A Rifts Balance Discussion for Roguewriter & Buzzard

[Calico_Jack73]

Hmm. Speaking of balance, I was thinking of how to balance various suits of power armor. Anyone think that it'd be a good idea to treat that similar to Templates? I.E. A SAMAS is Level Adjustment +2 while a Glitter Boy is Level Adjustment +8?

Power armor really shouldn't qualify as a ECL adjustment. Power Armor should be treated like powerful magic items in D&D. You wouldn't give a Level 1 Paladin a +5 Holy Avenger because it would unbalance the game at that level. Glitterboy Pilots are squishy... it is their equipment that makes them powerful. Think about Star Wars d20, none of the characters starts out with a Starship though they may be able to pilot one relatively well. If you give a 1st level character their own X-Wing it would be the same... you've given them something that will absolutely destroy any CR1 enemies that don't have an equivalent fighter. Make the Glitterboy a class that gives bonuses to piloting and targeting while in Glitterboy armor. Don't give it to them until you are ready for it in your campaign. A major goal of the campaign could be aquiring the Glitterboy armor just like a Paladin questing for his Holy Sword.

 

[JoAT]

A couple years ago, I took a crack at re-designing the Palladium system - didn't get to far before my attention was diverted, but it was kinda interesting to do - I love the settings, those are excellent, and there are (or have been) good writers working there. But I can't stand the rules - an unbalanced system is one thing. I can live with that no problem. But the fact that the rules are inconistent, ineffective, and sometimes illogical, not to mention quite literally slapped together from 3-4 Palladium systems, the origonals all of which are out of print... Gah, if they'd just be willing to actually go ahead and overhaul the rules so that they were good, useful, and didn;t require so much house-ruling I'd actually be willing to play Rifts again...

 

[Calico_Jack73]

One gripe about the Palladium Mecha rules system is their use of attacks per weapon. You are telling me that no matter how many weapons a mecha has that you can only fire one particular weapon per attack action. Missiles are the only exeption in that you can fire volleys but even then they all have to come from the same weapon system. BULLCRAP!!! Modern attack helicopters and fighter aircraft can employ multiple weapons systems with the push of one or two buttons and the Palladium Melee round is 15 seconds. I can't see how you couldn't fire off an Alpha Strike (to use a Battletech term) where you fire off every weapon you have in a blistering salvo. Then again Battletech had the Heat Scale to balance out the weapons load which is something Rifts doesn't have. I used a mechanic from the Solaris 7 set for Battletech and it worked well. I gave each player 3 weapon salvo presets that they could group their weapons into. Obviously you don't want to be firing mini-missles (range of 1 mile) in the same group as your SRMs with a range of up to 50 miles as you'd be wasting ammo at any targets over a mile. Usually my players assigned a Long Range salvo, Medium Range salvo, and an Alpha Strike when the target is so close that every weapon is in range. It worked fairly well. It definitely gave Glitterboys a reason to stay at maximum range as they only have their boom gun and most of the other Robots and Power Armor increase in firepower as their engagement range decreased.

 

[Gundark]

Both systems have strengths and weaknesses. Of course the Palladium system is ANCIENT and is due for a massive overhaul.

While I agree that the Palladium system is due for a overhaul (okay massive overhaul). The system has no strengths. I played Rifts from it's conception until about a 3 years before d20 came out (I had quit roleplaying because the system was so crappy). The system is utter garbage. I remember sembedia (I can never spell his name right) writing in Villains Unlimited that it was the GMs fault for allowing characters to jump on a grenade, take the blast and live (grenade did about 4d6 dmg, however you had 200-300 SDC). While I agree that common sense is need, the system allowed for stupid things like this to happen. Rifts had no balance, as was pointed out a 1st level character could kill a 15th level character without breaking a sweat. And mega damage....while not a bad concept they let it go completely crazy in rifts. Handheld pistols could level a town...I can't believe anyone is still alive in that universe. Robotech had it right, the mechs and a very limited amount of handheld guns did mega damage. I always smile when I see people complain about combat length in d20...in Rifts combat lasted a very, very long time. And finally the universe was okay...the world books had more than their fair share of lemons...new west...england...south america (1&2)...Japan...underseas... . I hope Palladium dies a slow and painful death and that nobody plays that utterly crappy system again. Um....I guess this means I'm a palladium hater

 

[Gundark]

Second, we were discussing a up front non-sneaky fight. Rogues are the weakest class in the game for that IMHO.

A rogue can use the bluff skill in combat and deny a fighter his Dex modifier to AC every round (assuming the fighter fails his sense motive checks). And then get a sneak attack. The problem is that of roles, if a rogue tries to fight as a fighter and not take advantage of their abilities then yes they will lose. However a rogue taking advantage of his abilities will make it hard on the fighter. Lets look and the cyber-knight/Gliter boy example, The cyber knight has NOTHING besides a cheap psi sword and even cheaper psionics to fight the gliter boy (who has a huge cannon plus more armour than mechs 4 times his size. The problem with Rifts is that there is this huge gamer base that screams that Palladium change the game system and KS is too stupid to listen (man I h8 palladium).

 

[drnuncheon]

Here's my theory on the matter:

A good GM can compensate for the imbalances of a system. However, it takes work - for some games, a significant amount of work. In general, this is effort that could be better spent in devising a cool plot, nifty settings, interesting NPCs, and all the other elements that make a campaign special.

If you're constantly patching holes in the roof, you don't have time to decorate.

For this reason, I believe that games that are balanced by the rules are superior to games that are not - they let me put my effort into the parts that make a game truly memorable.

Regarding the specific example: sure, you can take the pilot out of the Glitter Boy - but then you're faced with a different problem. Half the time, you've got someone who can wipe out the foes without breaking a sweat, and the other half of the time, you've got someone who will be reduced to a thin red paste if someone sneezes in his direction. Not Fun. Furthermore, if you constantly run fights for the player without his mecha, he's going to get upset that he built his character around something that you never let him use.

That's not balance, that's the scales swinging wildly.

J

 

[Voadam]

Looks like it is up to me to get the ball rolling...

I just read an article comparing Rifts to d20 Modern at RPGnet.
Comparison Article

It brought up some of the good points and bad points of Rifts. Regarding game system balance I am forced to agree with Roguewriter's point of view that it is up to the DM to enforce balance more than being the responsibility of the game designers. Some people point out that some of the OCCs and RCCs in Rifts are horribly overbalanced (Yes, I know the Cosmo Knight is the baddest mama-jamma out there). Think about this though... in D&D the system allows for you to play pretty much any creature out of the Monster Manual. Read the MM3.5 and look up the Troll. You get stat modifiers and preferred class for pretty much every creature. Let's say that I'm about to join a game and I want to play a Troll Barbarian. The rules certainly support it and even though I'd have a hell of a ECL I'd still have the Troll character I want. It is up to the DM to decide if such a character is appropriate in his campaign. If the DM tells me that he WON'T allow such a character then he is utilizing the same kind of balance that the GM of a Rifts campaign has to use if a player said they wanted to play something that was waaaay too powerful for what he has in mind. Even within the system, certain classes aren't appropriate to the setting even if there is no ECL. If my DM was running a Forgotten Realms campaign set in Maztica then my playing a Samurai probably wouldn't fit. Not that they are any more powerful, it just isn't appropriate to the setting. Ultimately, I have to agree that I believe balance is always in the hands of the DM.

I think you are conflating two separate issues, flavor and balance. Balance would be relative character power level. Flavor would be campaign setting appropriateness. So your samurai might be balanced if he is equal level to the other party members but incorrect for the Maztica campaign flavor. Similarly playing a low level scullion might be correct for the flavor of a medieval game but unbalanced next to the other high level knights and lords in the party. For Rifts playing a scout and a hatchling dragon might both be appropriate flavor choices for the setting but the power balance is significantly off between the two.

 

[Caliber]

I feel a need to point out the Rifts in d20 Yahoo! Group. Note, however, that most work here has shut down since Palladium came down on us and told us we couldn't post anything allowing for any conversions.

It seems that company policy forbids them from EVER changing systems, or from ever allowing others to make public conversions. There still might be some stuff up though, and the message archives are still intact.

As for the discussion on a whole, Rifts was defintely unbalanced. Even as a little kid (which I was when I first found Rifts) I could tell the difference in power between, say, a City Rat and a Dragon Hatchling. I honestly wondered who would want to play a City Rat instead of a Hatchling honestly.

It seems that to run a successful Rifts game, you'd have to knock out nearly all of the classes except for the couple who exist on the same power scale.

Rifts ... amazing idea. Horrible implementation.

 

[Impeesa]

Palladium coming down on your conversion efforts? You could always try working by mailing list and distributing your work in pdf form via distributed channels (like file-sharing services and stuff).

--Impeesa--

 

[drnuncheon]

Palladium has never been happy about conversions, either to or from their system. A long time ago they sued (or threatened to, I can't recall which) a little tiny game company that was putting out a book called The Primal Order, just because the book had conversions in the back from TPO's system to Palladium.

Considering who that company was, I'd imagine Simbieda is feeling a bit bitter at their current success, and even less likely to want to see d20 conversions for his stuff.

J