my point for me?
That the rules of magic in PF (which are governed by the various PF books only) and the rules of magic in Rifts (which are governed by the various Rifts books only) are different?
that citing a rifts rule in PF is pointless?
We already conceded that this trick would allow you to kill things en-mass in Rifts... but that as there is no rule in Rifts allowing mages to tap multiple sources at once it would require the GMs permission to let you tap even 1 rat per level (the maximum number of sources a mage can tap in all the other games) let alone all of them

And it just flatly won't work at all in PF where you are explicitly prohibited from doing this sort of thing.

Its ability to work in HU and BTS is conjectural at this point (and would still be limited to 1 rat per level based on the PPE rules of those games)

Sure, the different lines have different rules (I was mentioning Mysteries of Magic again as a potential source of where The Beast might have read the line about mages not being able to walk around an active battlefield).

There is a rule in Rifts allowing you to take the PPE from anyone with 20 ft who gives it up voluntarily and from anyone in an unlimited range when done as part of a ritual on p. 186 that has already been cited by Axelmania, so clearly there are rules in Rifts allowing mages to tap multiple sources at once.

You are also wrong about your previous assertion that every instance of absorbing from multiple sources outside of the Rifts line limits it to 1 source per level. From what I can tell, none of the lines that allow it (near as I can tell, Nightbane doesn't have anything to say on the matter).

Palladium Fantasy 2E p. 181 makes it clear that you can absorb the PPE from up to 10 participants at once without any kind of ritual, and places no limits on the number of people beyond that involved in a ritual. Mysteries of Magic p. 24 has the same text, this time noting that when done without a ritual there is also a radius limit of 10 ft per level of experience.

Heroes Unlimited 2E has the same rules about up to 10 without a ritual and more than 10 with a ritual on page 316.

BTU 1E allows you tap up to THREE people per level who are unwilling or unaware (also a static 60 ft range). For willing participants, the range is 60 ft plus 100 ft per level of experience, and the limit is SIX people per level, or 12 if you have an MA of 22. As written, it is exactly 22, though I would imagine that most people would read that as 22+. In rituals, it allows you to get the full amount of PPE from each participant +1, though they have some odd semi-limits on that, with the "optimal" number being 12, but then an ME of 17 letting you manage 13-20, ME 22 letting the leader handle 21-32, and ME 26+ letting them handle 33-56 members.

Participants in a ritual are not the same.
I am quoting the text where it talks about draining people of PPE. When we look at those, when it allows you to drain more than one person at a time it says that it is limited to 1 person per level.

Voluntary aiding in a Ritual doesn't demonstrate anything since that is already covered as a special kind of procedure in and of itself.
The amount of PPE you can absorb from multiple targets and the amount of PPE a single group can collectively provide in a combined ritual are not the same or even remotely similar.

dreicunan wrote:The use of multiple animals in PF, at least in series, is clearly allowed, or it would make no sense for p. 25 of Mysteries of Magic to talk about how 20 cattle a day can provide the PPE necessary for a Summoner to do their thing or for a Wizard to stop a storm.

Nonsense.
It doesn't say 20 cattle at once after all.
You could slaughter them over a period of time, stocking up on the PPE one at a time. Since mages can hold extra PPE for a certain amount of time.

eliakon wrote:

dreicunan wrote:The use of multiple animals in PF, at least in series, is clearly allowed, or it would make no sense for p. 25 of Mysteries of Magic to talk about how 20 cattle a day can provide the PPE necessary for a Summoner to do their thing or for a Wizard to stop a storm.

Nonsense.
It doesn't say 20 cattle at once after all.
You could slaughter them over a period of time, stocking up on the PPE one at a time. Since mages can hold extra PPE for a certain amount of time.

So not nonsense then.

As for your other point, even with what you now claim, that you were referring only to draining people of PPE, you are STILL wrong about all other lines limiting,it to one per level, because BTS 1E let's you do 3 people per level, which is made clear in my post, which you quoted.

dreicunan wrote:The rules make clear that a mage can tap into more than one source of PPE in numerous places, such as RUE p. 186, as Axelmania cited. But to help make this abundantly clear, BTS 1E p. 94 allowed a mage to tap into PPE from both the sacrifice and the cult leader, and has several other statements allowing a mage to get PPE from multiple sources. HU 2E p. 316-317 also mentions multiple ways to absorb PPE from multiple sources, as does Palladium Fantasy 2E p. 183

RMB let you draw on 2 targets per level, while HU2 / PF2 had it at merely 1 target / level, and Nightbane didn't mention it at all, only ley lines.

RUE didn't mention it at all (like Nightbane) so we can take two approaches to that:

1) it's an accidental omission and Siembieda probably still intends that the 2/level simultaneous-draw rule still applies
2) the omission was intentional and the authors wanted PPE-drawing in Rifts to be inferior to HU2/PF2

dreicunan wrote:I already showed that combat is allowable per Book of Magic, p. 21, earlier in the thread. Thank you for clarifying that you have absolutely no support for your assertion. The mage doesn't kill their foe with a strike roll, of course. They likely use a weapon of some kind, or perhaps a spell. Perhaps their bare hands, or a guillotine.

It would be interesting to discuss how to interpret the guidelines and warning from there though:

he can draw on the P.P.E. if

he is the one who delivers the death blow
and
he knew as he struck that it would be a
killing blow
(most often one does not know).

This is probably a lot easier to do in MD settings against SDC targets (since even a 1 MD blast will kill most SDC targets, guaranteed).

There's never any absolute knowledge though, and that's the problem. You may "know" that your 1D6 MD vibro-knife will kill the human captive in front of you... except that it turns out you were wrong because it was actually shapeshifted Loki (with over 9000 MDC remaining) in disguise.

I think the fair way to game it out would be after you strike a blow, you must commit to spending a melee action to "try to absorb death PPE" (much like I think a melee action should be charged to try and absorb PPE in any situation) but if it turns out that the person wans't killed, you just wasted your action!

Or, rather than spending it afterward (since someone might opt not to if they perceive the person wasn't hurt) maybe the fair way to do it to avoid metagaming would be to force a "preparatory" melee action for "starting that PPE sucking" which will take effect on your next attack but only if the attack causes an immediate death.

If the attack merely knocks them into a coma: tough cookies, you need to spend another action preparing and hit them again! You're out FOUR attacks.

This "1 action" idea is only if you charge that much to suck PPE though. You could totally charge the "actions it takes to cast spells" rate for absorbing PPE from any source if that feels better...

The Beast wrote:Mysteries of Magic, page 25 points out that drawing a sacrifice's PPE for a ritual requires two actions, one to kill the sacrifice and one to absorb the PPE. It also states that if someone dies nearby, they had nothing to do with the ritual and therefore the mage can't absorb the PPE from that death.

Nice find! I guess that settles the "how long does it take" question.

If it's a bonus 1 action for absorbing sacrifice PPE of any amount, do you think it would be reasonable to also charge 1 action for the drawing from the 3 kinds (willing/unaware/unwilling) of living targets, or from ley lines/nexuses?

The Beast wrote:Page 24 states that you can't draw PPE from someone while in combat because they see you as an enemy, and you can't draw from wild animals for the same reason.

It's possible to draw from actively unwilling (not merely unaware/neutral) in RUE of course, albeit it's a silly 1% so that would take a long time to add up to a single useful PPE point for most people/animals. That may not apply to PF world though, perhaps the higher magic levels of Rifts Earth are what make this previously impossible thing possible?

The Beast wrote:It also states that a pet will instinctively resist such attempts as well.

Meaning they get a savings throw, like any unaware person would, meaning they can't opt to voluntarily give you 70% of their PPE in one fell swoop like a sentient being could.

They wouldn't single out "wild" animals if it applied to ALL animals.

Furthermore, I think "see people as intruders in enemies" is only talking about the situation where they PERCEIVE you. If you don't actually perceive an enemy, you can't be unwilling toward them.

Animals have pretty decent senses so the likelihood of sneaking within 10ft/level of them undetected is pretty sparse barring some kind of cloaking spell. If you can manage it though, it should work just like with unaware people (save vs magic, 1d4 PPE at a time... presumably a maximum 50% absorbtion, even though pg 24 of Heart of Magic doesn't mention that, 181 of PF2 does ("can never absorb more tan half")

In the case of a rat with 1-4 PPE... well for a 1 PPE rat, 1 is more than half, so the question becomes: does that mean you can never absorb any PPE from it, or account for partial PPE points and just absorb 0.5 PPE automatically (don't bother rolling 1D4: you win)

If anyone doesn't believe frational PPE exists: Dead Reign proves it does on page 24:
Eating just one PPE point, even if it's in small, fractional portioned scattered over three days - prevents deterioration/decay

So even if the most PPE you could ever get from a 1 PPE rat is 0.5 PPE, and even if a rat being unwilling limits you to sucking a mere 1% (instead of 1D4) at a time (0.01 at a time) it can add up. Rifts-only of course, as unwilling-suck isn't explicitly allowed in any of the other games so you have to vanish so they'll let their guard down to enable the 1D4 attack.

One thing I don't really like: Rifts' limitation to 1% isn't a limitation at all in respect to 1D4, but that's okay, because you don't go 1D4 at a time like in PF, either you can't do it at all (because RUE didn't reprint it) or you go by RMB rates, meaning you get the full 50% at once, in which case dropping to 1% is an obvious loss.

The Beast wrote:Their deaths would have to occur fairly quickly, unless the mage had made some sort of alter or something to collect all the PPE in, similar to the slaughterhouse in TtGD.

How quickly might be setting-dependent?

RUE 186 mentions blood sacrifice PPE leaks away at 1D10x10 per minute, so I guess you'd have 59 seconds...

Do you think that goes at 1 action per sacrifice, or 1 action per 2-per-level (ie a 10th level mage could absorb 20 rats' PPE in 1 action, just like he could absorb their PPE from them being unaware) like with non-sacrifice "unaware" targets?

eliakon wrote:I would also note that every instance of where we are told that you can absorb PPE from more than one source at a single time limits you to one source per level.
So at best, this would net you 2d4 PPE per caster level...
...that isn't really all that impressive.

RMB had 2/level compared to HU/PF's 1/level (not sure if BTS had) which makes well enough sense to retain in RUE, unless you want to ban sucking from unaware targets entirely or treat unaware as unwilling.

I guess you could chock it up as some kind of "the high ley line energy makes everyone instinctively on guard" explanation, which would be easier to take if PF2's ley line PPE pretty much on par with Rifts'

dreicunan wrote:BTS 1E let's you do 3 people per level, which is made clear in my post, which you quoted.

Huh... so it went from 3/lvl in BTS to 2/lvl in Rifts to NO-MENTION IN NIGHTBANE to 1/lvl in HU2/PF2 to NO-MENTION IN RUE

I just checked page 94 though and while I notice it mentions 2D6 PPE from unaware guys (far superior to PF2's 1D4)

I didn't notice the number/range at first because it was in the right column under "Limitations". Interestingly it's a static 60ft instead of 10ft/level in other books.

Also neat how the 3/level is for "unwilling or unaware" despite it previously saying that they "can not tap" unwilling... so it MUST refer to blood sacrifices!

Meanwhile, it goes up to 6/level (or 12/level if MA22) for willing participants, and only willing participants get the 10ft/levle range boost on top of the base 60ft.

BTS is also much clearer on the animal issue:
"automatically sense magic/arcanists and instinctively fear it"

Based on that, if unwillingness (due to fear) comes from being able to SENSE arcanists, then being able to hide from an animal's senses (or if it's a species which does not have the ability to sense magic) should mean that you should be able to draw on them like you do people.

Pg 75 of BTS only specifies that dogs/cats/horses have "sense magic". This having a 600ft range means of course that a mage could never get within 60ft without setting off that sense.

It doesn't address any other specific examples, but the general guideline is "most larger mammals".

Mice tend to be smaller than cats, so whether or not mice can sense magic is the question here. I'm sure Priests of Kirgi would love to know if rats have "sense magic" too, as that could be VERY useful.

This page also mentions that animals are -4 to save vs magic, so in a situation where they can't sense the mage (causing fear and instinctive UNWILL) either due to a blocking spell or a lack of psi abilities in that particular animal or species, it should be super-easy to suck their PPE non-lethally.

BTS1 just didn't have any PPE blocking spells or want to deal with what abilities species besides dog/cat/horse had, unfortunately. Even though they list HP/PPE for other breeds.

dreicunan wrote:

Axelmania wrote:Nightbane 122-123 only seems to discuss getting PPE from ley lines (and at the lower, RMB levels, not the awesoem PF levels, which makes sense since NB preceded PF2) I can't find anything about taking it from people (even voluntarily!) does that mean CJ didn't intend it for the setting or that it was an oversight during C+P from preceding books' rules?

@Axelmania: Through the Glass Darkly has the bloodmage limitation, which does mentikn PPE doubling on death. It does seem odd that Nightbane, of all game lines, would not have clearer rules for getting PPE through blood sacrifice!

Nice find!

Upon consulting page 27, it appears mage with this Sorcerous Limitation couldn't sacrifice rats though, since it specifies "other living sentient beings"

This would seem to make them worse at getting PPE from others compared to mages in other settings... but given how Nightbane appears to lack inherent rules for getting PPE from others, this would make them better than all the other mages, since they can now steal others' (albeit sentients only) PPE by killing them, which nobody else can do?

This wouldn't be the only case of a "secret benefit" being hidden in an advantage, there are others:

Night Powers gives a bonus to save vs magic/HF at night
Ritual Dependence doubles duration and range
Wild Magic could force others to vomit/scream/scar
Flawed Sight could allow you to detect if you are kidnapped into Nightlands/Astral or dreaming (color vision) or looking at a reflection (no color, or a void... think how useful that would've been for Bruce Lee in Game of Death)
Multiple Personalities can sometimes give bonuses

Maybe the only use non-blood mages in Nightbane have for others' PPE is casting the spell "Call Ectoplasm from Others" on them, or recruiting their PPE to form Astral Realms?

This also makes the Channeler OCC ability on page 16 pretty significant:

instantly transfer all or part of his PPE into another character or magic artiact via touch (slowly dissipates from living beings unless it is used within the hour; remains inside an artifact until it is drawn upon

Actually... I think I've REALLY underestimated the Channeler... given they can also:

draw PPE from an artifact and dispel it into the air or absorb it into himself (cannot exceed personal PPE)

It sounds like Channelers can basically store unlimited amounts of PPE inside artifacts that only other Channelers can grab, and there isn't even a basic cost for doing this like with the Talisman spell... BY GAWD

They don't even have to touch the pseudotalismans, just be within 100ft... though that's probably a downside if you're battling other Channelers since you can't easily withhold the PPE from them compared to keeping a touch-only Talisman on your person (I just presume you need to touch Talisman-spell objects to get their PPE, can't remember if that's a rule)

This does call into question the usefulness of the PPE Shield power introduced on page 114 of Between the Shadows. I don't even know if that protects against blood sacrifice (does the duration keep going even after you die?) but otherwise the only thing I can think it would be useful against (if no mages have suck-PPE-without-killing powers) is Nightlords' ability to feed on PPE.

Given that the alternative is your Hit Points, having a Nightprince/Nightlord feed on your PPE is probably preferably, unless you think they'll do that anyway so you just want to deny them the satisfaction of getting a full meal...

Actually the answer to that might be the new species in Between:
1) pg 99 Dream Ghouls feed on PPE
2) pg 108-109 Soul Leeches feed on PPE

These are probably more common threats than Princes/Lords, I'm guessing, and be the primary use for PPE Shield.

The "restore PPE" healer psi power also becomes incredibly valuable in Nightbane since then you can buff mages, as there is no longer any "voluntarily donate 70%" like other systems have.

Nightlands pg 127's Geo-Immortal OCC also stands out as pretty special, as its PPE note has language absent in all of Nightbane's other magical OCCs:

the mage may draw energy from ley lines, nexus points, and other people when available

We aren't given any actual mechanics for how Geo-Immortals draw energy from other people though, so you'd basically need to rely on borrowing other systems' mechanics for it (if there's a save, % maximums, increments, time taken, range, simultaneous drawing, etc)

pblackcrow wrote:get into a metal bucket,
half full of water,
and than putting ones hand about 2 inches from the bucket,
and casting the spell energy bolt...
channeling the energy through that hand

This appears to assume that "Energy Bolt" operates like Electricity does. I think I'd be okay with this using "electric arc" or "call lightning" but it doesn't seem right assuming there would be conductive damage for things which are generic "energy".

So far, we have established that out of all the games Rifts, Chaos Earth, PF, HU, NB, N&Ss, BtS, ETC...NONE OF THEM GIVE EXACTLY CLEAR AND THE SAME DETALES. So, please try not to take it personally.

I am enjoying this conversation immensely.

CORRECTION: I was incorrect about other magical OCCs. Buried in the "Psionic Powers" section of the main book on page 68 is "Animals and Magic" which states:

Remember, the PPE of all creatures doubles at the moment of death and a sorcerer can capture and use that energy when it is unleashed

"Remember" seems inappropriate since AFAIK it's the only place in the main book that references the doubling or the capturing

Good news for the Sorcerer OCC! Unfortunately the Mystics, Night Priests, Astral Mages, Arcane Detectives, Shadow Warlocks, Cyber-Mages, Mirror Mages, and Fleshsculptors are out of luck! I guess they'll have to become Bloodmages and be limited to sentient PPE!

Another useful trick: enslave an Astral Entity with "restore PPE" and have him go out and suck up people's PPE. This immediately converts to ISP which they can then convert back to PPE for your use over the next 12 hours/level. Might be economical to have several mages work together on this and share the top-up PPE service between you.

It's nice to incentivize the Sorcerer, they felt like they fell a little behind.

Reapers and Strigoi (both in Shadows of Light) can also explicitly use the PPE of the dead.

pblackcrow wrote:So far, we have established that out of all the games Rifts, Chaos Earth, PF, HU, NB, N&Ss, BtS, ETC...NONE OF THEM GIVE EXACTLY CLEAR AND THE SAME DETALES. So, please try not to take it personally.

I am enjoying this conversation immensely.

It's funny... I was catching up on this thread and about a minute before I scrolled down to what you said, I was thinking the very same thing.

Every game is a stand alone game and although they purport to be compatible... well.... they only sort of are. When conflicting answers that apply to the same root question are found in books of different game settings, that's when the GM steps in and exerts a healthy dose of common sense.

This is why I'm a proponent of ONE core book for basic Palladium rules, then each game line gets its own setting book for nuances specific to it such as the I.S.P. boost for Beyond the Supernatural or Chi for Ninjas and Superspies. All the other rules that should be standardized would then be, well, standardized. Trying to mix, match and borrow rules for different games and then try and make them work under the banner of one big happy Megaverse is itself a full-time job for players and GMs. It's exhausting. The term Megaverse sounds swell, but it's a misnomer. All Palladium games are NOT created equal, so I wish they'd either stop using that term or seriously tighten up their rules across the board (and publish a core Megaversal System rule book).

Jack Burton wrote:

pblackcrow wrote:So far, we have established that out of all the games Rifts, Chaos Earth, PF, HU, NB, N&Ss, BtS, ETC...NONE OF THEM GIVE EXACTLY CLEAR AND THE SAME DETALES. So, please try not to take it personally.

I am enjoying this conversation immensely.

It's funny... I was catching up on this thread and about a minute before I scrolled down to what you said, I was thinking the very same thing.

Every game is a stand alone game and although they purport to be compatible... well.... they only sort of are. When conflicting answers that apply to the same root question are found in books of different game settings, that's when the GM steps in and exerts a healthy dose of common sense.

This is why I'm a proponent of ONE core book for basic Palladium rules, then each game line gets its own setting book for nuances specific to it such as the I.S.P. boost for Beyond the Supernatural or Chi for Ninjas and Superspies. All the other rules that should be standardized would then be, well, standardized. Trying to mix, match and borrow rules for different games and then try and make them work under the banner of one big happy Megaverse is itself a full-time job for players and GMs. It's exhausting. The term Megaverse sounds swell, but it's a misnomer. All Palladium games are NOT created equal, so I wish they'd either stop using that term or seriously tighten up their rules across the board (and publish a core Megaversal System rule book).

While I agree that it is a pain to convert over they are telling the exact truth on every book.
Compatible with is not the same as "the exact same as"
They are exactly that.. compatible with. They are not 'part of' though, just compatible
It is just that too many people don't understand the difference and blithely assume that 'compatible' means 'identical'
They all use the same basics (more or less). SDC, d20 to strike, PPE... and that stuff. They just differ on details or how specific rules are implemented, or on who can learn what skills or stuff like that.

And lets be honest here...
There is never going to be a 'core book'. Not Going To Happen.
The closest we have is RUE. The reason is that it simply isn't worth the cost. They wouldn't make back the cost of writing a 3e so wishing for one is just pointless.

That's laughable to the point of questioning the speaker's motivation for yarnspinning. There has been oft-expressed interest in a codified set of rules for Palladium games for the better part of 30 years. It is in no way a question of whether or not such a product would sell. It is instead a function of what one might charitably call an unwillingness to submit to revision via a competent editor.

Curbludgeon wrote:That's laughable to the point of questioning the speaker's motivation for yarnspinning. There has been oft-expressed interest in a codified set of rules for Palladium games for the better part of 30 years. It is in no way a question of whether or not such a product would sell. It is instead a function of what one might charitably call an unwillingness to submit to revision via a competent editor.

No it is pretty easy actually.
Palladium Fantasy shows us the pitfalls.

If you redo the entire system into a 3e then you will have 2 big issues
1) you just made all the RT/Macross stuff totally useless since you can't bring them 3e compliant and they won't be 3e compatable.
2) your new 'core book' will make all the other books as obsolete as PF2 made PF1 books. This is because in the process of standardizing things you would be required to remove all the things that differ... which would, by nesesity require that your new rules be no longer compatable with any of the other materials before.

This leads to
3) so now you have to convince everyone to rebuy all the books.
Again
This might work for Rifts. And you might even get some headway on some of the other lines... but there is no way in heck that your going to recoup the losses from having to write off your entire current stock of books and start over from scratch.

I get that there is a desire by a small but vocal segment of the community for a single set of rules. I get that. But that segment of the community has not the slightest understanding of the issues involved in what they are asking for.
Basically they are asking for the moon, on a silver platter... and then boggled that they aren't getting it and yesterday to boot!

The attempt at Ultimate Edition change over was a problem to big to handle and Palladium still hasn't managed to even finish that process! The idea that they could handle a bigger one, on every line, at the same time is beyond absurd and into the realm of purest fantasy.

eliakon wrote:

Curbludgeon wrote:That's laughable to the point of questioning the speaker's motivation for yarnspinning. There has been oft-expressed interest in a codified set of rules for Palladium games for the better part of 30 years. It is in no way a question of whether or not such a product would sell. It is instead a function of what one might charitably call an unwillingness to submit to revision via a competent editor.

No it is pretty easy actually.
Palladium Fantasy shows us the pitfalls.

If you redo the entire system into a 3e then you will have 2 big issues
1) you just made all the RT/Macross stuff totally useless since you can't bring them 3e compliant and they won't be 3e compatable.
2) your new 'core book' will make all the other books as obsolete as PF2 made PF1 books. This is because in the process of standardizing things you would be required to remove all the things that differ... which would, by nesesity require that your new rules be no longer compatable with any of the other materials before.

This leads to
3) so now you have to convince everyone to rebuy all the books.
Again
This might work for Rifts. And you might even get some headway on some of the other lines... but there is no way in heck that your going to recoup the losses from having to write off your entire current stock of books and start over from scratch.

I get that there is a desire by a small but vocal segment of the community for a single set of rules. I get that. But that segment of the community has not the slightest understanding of the issues involved in what they are asking for.
Basically they are asking for the moon, on a silver platter... and then boggled that they aren't getting it and yesterday to boot!

The attempt at Ultimate Edition change over was a problem to big to handle and Palladium still hasn't managed to even finish that process! The idea that they could handle a bigger one, on every line, at the same time is beyond absurd and into the realm of purest fantasy.

Of course they'll never write a core book. I know that. They can't even produce books for the lines they support now. I'm still going to state my opinion, though. If other companies took your advice, they'd never have moved past 1st edition of anything. Robotech is a dead line anyway. Robotech and TMNT are now like Recon... they're their own games. Enjoy them for what they are.

I have to seriously disagree with your explanation of compatibility, though. You're right in that compatible doesn't mean "the exact same as" or "identical." Of course. Everyone knows that. But hear me out on this one...

Let's say you need to replace a broken part on your car. It's an easy part, so even someone not very skilled in auto repair (like me) can replace it. You could go to the dealership and pay an exorbitant price for a factory part. Nah, you'd rather go to the auto parts store and get a "compatible" part that works just fine, but for a fraction of the price. You know it's not "the exact same as", nor is it "identical." If it were "the exact same as" or "identical," it would be that factory part that you're not going to buy. You end up getting the "compatible" part at the auto store. So far, so good.

You remove the broken part, unpackaged the "compatible" part, and go to install it. Hmmm... it's not fitting. Hold on... you look at the packaging and confirm that it says it's "compatible" with your make, model and year of vehicle. You try again. It's still not fitting. What's the deal? You reexamine the packaging and realize that the part is machined for a Metric Measurement fitting, not an Imperial Measurement fitting. The only way you can use that part in your car is to take it to a machine shop and have it milled to the correct specifications. So, it's not compatible, is it? But wait, the package said it IS compatible! You should be able to just install it without any problems! You know it's not "the exact same as", nor is it "identical," but both parts are basically the same (more or less). You're starting to think that you blithely thought that "compatible" means "identical." (sorry, I couldn't resist)

So tell me, would this make you super peeved that the company that made the part used the term "compatible" so inaccurately? It's NOT compatible. Any reasonable person would agree that that part is in fact, not compatible, although with some effort you COULD make it compatible. Now, if you think that all "Megaversal" stuff is compatible, then so is all Call of Cthulhu, Starfinder or D&D stuff. All you need to do is make some tweaks here and there and you can use it in a Palladium game, right?

So, to recap... compatible means not the same, but effortlessly interchangeable. Megaversal stuff is NOT interchangeable without effort. I'm fine with that. My issue is that it's A) Unnecessary to have so many rule nuances across the different games. The "flavor" that's added for each genre's ruleset to be unique is dwarfed by the annoyance and uncertainty of trying to piecemeal rules from here and there to cobble together a workable game. I don't necessarily think many of those rule nuances are intentional, though (hence the need for a core rule book.. yes, I said it again), and B) Books are advertised as being "compatible" when in fact, the rules in them conflict with so many others.

Back to starting subject. I am totally cool with you doing that during the quick down time sessions, Shannon, and you know it. Just be sure keep cleaning up like you have been.

So do not call it a sacrifice. Will this work per the rules:
1) Pit full of creatures (how you get them in the pit is not relevant)
2) Kill the creatures (spell or plasma grenade, etc.)
3) Absorb the doubled PPE form all the deaths. Only stores up to three times your normal PPE level.
4) Cast desired spell using the extra PPE.

Jack Burton wrote:

eliakon wrote:

Curbludgeon wrote:That's laughable to the point of questioning the speaker's motivation for yarnspinning. There has been oft-expressed interest in a codified set of rules for Palladium games for the better part of 30 years. It is in no way a question of whether or not such a product would sell. It is instead a function of what one might charitably call an unwillingness to submit to revision via a competent editor.

No it is pretty easy actually.
Palladium Fantasy shows us the pitfalls.

If you redo the entire system into a 3e then you will have 2 big issues
1) you just made all the RT/Macross stuff totally useless since you can't bring them 3e compliant and they won't be 3e compatable.
2) your new 'core book' will make all the other books as obsolete as PF2 made PF1 books. This is because in the process of standardizing things you would be required to remove all the things that differ... which would, by nesesity require that your new rules be no longer compatable with any of the other materials before.

This leads to
3) so now you have to convince everyone to rebuy all the books.
Again
This might work for Rifts. And you might even get some headway on some of the other lines... but there is no way in heck that your going to recoup the losses from having to write off your entire current stock of books and start over from scratch.

I get that there is a desire by a small but vocal segment of the community for a single set of rules. I get that. But that segment of the community has not the slightest understanding of the issues involved in what they are asking for.
Basically they are asking for the moon, on a silver platter... and then boggled that they aren't getting it and yesterday to boot!

The attempt at Ultimate Edition change over was a problem to big to handle and Palladium still hasn't managed to even finish that process! The idea that they could handle a bigger one, on every line, at the same time is beyond absurd and into the realm of purest fantasy.

Of course they'll never write a core book. I know that. They can't even produce books for the lines they support now. I'm still going to state my opinion, though. If other companies took your advice, they'd never have moved past 1st edition of anything. Robotech is a dead line anyway. Robotech and TMNT are now like Recon... they're their own games. Enjoy them for what they are.

Palladium tried to update.
That update failed, big time AND it was not popular with the fans.
That sort of suggests that maybe, just maybe... that trying ANOTHER even BIGGER update is probably a worse idea.
And as of right now Robtech and TMNT are at least somewhat compatible. There is zero to gain in abandoning all the players of those games and just saying "well we already have a really small player base... but lets make it even smaller and more exclusive by making two of our groups be unable to play anymore"
And frankly.... I look at companies like SJG as the gold standard for editions not WotC or White Wolf.

Jack Burton wrote:I have to seriously disagree with your explanation of compatibility, though. You're right in that compatible doesn't mean "the exact same as" or "identical." Of course. Everyone knows that. But hear me out on this one...

Let's say you need to replace a broken part on your car. It's an easy part, so even someone not very skilled in auto repair (like me) can replace it. You could go to the dealership and pay an exorbitant price for a factory part. Nah, you'd rather go to the auto parts store and get a "compatible" part that works just fine, but for a fraction of the price. You know it's not "the exact same as", nor is it "identical." If it were "the exact same as" or "identical," it would be that factory part that you're not going to buy. You end up getting the "compatible" part at the auto store. So far, so good.

You remove the broken part, unpackaged the "compatible" part, and go to install it. Hmmm... it's not fitting. Hold on... you look at the packaging and confirm that it says it's "compatible" with your make, model and year of vehicle. You try again. It's still not fitting. What's the deal? You reexamine the packaging and realize that the part is machined for a Metric Measurement fitting, not an Imperial Measurement fitting. The only way you can use that part in your car is to take it to a machine shop and have it milled to the correct specifications. So, it's not compatible, is it? But wait, the package said it IS compatible! You should be able to just install it without any problems! You know it's not "the exact same as", nor is it "identical," but both parts are basically the same (more or less). You're starting to think that you blithely thought that "compatible" means "identical." (sorry, I couldn't resist)
So tell me, would this make you super peeved that the company that made the part used the term "compatible" so inaccurately? It's NOT compatible. Any reasonable person would agree that that part is in fact, not compatible, although with some effort you COULD make it compatible. Now, if you think that all "Megaversal" stuff is compatible, then so is all Call of Cthulhu, Starfinder or D&D stuff. All you need to do is make some tweaks here and there and you can use it in a Palladium game, right?

Ummmm I hate to break it to you but this is not a car part
You might want to try using examples from the actual hobby itself instead of going to something else and using their version of the word and its meanings. Just a thought there....

Jack Burton wrote:So, to recap... compatible means not the same, but effortlessly interchangeable. Megaversal stuff is NOT interchangeable without effort. I'm fine with that. My issue is that it's A) Unnecessary to have so many rule nuances across the different games. The "flavor" that's added for each genre's ruleset to be unique is dwarfed by the annoyance and uncertainty of trying to piecemeal rules from here and there to cobble together a workable game. I don't necessarily think many of those rule nuances are intentional, though (hence the need for a core rule book.. yes, I said it again), and B) Books are advertised as being "compatible" when in fact, the rules in them conflict with so many others.

It doesn't mean "Effortlessly interchangeable" though.
That's the entire point here.
The different games ARE compatible. You can use the material from any game in any other game with a minimum of work, often no work at all.
But They Are Different Games.
That's the entire point.
If they were all one game? Then you might have a point.

As for the argument that somehow the fact that different games have different rules? That argument is beyond absurd. No really it is. You are literally complaining that the entire point of having different games is what you dislike... and I'm sorry but when your complaint is that the defining feature of something is what you dislike...then it is not a 'mild gripe' it is a fundamental "I feel that the world should cater to my whims" level of entitlement.
As for the differences? I beg to differ. From my examinations over the years as I have worked to bring things from one game to another game it has looked to me like the differences were usually quite intentional. What is thematically appropriate for a fantasy game may not be appropriate in a horror game, or a super hero game or a space game etc.

Thus a core book would basically end up a really expensive boondoggle that does nothing productive, at all, other than firmly kill the entire game and ensure that there are no more books, at all.
That doesn't seem to be of value at all...

eliakon wrote:

Jack Burton wrote:

eliakon wrote:

Curbludgeon wrote:That's laughable to the point of questioning the speaker's motivation for yarnspinning. There has been oft-expressed interest in a codified set of rules for Palladium games for the better part of 30 years. It is in no way a question of whether or not such a product would sell. It is instead a function of what one might charitably call an unwillingness to submit to revision via a competent editor.

No it is pretty easy actually.
Palladium Fantasy shows us the pitfalls.

If you redo the entire system into a 3e then you will have 2 big issues
1) you just made all the RT/Macross stuff totally useless since you can't bring them 3e compliant and they won't be 3e compatable.
2) your new 'core book' will make all the other books as obsolete as PF2 made PF1 books. This is because in the process of standardizing things you would be required to remove all the things that differ... which would, by nesesity require that your new rules be no longer compatable with any of the other materials before.

This leads to
3) so now you have to convince everyone to rebuy all the books.
Again
This might work for Rifts. And you might even get some headway on some of the other lines... but there is no way in heck that your going to recoup the losses from having to write off your entire current stock of books and start over from scratch.

I get that there is a desire by a small but vocal segment of the community for a single set of rules. I get that. But that segment of the community has not the slightest understanding of the issues involved in what they are asking for.
Basically they are asking for the moon, on a silver platter... and then boggled that they aren't getting it and yesterday to boot!

The attempt at Ultimate Edition change over was a problem to big to handle and Palladium still hasn't managed to even finish that process! The idea that they could handle a bigger one, on every line, at the same time is beyond absurd and into the realm of purest fantasy.

Of course they'll never write a core book. I know that. They can't even produce books for the lines they support now. I'm still going to state my opinion, though. If other companies took your advice, they'd never have moved past 1st edition of anything. Robotech is a dead line anyway. Robotech and TMNT are now like Recon... they're their own games. Enjoy them for what they are.

Palladium tried to update.
That update failed, big time AND it was not popular with the fans.
That sort of suggests that maybe, just maybe... that trying ANOTHER even BIGGER update is probably a worse idea.
And as of right now Robtech and TMNT are at least somewhat compatible. There is zero to gain in abandoning all the players of those games and just saying "well we already have a really small player base... but lets make it even smaller and more exclusive by making two of our groups be unable to play anymore"
And frankly.... I look at companies like SJG as the gold standard for editions not WotC or White Wolf.

Jack Burton wrote:I have to seriously disagree with your explanation of compatibility, though. You're right in that compatible doesn't mean "the exact same as" or "identical." Of course. Everyone knows that. But hear me out on this one...

Let's say you need to replace a broken part on your car. It's an easy part, so even someone not very skilled in auto repair (like me) can replace it. You could go to the dealership and pay an exorbitant price for a factory part. Nah, you'd rather go to the auto parts store and get a "compatible" part that works just fine, but for a fraction of the price. You know it's not "the exact same as", nor is it "identical." If it were "the exact same as" or "identical," it would be that factory part that you're not going to buy. You end up getting the "compatible" part at the auto store. So far, so good.

You remove the broken part, unpackaged the "compatible" part, and go to install it. Hmmm... it's not fitting. Hold on... you look at the packaging and confirm that it says it's "compatible" with your make, model and year of vehicle. You try again. It's still not fitting. What's the deal? You reexamine the packaging and realize that the part is machined for a Metric Measurement fitting, not an Imperial Measurement fitting. The only way you can use that part in your car is to take it to a machine shop and have it milled to the correct specifications. So, it's not compatible, is it? But wait, the package said it IS compatible! You should be able to just install it without any problems! You know it's not "the exact same as", nor is it "identical," but both parts are basically the same (more or less). You're starting to think that you blithely thought that "compatible" means "identical." (sorry, I couldn't resist)
So tell me, would this make you super peeved that the company that made the part used the term "compatible" so inaccurately? It's NOT compatible. Any reasonable person would agree that that part is in fact, not compatible, although with some effort you COULD make it compatible. Now, if you think that all "Megaversal" stuff is compatible, then so is all Call of Cthulhu, Starfinder or D&D stuff. All you need to do is make some tweaks here and there and you can use it in a Palladium game, right?

Ummmm I hate to break it to you but this is not a car part
You might want to try using examples from the actual hobby itself instead of going to something else and using their version of the word and its meanings. Just a thought there....

Jack Burton wrote:So, to recap... compatible means not the same, but effortlessly interchangeable. Megaversal stuff is NOT interchangeable without effort. I'm fine with that. My issue is that it's A) Unnecessary to have so many rule nuances across the different games. The "flavor" that's added for each genre's ruleset to be unique is dwarfed by the annoyance and uncertainty of trying to piecemeal rules from here and there to cobble together a workable game. I don't necessarily think many of those rule nuances are intentional, though (hence the need for a core rule book.. yes, I said it again), and B) Books are advertised as being "compatible" when in fact, the rules in them conflict with so many others.

It doesn't mean "Effortlessly interchangeable" though.
That's the entire point here.
The different games ARE compatible. You can use the material from any game in any other game with a minimum of work, often no work at all.
But They Are Different Games.
That's the entire point.
If they were all one game? Then you might have a point.

As for the argument that somehow the fact that different games have different rules? That argument is beyond absurd. No really it is. You are literally complaining that the entire point of having different games is what you dislike... and I'm sorry but when your complaint is that the defining feature of something is what you dislike...then it is not a 'mild gripe' it is a fundamental "I feel that the world should cater to my whims" level of entitlement.
As for the differences? I beg to differ. From my examinations over the years as I have worked to bring things from one game to another game it has looked to me like the differences were usually quite intentional. What is thematically appropriate for a fantasy game may not be appropriate in a horror game, or a super hero game or a space game etc.

Thus a core book would basically end up a really expensive boondoggle that does nothing productive, at all, other than firmly kill the entire game and ensure that there are no more books, at all.
That doesn't seem to be of value at all...

I'll not beat a dead horse because it's obvious we'll never agree on this, and that's ok. Just consider the success of the Savage Worlds system, though it's not my favorite. All very different themes that aren't cookie-cutter: Sci-fi, Old West, Horror, Super Heroes, Fantasy, plus specific I.P.s like Rifts, Monster Hunters International, Robotech... what do all these have in common? A core book.

Question, though... when did Palladium try an update that failed? I don't think I know about that.

Mlp7029 wrote:So do not call it a sacrifice. Will this work per the rules:
1) Pit full of creatures (how you get them in the pit is not relevant)
2) Kill the creatures (spell or plasma grenade, etc.)
3) Absorb the doubled PPE form all the deaths. Only stores up to three times your normal PPE level.
4) Cast desired spell using the extra PPE.

to be clear here, i'm definitely inserting some of my own bias in what i'm about to say. i'm not certain the rules text would support my interpretations at all.

personally, i would require a greater degree of control than a grenade, and with regards to the AoE spell i would say you are already using an action to cast the AoE spell and then essentially instantly the creatures die, you're not set up to draw the PPE - you're in casting mode.

to me, the amount of effort involved in killing the creatures should be both negligible and entirely in your control - so i dislike the grenade because that's under the control of a timer that is out of your hands, and i dislike the AoE spell because the effort is not negligible. similarly, i dislike the use of fire - the moment of the creature's death is essentially random, based on the uneven heat of the fire and the ability of the creature to survive based on a variety of factors... i would make an exception for an instant extreme blast of fire that instantly kills all of the rats at the press of a button, i suppose, but it would have to be far beyond something like a campfire.