Forums of the Megaverse®

@Killercyborg

You are appear as using the girl in the picture as a counter what the books says is combat training. That to me seams more based out of trying to draw out and emotional response than a logical one, and is irrelevant to the rules of the game. So I call it a false flag or identification of reason for counter.

If the girl in the picture has the skill to use a weapon with a bonus and or hand to hand style in a fight then yes she is combat trained, her age and back ground beyond that are irrelevant(war is not the only form of combat any fight is combat). If she does not have the skill to use them in a fight with the WP bonus or hand to hand style she is not combat trained.

I have already provided the citations on what the book says is combat training and you replied with a picture. But because you asked for citations on what the book calls combat training let me waste my time and re-post it.

Looking for what the rules say provides combat training I did find two book quotes that talk about combat training.
RUE PG 326 under weapon proficiency-
"Each WP provides combat training with a particular type of weapon."
RUE PG 347 under hand to hand basic-
"This is elementary form of hand to hand combat training."

So the book says a WP is combat training and says hand to hand basic is combat training. The book has no rule for combat training beyond that.
So by the book almost every mage by default has some form of combat training, making your claim that "mages are not typically combat trained untrue."

[quote="Killer Cyborg]
I'm not sure what you mean here, but if you have any citations from any Rifts books describing what "combat training" entails, let me know.[/quote]
SO you are trolling here?
Because this means that you are arguing that there is no definition of combat training, even though you have been provided with BOTH the book RAW definition, as well as what it would take to have professional level combat training...
...and your response is to simply throw out flame bait and argue that the books are not really accurate, and that your personal definitions (That you will not share) are superior and that these personal definitions are what should be used in all cases instead of published canon?

Because while you don't LIKE IT the books have said what is or is not "Combat Training"
The books have said what is or is not "professional quality"
At this point you seem to be arguing that you do not like the canon and that you think your house rules should trump the canon

eliakon wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:Okay, let's just explore that.
What argument exactly do you think that I'm addressing?
What argument exactly do you think that I'm making up that isn't being presented?

You are making the false claim that 1 WP and 1 H2H, by anyone makes you combat trained.
Additionally you are implying that she has both H2H and WP...
...when neither has to be true.
You do not need a WP to use nunchucks, unlike in the Real World where lots of training is required
Also in Game you have a basic level of combat training simply by being a person (H2H: none) which may or may not be simulated by her level of skill
Additionally "combat trained" as presented in this thread (by me and others) has been 'professional level'
Since otherwise there is literally no definition of it (unless your arguing that there IS no definition of the words and that the term is irelivent and that everyone should decide on a case by case basis if they are or are not trained)
She is not professional and in game terms she can not be. Thus presenting her as an example of someone with professional level training to shoot down the idea that 'those with professional levels of training in fighting are combat trained' is a strawman at best, and out right intentional intellectual dishonesty at worst...

Full stop. That has never been his argument. In fact, it was first brought up by you responding to Shark Force on the first page: http://palladium-megaverse.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=152562&p=2949363&hilit=But+if+that+mage+starts+with#p2949363

eliakon wrote:...

Shark_Force wrote:honestly, i think the statement that typical mages aren't combat trained is pretty fair. there's a *lot* of competition for those OCC related skills that they do get. stuff like being able to ride a horse or drive a car. knowing where to find contraband and avoid CS agents and informers. knowing the value of things they are buying or selling so they don't get ripped off. being able to speak in front of the rest of a mage's guild to impress them and persuade them they should be allowed to learn that spell they want. being able to use a radio competently because it is likely that many cities don't have telephone connections running between them. lore skills, literacy, languages, possibly something to provide a cover identity depending on where they live, etc...

The statement that mages might not be combat trained is fair.
But if that mage starts with a H2H and a WP, then I am sorry, they are combat trained...

Petty tyrants thrive when they have authority backed by vague regulations.

Blue_Lion wrote:@Killercyborg
You are appear as using the girl in the picture as a counter what the books says is combat training. That to me seams more based out of trying to draw out and emotional response than a logical one, and is irrelevant to the rules of the game.

I'm not using it as a counter to what the book says.
I'm using it to illustrate the absurdity of the claim that having a WP and a HTH skill makes one "combat trained."
Yes, this is to draw out an emotional response.
No, it is not illogical.

The emotional response would be people thinking that it's silly or offensive to imagine that the little girl qualifies as "combat trained," even though she'd be technically eligible for that status going by the rules as you read them.

The logic would be essentially:
P1: Most people would find it absurd or implausible for that little girl to be considered to be "combat trained."
P2: The writers of the rule books would be a subset of "Most people."
C: The writers of the rule books would most likely find it implausible or absurd for that girl to be considered to be "combat trained."

But the logic also is:
P1: That little girl is technically "combat trained" according to some standards.
P2: That little girl would not be likely to be able to keep her stuff together during a mega-damage firefight.
P3: The context of the "mages as a rule are not even combat trained*" discussion is specifically their ability to keep their stuff together during a mega-damage firefight.
C: Being technically "combat trained" according to certain standards does not mean that one is likely to be able to keep one's stuff together during a mega-damage firefight.

*Paraphrased from memory; not a direct quote.

IF you have no emotional objection to the idea that the little girl in the picture IS "combat trained" to the extent that she'd be likely to keep her stuff together during a mega-damage firefight, then congratulations--this particular argument from me should have no real effect on you!


For that matter, neither should this one.

So I call it a false flag or identification of reason for counter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag
The contemporary term false flag describes covert operations that are designed to deceive in such a way that activities appear as though they are being carried out by entities, groups, or nations other than those who actually planned and executed them.

I am not performing any covert operations. I am being quite direct and blunt about things by pointing out the results of certain laid-out criteria.
I am not deceiving anybody. Again, I am being quite blunt.
I am not pretending that that picture was posted by any entity other than myself, and I am not pretending that anybody other than myself has planned nor executed this particular argument.

This is not any kind of false flag.

II have already provided the citations on what the book says is combat training and you replied with a picture. But because you asked for citations on what the book calls combat training let me waste my time and re-post it.

Looking for what the rules say provides combat training I did find two book quotes that talk about combat training.
RUE PG 326 under weapon proficiency-
"Each WP provides combat training with a particular type of weapon."
RUE PG 347 under hand to hand basic-
"This is elementary form of hand to hand combat training."

So the book says a WP is combat training and says hand to hand basic is combat training. The book has no rule for combat training beyond that.

Ah! That's the source of the misunderstanding.
When you referred to "what the book calls combat training," I took that to mean that the books somewhere had defined or described what "combat training" IS.
Instead, what you meant was that the books listed several things, and said that those things were a form of combat training.

To be clear:
Weapon Proficiencies provide combat training.
Weapon proficiencies are not combat training.

A person who has a WP is combat trained with that weapon.
A person who has a HTH skill is combat trained with that style of HTH combat.

Are we on the same page so far?
I hope so.

Where the issue comes in is that the kinds of "combat training" that you are discussing are limited, existing only within certain contexts, and they don't have the same global connotation of saying that a person is "combat trained" as a general statement.

So by the book almost every mage by default has some form of combat training, making your claim that "mages are not typically combat trained untrue."

Uh... no.
Because context still matters.
"Having some combat training" does not mean that you "are combat trained" outside of the context of that specific training.
If you have only WP Knife, for example, and somebody asks, "Are you combat trained with a rifle?"
The answer is no.
You may be "combat trained," but you are NOT "combat trained" within the context of rifles.

If you've taken a 6 month self defense class at the YMCA, and a zombie apocalypse happens, and amid all the chaos in the streets a marine runs up to you, hands you an M-16, and says, "Are you combat trained?"
You might say "yes" on a technicality, but it'd be a lie of implication because your arena of combat training is very clearly NOT within the scope of the current situation.

If you're a mage on Rifts Earth, and you have HTH Basic, and you find yourself in a mega-damage firefight, and you're trying to concentrate enough to cast a spell, are you "combat trained?"
Only within in the scope of HTH Basic, NOT as a global statement.
HTH Basic doesn't include training with mega-damage firefights as part of the package.

Prysus wrote:[justify]Greetings and Salutations. Oy vey ... okay, this post is going to be primarily to try and clarify a few people's positions. So this will be addressing Killer Cyborg and eliakon primarily, though will touch on Blue Lion as well.

*****

The stance of eliakon arguing you have to have Hand to Hand and W.P. as a O.C.C. or O.C.C. Related skills started about halfway down the first page. This happened after his initial statement about "H2H and a WP" means that "they are combat trained." As a refresher ...

Spoiler:

eliakon wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:Nope.
Remember that the context of the original conversation that this was spun off of: keeping calm and avoiding panic during mega-damage firefights.
If the CS puts you through basic training, then you're going to be a lot more prepared for that kind of thing than if you took a class at the Y, and you plink bottles in your spare time. Even though both characters might qualify for HTH Basic and WP Energy Pistol (or whatever), that doesn't mean that they're going to be on equal mental footing when it comes to a firefight.
Rifts is a role-playing game, after all. It's not all about straight mechanics in a vacuum.

And here is where we can start to draw a line on "combat trained" or not

There is a neat bit of flavor text that talks about skills based on what you bought them with
If your skills are OCC skills then they are by definition professional
If your skills are OCCr skills they are probably professional (as they are part of your job)
If your skills are secondary skills though, they are your personal hobbies and interests.

I know that people tend to not do it that way but that is how the rules are set up...
Thus we get
1) If your skills are OCC skills, then your professionally trained in those skills as part of the definition your job.
2) If your skills are OCCr then your skills, while not core to your job are professionally relevant enough to you that you use them regularly in the course of your job that you see them as being part of that job.
3) If all your skills are bought as secondary skills, then they are ones that you are interested in personally and count as hobbies... but are not part of your job.

1) OCC combat skills = always combat trained
2) OCCr combat skills = May or may not be combat trained, it will depend on the individual. But they can easily be such because they, by definition, have combat skills provided as part of their regular day-to-day activity.
3) Secondary combat skills = probably not combat trained unless there is some sort of extenuating circumstance, such as levels worth of experience in combat, attending formal military training (such as the school in Mercenary Adventures) or the like.

And the response from Killer Cyborg to that (just to help jog the memory) ...

Spoiler:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

eliakon wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:Nope.
Remember that the context of the original conversation that this was spun off of: keeping calm and avoiding panic during mega-damage firefights.
If the CS puts you through basic training, then you're going to be a lot more prepared for that kind of thing than if you took a class at the Y, and you plink bottles in your spare time. Even though both characters might qualify for HTH Basic and WP Energy Pistol (or whatever), that doesn't mean that they're going to be on equal mental footing when it comes to a firefight.
Rifts is a role-playing game, after all. It's not all about straight mechanics in a vacuum.

And here is where we can start to draw a line on "combat trained" or not

There is a neat bit of flavor text that talks about skills based on what you bought them with
If your skills are OCC skills then they are by definition professional

Nah. They're occupational.

If your skills are OCCr skills they are probably professional (as they are part of your job)

We have an official standard for that, actually. With Domestic skills and (some?) Technical skills, you can take the skill twice in order for it to actually be Professional quality.
Vagabonds start with Cook (a Domestic skill) as an OCC skill... but NOT at professional quality.
Occupational skills are not necessarily professional level.

Even if they were, being professionally trained in self-defense at the Y isn't across-the-board equal to being professionally trained as a soldier.

Since that post though, from what I can tell, eliakon hasn't backtracked on the O.C.C. or Related requirement.

Ah!
Thank you for the refresher!
Eliakon's consistency is noted, and I'll endeavor to not forget it again.

Now, he is about the only person in this thread making that argument.

Yes.

Though since I'm here, I'll also address the fact of the little girl not having an O.C.C., which is in contradiction to eliakon's previous stance of ...

eliakon wrote:

Shark_Force wrote:a few of those (at the very least, the herbalist and the 3 woodland druids) don't use spell magic.

a number of the rest of them are separate OCCs specifically *because* they are different from typical mages...

and the specific examples we have in the core books are likely for specifically adventuring mages, which are hardly likely to be the most common ones any more than adventuring vagabonds are a typical city dweller.

Since we don't have the OCCs for these hypothetical 'non-adventuring mages' speculating about their abilities (or even existence) is pointless.
Because as it is... everyone seems to have a class, and that means that yes RAW every street bum has to have some class
or more to the point... it is specious to argue that we should treat mages any differently than we treat vagabonds or street rats or thieves or soldiers...
Class is class is class.
That means that yes, the average mage is trained just like the OCC layout in the books.

So apparently the stance is "everyone" has an O.C.C., except that one girl. She alone is special by not having an O.C.C. now.

eliakon wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:I'm not sure what you mean here, but if you have any citations from any Rifts books describing what "combat training" entails, let me know.

SO you are trolling here?

No, never.

Because this means that you are arguing that there is no definition of combat training, even though you have been provided with BOTH the book RAW definition, as well as what it would take to have professional level combat training...

Incorrect.
What has been provided is NOT any definition of combat training.
What it IS is two examples of things that qualify as combat training.

It's like how if a book mentions that Pit Bulls are dogs, and Poodles are dogs, that does NOT give us a definition of "dog."
All it gives us are two examples of things that are dogs.

...and your response is to simply throw out flame bait and argue that the books are not really accurate, and that your personal definitions (That you will not share) are superior and that these personal definitions are what should be used in all cases instead of published canon?

No. I didn't do any of those things.

RubberBoot wrote:RUE Ley Line Walker

If you are a mage who wants to be an adventurer or merc explore the world you would need to be combat trained so when you are learning to be a mage you would obviously not just be sitting in a room learning magic ignorant to the fact that you could find yourself without PPE and still have to defend yourself.

HtoH- basic or expert for an extra skill slot
WP- Sword
WP- Energy Rifle

Spells to start

1
Blinding Flash
Thunderclap
Cloud of smoke
__________________________________
2
Befuddle
Fear
Levitation
___________________________________
3
Armour of Ithan
Invisibility
Paralysis Lesser or Magic Shield
___________________________________
4-----------------------------------also maybe Chromatic Protection
Carpet of Adhesion
Energy Field
Magic Net

Looks pretty combat trained to me using energy rifle or TW rifle to deal damage while using the spells the mage knows to give him/her an edge.

Tolkeen wars need I really need to say more.

Military Combat training is working with a group and tactically overcoming opponents real world soldiers have basic HtoH training cause guess what they fire a gun. CS grunt will have a HtoH and a WP and by them self they are not nearly as scary as a mage

sure, that particular mage (which probably resembles a typical PC ley line walker in many ways) is probably combat trained.

on the other hand, an RUE ley line walker could also have only hand to hand basic, no WPs at all (there are more than enough skills available to spend all OCC related and secondary skills on without picking up anything for combat), and a spell list with few if any combat spells.

for example,

L1: sense magic, see aura, globe of sunlight, lantern light (or switch one for see invisible).
L2: aura of power, extinguish fire, levitation, manipulate objects (or switch one for cleanse or mystic alarm)
L3: create wood, float in air, impervious to fire, impervious to poison (or switch one for invisibility:simple, light healing, breathe without air, mystic fulcrum, negate poison/toxin, or telekinesis)
L4: astral projection, charismatic aura, cure minor disorders, seal (or switch one for repel animals, lesser swim as a fish, trance, or watchguard).

this provides an assortment of convenience and services that the ley line walker could offer if, instead of having this weird fixation on traveling through the monster-infested wilderness in hopes of finding something that the hundreds of scavengers have not already picked clean and striking it rich, this particular mage would rather live in a town somewhere and open up a shop. this ley line walker is still not helpless in a fight (though given a choice, having a hired security guard of some sort if a fight is expected would be a good idea), and is also probably a lot more common in the world. because all those ley line walker adventurers have an alarming tendency to die much more often, and most people aren't going to voluntarily choose the way of life that leads to a massive decrease in life expectancy. and also because the one staying in a town and opening a shop has better access to any local mage's guild (and to their teacher) for the purpose of learning spells in the future, and frankly probably has better odds of becoming rich as well (it's relatively easy for such a ley line walker to be a doctor, for example. imagine if you could instantly get rid of headaches, fevers, indigestion, nausea, etc... how much money do you think you could make? and that's from *one* spell that the ley line walker could choose. this particular ley line walker can also extinguish flames in a 20 foot radius instantly... that's probably enough that if literally your entire house was on fire all at once, this ley line walker could instantly extinguish all flames in that area, and can then go around putting out even more fires for the next few minutes. this level 1 ley line walker makes an entire modern fire department look like a bunch of chumps).

so, why would "most" ley line walkers be combat trained? i mean, certainly some of them will be. just the same as some city rats or taxi drivers or store clerks or undertakers or even doctors and teachers will be on rifts earth. but from where i'm sitting, it looks like there's incredibly low incentive to go risking your life when you probably have the tools to make a good living for yourself without spending a substantial amount of your time getting shot at.

and if we assume that there are a number of additional spells in existence that simply aren't interesting from an adventuring perspective but which provide useful solutions to everyday problems, it starts looking even *better* for the non-adventuring mage. and it only gets better with more levels... levels which you might earn more slowly than an adventuring mage, but which you are much more likely to survive to see at all than an adventuring mage, i might add.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

eliakon wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:I'm not sure what you mean here, but if you have any citations from any Rifts books describing what "combat training" entails, let me know.

SO you are trolling here?

No, never.

Because this means that you are arguing that there is no definition of combat training, even though you have been provided with BOTH the book RAW definition, as well as what it would take to have professional level combat training...

Incorrect.
What has been provided is NOT any definition of combat training.
What it IS is two examples of things that qualify as combat training.

It's like how if a book mentions that Pit Bulls are dogs, and Poodles are dogs, that does NOT give us a definition of "dog."
All it gives us are two examples of things that are dogs.

that is a pretty fine hair your splitting there
The book says that skill X is combat training...
The book says that if you take X as an OCC or OCCr skill its professional...
Then you say that it doesn't say explicitly what combat training is...
...so you then get to turn around and argue that there is no real combat training because you don't like the book.
Or to put it another way
the books says "if you have the following characteristics you are a dog"
then yes, if you have those characteristics you are a dog.
We don't need the DNA for the dog.
Put another way
If you have a WP then you have combat training... because the book says that the DEFINITION of having a WP is that you have combat training.
That is what the term "definition" means.
You may not LIKE that... but the RAW is that way.
So yes, either your little girl has combat training... or more likely she does not actually have a real WP...or even MORE likely RIFTS is not a reality sim and she like many things exists outside of the game system.

eliakon wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

eliakon wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:I'm not sure what you mean here, but if you have any citations from any Rifts books describing what "combat training" entails, let me know.

SO you are trolling here?

No, never.

Because this means that you are arguing that there is no definition of combat training, even though you have been provided with BOTH the book RAW definition, as well as what it would take to have professional level combat training...

Incorrect.
What has been provided is NOT any definition of combat training.
What it IS is two examples of things that qualify as combat training.

It's like how if a book mentions that Pit Bulls are dogs, and Poodles are dogs, that does NOT give us a definition of "dog."
All it gives us are two examples of things that are dogs.

that is a pretty fine hair your splitting there

I speak and think with precision.
Perhaps too much sometimes.

The book says that skill X is combat training...
The book says that if you take X as an OCC or OCCr skill its professional...
Then you say that it doesn't say explicitly what combat training is...

Not quite.
The book does not say that skill x is combat training. Not exactly.
What the book says is (pasted from Blue_Lion's post):

RUE PG 326 under weapon proficiency-
"Each WP provides combat training with a particular type of weapon."

RUE PG 347 under hand to hand basic-
"This is elementary form of hand to hand combat training."

WPs are not combat training; they provide combat training.
HTH Basic IS a form of elementary combat training... so yes, it is combat training, but it's a very specific type, and (as I've discussed with Blue Lion), one not particularly relevant to the question of how well mages can concentrate during a mega-damage firefight.

But the point was that I thought that Blue Lion was claiming that the term "combat training" was defined in the books, and I was mistaken; he was referring to these examples of combat training, not a definition.

...so you then get to turn around and argue that there is no real combat training because you don't like the book.

Nope.
That never happened.

If you have a WP then you have combat training.

Correct, you have a specific form of combat training, just as the little girl in the picture I've posted has combat training.
It's just not "combat training" in the more global sense that fits with the context of the conversation.

.. because the book says that the DEFINITION of having a WP is that you have combat training.
That is what the term "definition" means.

Yes, that is the definition of Weapon Proficiency.
That is NOT the definition of Combat Training.
Do you understand the difference?

All WPs provide some level of combat training.
Not all combat training comes from WPs.
"Weapon Proficiencies" is not a definition of "combat training."
Neither is "something that is provided by WPs."
We do not have any official definition of "combat training."

I don't know that we NEED one, but when it looked like Blue Lion claimed to have one, I was curious.

You may not LIKE that... but the RAW is that way.

a) The conversation is not about what I like or dislike.
b) RAW gives us a definition of WP. RAW does not give us a definition of "combat training."

So yes, either your little girl has combat training... or more likely she does not actually have a real WP...or even MORE likely RIFTS is not a reality sim and she like many things exists outside of the game system.

In order:
a) Yes, you can argue that she technically has combat training.
Do you believe that her combat training is of the type that would allow her to focus concentration during a Mega-Damage firefight?
b) Why wouldn't she have a "real" WP?
c) Rifts is a reality simulation. It's also a fantasy simulation. Either way, it's an imperfect simulation.
But does that little girl exist outside of the game?
I guess.
But I could roll her up in 10 minutes or less, if you like. Then she'd exist within the context of the game.
Would that make you happier?
Would it change the point of the picture any?

Wow that is some pretty fine hair you are splitting killecyborg when something provides something that means it gets it.

Seams now you are more about moving the goal post to a subjective level because the book has proved your statement false. I would say the average mage hold it together during traumatic events like combat better than most do to the innate save vs horror factor.

The statement was not that mages are professionals at combat, or that they are trained to focus in combat but they are generally not combat trained.

I still find the your little girl irreverent emotional attempt, it is about drawing a emotional counter to the rules not a logical. The fact a little girl can be combat trained is irreverent to what counts as combat training. It is more about making people think something is absurd (emotional respaunce) based on our values. By the rules there is no reason the girl would not keep it together in a fire fight MD or otherwise any less so than say a SF from rifts mercs, however the average mage will hold it together better in a fight do to the bonus they get to save vs horror factor.(The average US soldier only gets 2 weeks of combat training.)

By the book most mages are combat trained.
Why, Hand to hand is a form of combat training, and WP provide or give a person combat training. So possessing either by RAW means the charter has received combat training and thus disproved the statement mages are not combat trained.



The quotes I provided are the only information in the book about what is combat training. Every thing else is just what people think, by the book any one with those skills has been provided combat training, that means they have combat training.

For the record Rifts is not a realty simulation like you claim, the way the writer talks about it (and the rules are written) is more along the lines of a cinematic simulation. Lets face it realty is boring why would you want to play that. (The Gi joe rule is not based on realty but the cinematic charter shrugging off a lethal blast.)

Shark_Force wrote:

RubberBoot wrote:RUE Ley Line Walker

If you are a mage who wants to be an adventurer or merc explore the world you would need to be combat trained so when you are learning to be a mage you would obviously not just be sitting in a room learning magic ignorant to the fact that you could find yourself without PPE and still have to defend yourself.

HtoH- basic or expert for an extra skill slot
WP- Sword
WP- Energy Rifle

Spells to start

1
Blinding Flash
Thunderclap
Cloud of smoke
__________________________________
2
Befuddle
Fear
Levitation
___________________________________
3
Armour of Ithan
Invisibility
Paralysis Lesser or Magic Shield
___________________________________
4-----------------------------------also maybe Chromatic Protection
Carpet of Adhesion
Energy Field
Magic Net

Looks pretty combat trained to me using energy rifle or TW rifle to deal damage while using the spells the mage knows to give him/her an edge.

Tolkeen wars need I really need to say more.

Military Combat training is working with a group and tactically overcoming opponents real world soldiers have basic HtoH training cause guess what they fire a gun. CS grunt will have a HtoH and a WP and by them self they are not nearly as scary as a mage

sure, that particular mage (which probably resembles a typical PC ley line walker in many ways) is probably combat trained.

on the other hand, an RUE ley line walker could also have only hand to hand basic, no WPs at all (there are more than enough skills available to spend all OCC related and secondary skills on without picking up anything for combat), and a spell list with few if any combat spells.

for example,

L1: sense magic, see aura, globe of sunlight, lantern light (or switch one for see invisible).
L2: aura of power, extinguish fire, levitation, manipulate objects (or switch one for cleanse or mystic alarm)
L3: create wood, float in air, impervious to fire, impervious to poison (or switch one for invisibility:simple, light healing, breathe without air, mystic fulcrum, negate poison/toxin, or telekinesis)
L4: astral projection, charismatic aura, cure minor disorders, seal (or switch one for repel animals, lesser swim as a fish, trance, or watchguard).

this provides an assortment of convenience and services that the ley line walker could offer if, instead of having this weird fixation on traveling through the monster-infested wilderness in hopes of finding something that the hundreds of scavengers have not already picked clean and striking it rich, this particular mage would rather live in a town somewhere and open up a shop. this ley line walker is still not helpless in a fight (though given a choice, having a hired security guard of some sort if a fight is expected would be a good idea), and is also probably a lot more common in the world. because all those ley line walker adventurers have an alarming tendency to die much more often, and most people aren't going to voluntarily choose the way of life that leads to a massive decrease in life expectancy. and also because the one staying in a town and opening a shop has better access to any local mage's guild (and to their teacher) for the purpose of learning spells in the future, and frankly probably has better odds of becoming rich as well (it's relatively easy for such a ley line walker to be a doctor, for example. imagine if you could instantly get rid of headaches, fevers, indigestion, nausea, etc... how much money do you think you could make? and that's from *one* spell that the ley line walker could choose. this particular ley line walker can also extinguish flames in a 20 foot radius instantly... that's probably enough that if literally your entire house was on fire all at once, this ley line walker could instantly extinguish all flames in that area, and can then go around putting out even more fires for the next few minutes. this level 1 ley line walker makes an entire modern fire department look like a bunch of chumps).

so, why would "most" ley line walkers be combat trained? i mean, certainly some of them will be. just the same as some city rats or taxi drivers or store clerks or undertakers or even doctors and teachers will be on rifts earth. but from where i'm sitting, it looks like there's incredibly low incentive to go risking your life when you probably have the tools to make a good living for yourself without spending a substantial amount of your time getting shot at.

and if we assume that there are a number of additional spells in existence that simply aren't interesting from an adventuring perspective but which provide useful solutions to everyday problems, it starts looking even *better* for the non-adventuring mage. and it only gets better with more levels... levels which you might earn more slowly than an adventuring mage, but which you are much more likely to survive to see at all than an adventuring mage, i might add.

OK so lets talk about North America. In Lazlo there is constant worry about the CS turning their attention to the city as spoken about in RUE Page 21 and its also stated that the city defenses are a citizen militia of Dragons, Mages, Psycics and men at arms. Therefore the citizens of these citys you speak of know they must be combat trained to defend themselves. Consider any druid type mage who is a defender of the forest they will not be living in cities therefore must have some ability to defend themselves in the wild.

Now the federation of magic, city of brass defenders.

"City Defenders: Includes Necromancers, witches, Minions of
Splugorth, practitioners of magic, Shadow Beasts, demons and a
host of others. Average experience level of front-line troops
(fodder) is 3-5th level, leaders 5-9th level. As with most cities of
sorcerers and monster races, virtually half or more of the city’s
inhabitants possess some measure of magic power and make
formidable opponents." p. 33 world book 16

Now what about small villages and Towns. If a mage lived in one of these towns the mage must know how to fight and have offensive and defensive spells to protect the people who can not defend themselves like farmers and typical workers. To think that mages are not combat trained and would rather bury themselves in books when the CS is hunting them down and killing them the Tolkeen wars many mages probably have family that have died due to the dangers of the outside world and just like people of today would want to protect their loved ones from danger.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

eliakon wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

eliakon wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:I'm not sure what you mean here, but if you have any citations from any Rifts books describing what "combat training" entails, let me know.

SO you are trolling here?

No, never.

Because this means that you are arguing that there is no definition of combat training, even though you have been provided with BOTH the book RAW definition, as well as what it would take to have professional level combat training...

Incorrect.
What has been provided is NOT any definition of combat training.
What it IS is two examples of things that qualify as combat training.

It's like how if a book mentions that Pit Bulls are dogs, and Poodles are dogs, that does NOT give us a definition of "dog."
All it gives us are two examples of things that are dogs.

that is a pretty fine hair your splitting there

I speak and think with precision.
Perhaps too much sometimes.

Your not speaking with "precision" here though.
Your flat out trolling.
You have made a flat out statement "Mages are not combat trained"
And then for your defense of that statement you have tried to define away the word "combat training" so that NOTHING a mage does can qualify...
...Circular arguments are a pretty bad flaw and not 'precise' in any way, shape or form.
When it was brought up that the books EXPLICITLY settled this... you have argued that the books are wrong and that you are right...
...that sounds a lot like trolling to me.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

The book says that skill X is combat training...
The book says that if you take X as an OCC or OCCr skill its professional...
Then you say that it doesn't say explicitly what combat training is...

Not quite.
The book does not say that skill x is combat training. Not exactly.
What the book says is (pasted from Blue_Lion's post):

RUE PG 326 under weapon proficiency-
"Each WP provides combat training with a particular type of weapon."

RUE PG 347 under hand to hand basic-
"This is elementary form of hand to hand combat training."

WPs are not combat training; they provide combat training.
HTH Basic IS a form of elementary combat training... so yes, it is combat training, but it's a very specific type, and (as I've discussed with Blue Lion), one not particularly relevant to the question of how well mages can concentrate during a mega-damage firefight.

But the point was that I thought that Blue Lion was claiming that the term "combat training" was defined in the books, and I was mistaken; he was referring to these examples of combat training, not a definition.

Ummm that is EXACTLY what they do
If you have a WP, then you have combat training.
Period. Dot. End of statement.
If you have H2H Basic you have combat training.
Period. Dot. End of statement.
To argue that you do NOT have combat training when the book explicitly says you do is to try and deny the rules.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

...so you then get to turn around and argue that there is no real combat training because you don't like the book.

Nope.
That never happened.

You just did it above. If a skill provides combat training, then you have combat training. That is what the words MEAN.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

If you have a WP then you have combat training.

Correct, you have a specific form of combat training, just as the little girl in the picture I've posted has combat training.

No, the girl does not because as I have repeatedly said. She is a straw man.
She does not exist and is not possible in the game.
Just because you can make up an absurdity or find something in the real world doesn't mean it is legal in game or exists in the framework of the game.

Killer Cyborg wrote:It's just not "combat training" in the more global sense that fits with the context of the conversation.

Then you are going to have to find a new term for what they mages DONT have because they explicitly have combat training. period.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

.. because the book says that the DEFINITION of having a WP is that you have combat training.
That is what the term "definition" means.

Yes, that is the definition of Weapon Proficiency.
That is NOT the definition of Combat Training.
Do you understand the difference?

I do not think you do.
You are hung up on trying to make your personal definition of combat training have more value than the one that the book has choosen to have an explicit rules specific meaning.
You don't get to do that any more than you get to argue that your personal definition of "mega damage" is more valid than the books.

Killer Cyborg wrote:All WPs provide some level of combat training.

FULL STOP.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Not all combat training comes from WPs.
"Weapon Proficiencies" is not a definition of "combat training."
Neither is "something that is provided by WPs."
We do not have any official definition of "combat training."

We know that if you have a H2H or WP though you have it.
Period.

Killer Cyborg wrote:I don't know that we NEED one, but when it looked like Blue Lion claimed to have one, I was curious.

You may not LIKE that... but the RAW is that way.

a) The conversation is not about what I like or dislike.
b) RAW gives us a definition of WP. RAW does not give us a definition of "combat training."

The RAW does tell us though that ANYONE with a WP or H2H has combat training. Period.
Thus ANYONE with those IS, by definition combat trained. Period. Dot. End of story.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

So yes, either your little girl has combat training... or more likely she does not actually have a real WP...or even MORE likely RIFTS is not a reality sim and she like many things exists outside of the game system.

In order:
a) Yes, you can argue that she technically has combat training.

Either she has a WP and H2H and combat training, or she does not have those skills and does not.
There is no third option.
As you defined her as having both skills then she has combat training. Period.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Do you believe that her combat training is of the type that would allow her to focus concentration during a Mega-Damage firefight?

No. but that is because I would say she is a victim OCC and gets no attacks in combat.
She certainly does not have a +4 vs HF making her mentally tougher than more than 90% of all soldiers on the planet

Killer Cyborg wrote:b) Why wouldn't she have a "real" WP?

Because she doesn't have to have one.
Every living being in the palladium universe has levels of martial arts skill beyond anything most humans have in our world...
...because every single person can use ANY AND ALL Ancient weapons with no penalty what so ever.
So simply because she can use a nunchuku doesn't 'prove' she has a full WP any more than putting her in a GI proves that she has a H2H skill beyond "none'

Killer Cyborg wrote:c) Rifts is a reality simulation. It's also a fantasy simulation. Either way, it's an imperfect simulation.

No, Rifts is NOT a reality simulation
Rifts is a highly cinematic game that does not attempt to simulate reality in any but the grossest ways.
We know this because they freely change the laws of phsyics when those get inconvinent, scale things for action and provide inate skills and the like.

Killer Cyborg wrote:But does that little girl exist outside of the game?
I guess.
But I could roll her up in 10 minutes or less, if you like. Then she'd exist within the context of the game.
Would that make you happier?

You can't actually
You can use your personal house rules to roll her up sure, or you can go get one of the other games (BTS1, Chaos Earth, HU) and roll her up there...
But using RAW Rifts you can't...
Why you ask?
Because there are no rules in Rifts for children.
Odd that...

BUT lets, for the sake of discussion say you did.
How would you build her?
You either have to give her a full OCC (at what age 6?) that she is so far off the norms that 'data artifact' doesn't even BEGIN to describe her...
...or you have to pick one of the 'child' options for her age...
...Which oddly enough
-HU the youngest characters are age 11
-CE Chaos Mages can not be younger than 9... and kids do not get EITHER H2H or WPs
-BTS Victims... gee once again kids do not get H2H or WPs RAW

Now sure... you can homebrew up something... but that doesn't really prove anything other than you can use Rule Zero to allow something that the books don't allow... that doesn't prove that the books allow for it let alone what the result of that mythical rules legal version would be.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Would it change the point of the picture any?

Considering that the picture is a strawman right now because you are using something that has not only no bearing on the game but can not even exist in the game as written AND that requires defining her to have both full skill training (which by definition means she has combat training RAW)... but not be combat training (i.e. trying to define away the canon game text)... the picture has less than no point. That picture is the worst form of strawman out there because you are attacking an imaginary object that not only does not, but can not exist in the game, while circularly defining the pictures values in ways that change canon AND then claiming that this proves your point...
...I am not exactly sure HOW many logical fallacies she counts as but I am pretty sure that "Gotta Catch 'em All" is not a good goal when it comes to faulty logic.


Now if you would like to discuss some other hypothetical value that does NOT have an actual canon definition (Grit? Gumption? Fightability? What ever) sure..
At which point I will laugh in the face of someone who tries to argue that 6 weeks of boot camp are superior to preparing someone for combat to years of meditation, learning to rewrite reality, and inuring your self to horrors to the point that you are literally numb to minor terrors...

Are there 'non-combat' mages or civilian mages? Of course.
But ANY attempt to argue that a mage needs to take ANY sort of 'penalty' because they are 'combat shy' is ludicrous on the face of it.
If that mage has their H2H or WP as either an OCC or OCCr skill then they are PROFESSIONAL COMBATANTS
If that mage gets a save vs HF (like most do) then they are already skilled at resisting shock and battle fatigue (shell shock rules use HF after all...)
Now sure... a mage with no combat training (I use the formal, rules specific, book term here) or who has only received such combat training through personal hobbies (secondary skills) might be subject to stress...
...but that is HARDLY "most mages"

eliakon wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

eliakon wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:What has been provided is NOT any definition of combat training.
What it IS is two examples of things that qualify as combat training.

It's like how if a book mentions that Pit Bulls are dogs, and Poodles are dogs, that does NOT give us a definition of "dog."
All it gives us are two examples of things that are dogs.

that is a pretty fine hair your splitting there

I speak and think with precision.
Perhaps too much sometimes.

Your not speaking with "precision" here though.
Your flat out trolling.

Actually, saying that somebody is trolling IS trolling according to the board rules.
Are you trying to get this topic shut down?

You have made a flat out statement "Mages are not combat trained"

In the context of concentrating during mega-damage firefights.

And then for your defense of that statement you have tried to define away the word "combat training" so that NOTHING a mage does can qualify...

I haven't defined the term at all.
So I don't know what you're talking about there.

The original statement was discussing the kind of military training that soldiers and perhaps law enforcement personnel go through that helps them stay focused during a mega-damage firefight.
So anything that would establish that mages have that kind of training would help.
Combat Mages, for example, certainly have that kind of training. There are a few other kinds of mages that would also likely qualify.
It's hardly impossible. It's just not something that is typical among mages, compared to Man-At-Arms OCCs where it is the norm (and perhaps universal).

When it was brought up that the books EXPLICITLY settled this... you have argued that the books are wrong and that you are right...
...that sounds a lot like trolling to me.

I haven't said that the books are wrong.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

The book says that skill X is combat training...
The book says that if you take X as an OCC or OCCr skill its professional...
Then you say that it doesn't say explicitly what combat training is...

Not quite.
The book does not say that skill x is combat training. Not exactly.
What the book says is (pasted from Blue_Lion's post):

RUE PG 326 under weapon proficiency-
"Each WP provides combat training with a particular type of weapon."

RUE PG 347 under hand to hand basic-
"This is elementary form of hand to hand combat training."

WPs are not combat training; they provide combat training.
HTH Basic IS a form of elementary combat training... so yes, it is combat training, but it's a very specific type, and (as I've discussed with Blue Lion), one not particularly relevant to the question of how well mages can concentrate during a mega-damage firefight.

But the point was that I thought that Blue Lion was claiming that the term "combat training" was defined in the books, and I was mistaken; he was referring to these examples of combat training, not a definition.

Ummm that is EXACTLY what they do

I'm not sure what "that" and "they" is referring to here.

If you have a WP, then you have combat training.

Correct!
Because a WP provides combat training, not because a WP IS combat training.

If you have H2H Basic you have combat training.

In the context of limited melee capabilities, NOT in the context of "training in mega-damage firefights."
Context is important, for the reasons I've already explained.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

...so you then get to turn around and argue that there is no real combat training because you don't like the book.

Nope.
That never happened.

You just did it above.

Quote me.

If a skill provides combat training, then you have combat training. That is what the words MEAN.

Agreed.
But the skill itself is not combat training--it only provides it.
If you have a job that provides healthcare, for example, that job is NOT healthcare.
If you have that job, you have healthcare... but the job itself is not healthcare.
It would be false to claim that the job IS healthcare.

Likewise, a Weapon Proficiency provides combat training with that weapon.
The Weapon Proficiency itself is NOT combat training with that weapon. It includes combat training, but it also includes things like cleaning, maintenance, familiarity with different kinds of weapons of that type and quality, and so forth.
Weapon Proficiencies are not limited strictly to combat training with the weapon.

Killer Cyborg wrote:It's just not "combat training" in the more global sense that fits with the context of the conversation.

Then you are going to have to find a new term for what they mages DONT have because they explicitly have combat training. period.

No, not period.
They have combat training within a limited context.
If you have WP Nunchucks and Pilot Helicopter, and you get into combat with another helicopter, would you seriously tell the people on your chopper that it was going to be okay, because "I have combat training"...?
If you have WP Slingshot, and you're wearing a suit of SAMAS that you're not a trained pilot for, and you're standing with a large group of trained SAMAS soliders, and somebody asks you, "good thing we're combat trained, right?"
Will you say, "Yup! I'm combat trained!"...?

If you're a mage, and you have WP Blowgun, and you find yourself in a mega-damage firefight for the first time in your life, is the fact that you're combat trained in the limited context of use of blowguns REALLY going to help you keep calm and focused?

Context matters.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

.. because the book says that the DEFINITION of having a WP is that you have combat training.
That is what the term "definition" means.

Yes, that is the definition of Weapon Proficiency.
That is NOT the definition of Combat Training.
Do you understand the difference?

I do not think you do.
You are hung up on trying to make your personal definition of combat training

I have not provided any definition of combat training.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Do you believe that her combat training is of the type that would allow her to focus concentration during a Mega-Damage firefight?

No. but that is because I would say she is a victim OCC and gets no attacks in combat.

Where does it say that Victim OCCs get no attacks in combat?

She certainly does not have a +4 vs HF making her mentally tougher than more than 90% of all soldiers on the planet

a) Horror Factor is not the same as combat training. Nor does it make one tougher than any soldier, except in the limited context of withstanding Horror Factor.
b) Does the typical mage have a +4 vs HF?

Killer Cyborg wrote:b) Why wouldn't she have a "real" WP?

Because she doesn't have to have one.
Every living being in the palladium universe has levels of martial arts skill beyond anything most humans have in our world...
...because every single person can use ANY AND ALL Ancient weapons with no penalty what so ever.
So simply because she can use a nunchuku doesn't 'prove' she has a full WP any more than putting her in a GI proves that she has a H2H skill beyond "none'

Rifts Japan 119
Note: This weapon [Nunchaku] can only be used by those trained in hand to hand martial arts, assassin, Ninjitsu, or WP Chain. All others are -2 to strik and parry, and each attack counts as two melee actions.

Killer Cyborg wrote:c) Rifts is a reality simulation. It's also a fantasy simulation. Either way, it's an imperfect simulation.

No, Rifts is NOT a reality simulation
Rifts is a highly cinematic game that does not attempt to simulate reality in any but the grossest ways.
We know this because they freely change the laws of phsyics when those get inconvinent, scale things for action and provide inate skills and the like.

It sounds like you're saying that Rifts is not a reality simulation, and that we know this because they sometimes deviate from simulating it perfectly.

Killer Cyborg wrote:But does that little girl exist outside of the game?
I guess.
But I could roll her up in 10 minutes or less, if you like. Then she'd exist within the context of the game.
Would that make you happier?

You can't actually
You can use your personal house rules to roll her up sure, or you can go get one of the other games (BTS1, Chaos Earth, HU) and roll her up there...
But using RAW Rifts you can't...
Why you ask?
Because there are no rules in Rifts for children.
Odd that...

There are no rules for children.
There are no rules for adults.
There are no rules stating that children in Rifts have different stats than adults in Rifts.

BUT lets, for the sake of discussion say you did.
How would you build her?
You either have to give her a full OCC (at what age 6?) that she is so far off the norms that 'data artifact' doesn't even BEGIN to describe her...

NOT against the rules.

But also, no, I wouldn't necessarily have to give her a "full OCC."
She could be a "Typical Citizen of Free Quebec," statted on FQ page 135, for example, who happens to have the skill HTH Martial Arts and WP Chain.

...or you have to pick one of the 'child' options for her age...
...Which oddly enough
-HU the youngest characters are age 11

Maybe she's 11.

-CE Chaos Mages can not be younger than 9... and kids do not get EITHER H2H or WPs

Source?

BTS Victims... gee once again [b]kids do not get H2H or WPs RAW

Source?

Now sure... you can homebrew up something... but that doesn't really prove anything other than you can use Rule Zero to allow something that the books don't allow... that doesn't prove that the books allow for it let alone what the result of that mythical rules legal version would be.

There are no rules restricting or regulating the creation of NPCs, which means that any NPCs are legal.
(Or, if you prefer, that ALL NPCs are illegal, unless they are rolled up exactly as a level 1 PC would be.)

Now if you would like to discuss some other hypothetical value that does NOT have an actual canon definition (Grit? Gumption? Fightability? What ever) sure..

Again, "combat training" does not have an actual definition in the rules.
Not that we've found so far.

At which point I will laugh in the face of someone who tries to argue that 6 weeks of boot camp are superior to preparing someone for combat to years of meditation, learning to rewrite reality, and inuring your self to horrors to the point that you are literally numb to minor terrors...

Then maybe argue that...?
It makes more sense than claiming that if you're a professional Self Defense teacher with WP Yo-Yo, that this means you have the kind of combat training that will help you keep calm and focused in a mega-damage firefight.

If you think that mages have the kind of combat training that DOES apply to the context, then make that argument instead.
Quit trying to say that anybody and everybody with an OCC and a WP and/or HTH skill is contextually prepared.

Are there 'non-combat' mages or civilian mages? Of course.
But ANY attempt to argue that a mage needs to take ANY sort of 'penalty' because they are 'combat shy' is ludicrous on the face of it.

No "penalty" was ever in discussion.
The question is whether or not typical mages are combat trained in such a way that they always keep calm and focused during a mega-damage firefight.

If that mage has their H2H or WP as either an OCC or OCCr skill then they are PROFESSIONAL COMBATANTS

By that standard, virtually everybody on Rifts Earth is a PROFESSIONAL COMBATANT.
That seems like a pretty lax standard to me.

Besides, Professional Combatant or not, the typical mage simply isn't good at combat, as I've pointed out before:
viewtopic.php?p=2949362#p2949362

Killer Cyborg wrote:I've studied martial arts.
I can fire a gun pretty well.
I've played paintball a fair amount.

Does that make me "trained for combat?"

Maybe by some people's standard, but I'd have to feel pretty full of myself before I'd describe my abilities with that phrase.


They typical mage?

BoM 10
If a player is looking for a character good at combat and shooting things, a practitioner of magic is NOT the character for him.

The very nature of learning magic means that a mage is more learned and scholarly than most other OCCs.

BoM 11
Everybody prefers what they're best at
Has optional rules
Combat OCCs get double the normal xp for killing monsters or defeating opponents in battle...
While Magic OCCs get extra experience points whenever they use spells or magic powers or abilities in a thoughtful, clever, or ingenious or impressive way.

Note that "Magic OCCs" is separate from "Combat OCCs."

As a rule, mages aren't combat trained.

Yes, there are exceptions.
There are a minority of magic OCCs that are specifically combat-based.
There are some mage characters who are specifically trained as part of a military or paramilitary organization.
There are individual PCs who can be rolled and written up to be against type, to be gun-toting, highly-trained combat badasses.

But that doesn't change the rule.

(Just a reminder what the phrase "as a rule" means.")

If that mage gets a save vs HF (like most do) then they are already skilled at resisting shock and battle fatigue (shell shock rules use HF after all...)

The optional Shell-Shock Rules do use HF, yes.
But that's a specific psychological condition, not something that the typical person has to deal with.
I don't know of any studies on whether or not appropriate combat training affects the percentage of soldiers that deal with PTSD.
I'm pretty certain that dealing with demons and monsters and such does not.

Now sure... a mage with no combat training (I use the formal, rules specific, book term here) or who has only received such combat training through personal hobbies (secondary skills) might be subject to stress...
...but that is HARDLY "most mages"

Going with the standard of "has a WP or HTH skill as an OCC skill," then it wouldn't be most mages.
But I think that's a standard that doesn't reflect the context of the original claim.
WP Knife isn't likely to help one stay very calm in a MD firefight.

RubberBoot wrote:OK so lets talk about North America. In Lazlo there is constant worry about the CS turning their attention to the city as spoken about in RUE Page 21 and its also stated that the city defenses are a citizen militia of Dragons, Mages, Psyhics and men at arms. Therefore the citizens of these citys you speak of know they must be combat trained to defend themselves.

No.
There are no numbers or population percentages listed for the "elite volunteer militia" of Lazlo. It could be 10% of their population, or it could be any other number.
Just the fact that they have a militia which includes mages (among other types) does not say anything about what percent of mages are combat trained.

Consider any druid type mage who is a defender of the forest they will not be living in cities therefore must have some ability to defend themselves in the wild.

Not a bad argument.


England 38
Most druids have a high regard for nature and all living things. While they oppose the wanton destruction of forests and wildlife done out of neglect or greed, they wholeheartedly agree with prudent use of the environment and wildlife for lumber, housing, medicine, and industry. Since supernatural monsters are a major threat to all life in the world, these druids of Rifts Earth find themselves locked in a constand struggle against them. They spend much of their time fighting demons and monsters, or otherwise thwarting their evil schemes and protecting innocent people from them.

"Most" Druids spend "much" of their time fighting demons and monsters, as well as "otherwise" thwarting their evil schemes.
"Otherwise thwarting" might not include combat, but it's pretty clear that "spending much of one's time fighting demons and monsters" would probably count as combat training.
"Most" would be at least 51% of Druids, enough to constitute "the typical druid."
So I would have to agree that the typical Druid is combat trained in the context of mega-damage firefights.

Whether or not the typical Druid is representative of the typical Mage is not as clear, since we don't have numbers on how many mages there are overall, nor what percentage of mages are Druids.

Now the federation of magic, city of brass defenders.

"City Defenders: Includes Necromancers, witches, Minions of
Splugorth, practitioners of magic, Shadow Beasts, demons and a
host of others. Average experience level of front-line troops
(fodder) is 3-5th level, leaders 5-9th level. As with most cities of
sorcerers and monster races, virtually half or more of the city’s
inhabitants possess some measure of magic power and make
formidable opponents." p. 33 world book 16

Unfortunately that doesn't discuss mages specifically, and doesn't break down how many mages are formidable, nor how they are formidable.
A powerful mage might be formidable even without any combat training.

Now what about small villages and Towns. If a mage lived in one of these towns the mage must know how to fight and have offensive and defensive spells to protect the people who can not defend themselves like farmers and typical workers.

Not true.
A mage could simply not care about the farmers and workers.
A mage could have spells of defense and flight, and flee or hide when trouble shows.
A mage could let other town defenders handle the trouble. Just because a person is a mage, and he/she lives in a town, does not mean that they are the town's defender/champion.

Also, not all villages and towns face regular mega-damage threats in the first place.
Of those that do, not all of the mega-damage threats are necessarily the kind of thing that provides real combat experience.

To think that mages are not combat trained and would rather bury themselves in books when the CS is hunting them down and killing them the Tolkeen wars many mages probably have family that have died due to the dangers of the outside world and just like people of today would want to protect their loved ones from danger.

Some mages might be quite good at combat.
But not as a rule.

BoM 10
If a player is looking for a character good at combat and shooting things, a practitioner of magic is NOT the character for him.

RUE 189
The weakness of spell casting is that even offensive spells have their limitations in range, damage, etc., and the unspoken limitation that the spell caster is not the best at one on one combat action. He usually lacks initiative and is the last to attack/respond in melee combat rotation.

With the arguable exception of the Shifter, practitioners of magic are not experts in hand to hand combat. Most can handle themselves in a fight, but they aren't warriors, they just aren't.

RUE 190
(on full press attacks preventing mages from casting higher level spells)
The same is true if he is doing the physical attacking, or running, or performing any physical action. To cast a spell the practitioner of magic will need to stop, catch his breath (that should count as one or two of his melee actions/attacks) and then cast his spell (another one or more of his melee actions depending on the spell level).

Prysus wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

eliakon wrote:-CE Chaos Mages can not be younger than 9... and kids do not get EITHER H2H or WPs

Source?

Greetings and Salutations. He's referring to a specific O.C.C. (Chaos Wizard) in Chaos Earth: Rise of Magic, page 27. Side note: If rolling up a character with this chart you'll end up with an adult with higher attributes than the average adult rolled up with 3D6. However, the chances for exploding dice are much harder (sometimes impossible).

So only children of that particular OCC don't get HTH or WPs?

Killer Cyborg wrote:

eliakon wrote:BTS Victims... gee once again [b]kids do not get H2H or WPs RAW

Source?

BtS1, page 195. Victims are considered to have almost no skills at all, and they recommend children actually have no skills. Note: I don't see anything preventing them from getting attacks/actions though, just that they're not going to be very good at it without any skills.

Key word being "recommend."
Victim children can have skills, and I haven't seen anything in the rules preventing those skills from being HTH skills or WPs.

Of course, limiting you to Victim characters ignores the Ordinary People option which allows "13 years old or younger" within the table on page 74. I see no skill limitations there. Rolling skills is separate from the class you select. Of course, the lowest education level is High School Graduate, so that could be a separate issue.

Excellent point!

Killer Cyborg wrote:

eliakon wrote:Now sure... you can homebrew up something... but that doesn't really prove anything other than you can use Rule Zero to allow something that the books don't allow... that doesn't prove that the books allow for it let alone what the result of that mythical rules legal version would be.

There are no rules restricting or regulating the creation of NPCs, which means that any NPCs are legal.
(Or, if you prefer, that ALL NPCs are illegal, unless they are rolled up exactly as a level 1 PC would be.)

Actually, when we look at RUE, and even HU2, there really aren't any rules regulating the youngest age. For example, if we look at Step 8 (which is entirely "optional," and there have been complaints against optional rules when it worked against mages), what the book actually says is:

Rifts Ultimate Edition, page 297 wrote:Age
I think it best to generally assume the characters are young (15-32), especially if starting at first level, and let the player pick the age he'd like for the character.

The word "generally" is used, which does not mean "cannot pick outside of this age range ever!" The section also says let the player "pick" the age. Once again, they do not limit the player from selecting anything outside of that age range in the general rule of an optional table.

Agreed.

Side note: I could also swear that in one of the books (I don't know Rifts that well, but I remember this coming up once in some debate or another) about some child NPC that was a Practitioner of Magic in some city of some book. Does anyone know what I'm talking about and what age that kid was?

It doesn't ring a bell. I'll keep my eyes out.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

eliakon wrote:If that mage gets a save vs HF (like most do) then they are already skilled at resisting shock and battle fatigue (shell shock rules use HF after all...)

The optional Shell-Shock Rules do use HF, yes.
But that's a specific psychological condition, not something that the typical person has to deal with.
I don't know of any studies on whether or not appropriate combat training affects the percentage of soldiers that deal with PTSD.
I'm pretty certain that dealing with demons and monsters and such does not.

Two things in response to this one ...

1: I can't remember where the Shell-Shock Rules are located (I looked for them about a week ago and couldn't find them), could someone help me out?

Coalition War Campaign. I forget the page number.

2: In addition to the Shell-Shock Rules, there's Mercenary Adventures, the Magebane O.C.C. and Paratrooper O.C.C. in particular.

Mercenary Adventures, page 26 wrote:2. Impervious to Horror Factor (always saves): Having seen the depths of evil, wickedness and depravity, the Magebane is totally immune to fear, terror and Horror Factor. The character may fear things, but never to the point of being momentarily stunned and unable to act.

Mercenary Adventures, page 31 wrote:2. Nerves of Steel: Paratroopers are famous for being as cool as a cucumber even under the worst of conditions. [sni] For most, this is a blend of training, experience and a rock-steady disposition, to which freaking out is not acceptable behavior. As a result, the Paratroopers are immune to the effects of Horror Factor ... [snip] Of course, these men are also completely unafraid of heights, no matter how high up they may be.

These two both imply that fear and freaking out in combat are linked to Horror Factor. The Paratrooper's (the second one) in particular gives a strong case for this as they discuss the worst types of scenarios and not freaking out. The benefit from this is being Immune to Horror Factor. Note: They also get some additional abilities to things like resisting pain/torture, but that seems separate in my opinion.

The first also addresses this, with the "Impervious to Horror Factor" ability granting immunity to "fear" and "terror." And, just for the record, while we're discussing things like panicking, panic is also described as a sensation of fear. Now, on the other side, there are a couple other things to look at here.

1: Within the Magebane, it mentions they can fear, they just won't suffer the penalties from a failed Horror Factor check. As such, one could argue they may still raise their voice or something minor like that even though they're not losing an action, etc.

2: Within the Paratrooper, it mentions at the end they're "also" unafraid of heights, as if fear of other things somehow isn't covered by their immunity to Horror Factor.

Okay, there's some added information. Use or ignore as everyone sees fit. Carry on. Farewell and safe journeys to all.[/justify]

All good points, and I have to agree.

It was either SOT 5 or 6 that had rules for shell shock. (I want to say 6 but it may have been in 5.)

If the fear of combat is linked to HF the average mage is better trained to handle it than average soldier.

Shell Shock rules are in WB 11: Coalition War Campaign page 58

Blue_Lion wrote:If the fear of combat is linked to HF the average mage is better trained to handle it than average soldier.

Eh. Not exactly.
But if you want to do some research into which mages have HF bonuses, and what they are, that might be useful information.
And, for that matter, average soldiers.

Keep in mind that the best way to discuss the question in any real way is to try to come up with a picture of the "typical mage" in the first place.
Shifters, for example, have a pretty good bonus to HF. But how common are Shifters compared to LLWs or Mystics?
I don't know of any hard numbers on the overall population, but if there are common population trends in magic cities, that could let us come up with a general guess.

The average mage(typical) in rifts is a ley line walker as they are supose to be the most common. At level 1 he has a +4 to save vs horror factor.
Ley line rifter has variation of the ley line walker has +5 to save vs horror factor.
Mystic-no combat training by default +4 to save vs horror factor.
Shifter +4 to save vs horror factor at level 1 with a bonus +1 at levels 2,59,11, and 15.
TW- less adept spell caster +2 to save vs horror factor at.
The elemental fusionist-the flavor text presents them as born with the power not that they train to be elemental fusionist.

So it appears the typical bonus for a trained spell casting mage in rue is +4(before rue it was +2). I am sure that most mages have some some sort of bonus to HF but going through every book to look at all the rare mages does not have anything to do with what the common/typical mage bonus is.

Now then what is an average soldier in rifts?
The average soldier for the CS (and rifts for years) is the grunt no bonuses to save vs horror factor.
The merc class in rue is suppose to represent the average soldier for hire no bonus to HF.
Juicer-no bonus to HF.
The GB is an elite unit representing a heroic or SF type only gets a +3 to save vs horror factor.

Now we know from PF mystires of magic that mages are trained to focus through distracting conditions, the different for combat would be the traumatic nature of it. However the mages are better trained to focus through trauma than almost any one. Spell casting in combat is not about combat training as all combat training is about combat in certain way or with certain things, a average grunt has no combat training for ship to ship combat, even though he is trained to fight with and to hand and some weapons. Instead spell casting as about the ability of the mage to focus being trained to fight like a grunt, tanker, fighter pilot, RPA or sniper does not help a mage cast spells.

Prysus wrote:

Blue_Lion wrote:Juicer-no bonus to HF.

Greetings and Salutations. Juicers have a +4, as per the official RUE eratta (page 5 of the PDF).

http://www.palladiumbooks.com/images/Do ... Eratta.pdf

Otherwise your figures looked accurate compared to the ones I did as well. Farewell and safe journeys to all.

That is what I get for buying a book when it comes out.

But it does show that mages are better trained to deal with the horrors of wars than most men at arms.

Blue_Lion wrote:The average mage(typical) in rifts is a ley line walker as they are suposed to be the most common. At level 1 he has a +4 to save vs horror factor.
Ley line rifter has variation of the ley line walker has +5 to save vs horror factor.
Mystic-no combat training by default +4 to save vs horror factor.
Shifter +4 to save vs horror factor at level 1 with a bonus +1 at levels 2,5, 9,11, and 15.
TW- less adept spell caster +2 to save vs horror factor at.
The elemental fusionist-the flavor text presents them as born with the power not that they train to be elemental fusionist.

So it appears the typical bonus for a trained spell casting mage in rue is +4 (before rue it was +2). I am sure that most mages have some some sort of bonus to HF but going through every book to look at all the rare mages does not have anything to do with what the common/typical mage bonus is.

Good research. I essentially agree that the Ley Line Walker is supposed to be the most common mage, and I'll trust your listing of HF bonuses for the various classes without bothering to verify them.
At level one, we're looking at 5 mage OCCs in RUE, with bonuses at 1st level of 4, 5, 4, 4, 2, and 0, for an average of 3.8.
With LLWs being most common, I have no problem with your statement that the average bonus is +4; I think that they'd skew the statistics toward their number in any case.

Now then what is an average soldier in rifts?
The average soldier for the CS (and rifts for years) is the grunt no bonuses to save vs horror factor.
The merc class in rue is suppose to represent the average soldier for hire no bonus to HF.
Juicer-no bonus to HF.
The GB is an elite unit representing a heroic or SF type only gets a +3 to save vs horror factor.

Side Note:
The Grunts and other CS soldiers are, IMO, victims of power creep in this are. In the RMB, HF was exclusively applied to supernatural creatures, and most Men At Arms classes didn't get saves. Mages and Psychics were more likely to, simply because they dealt more with the supernatural.
Over time, more of the new Men-At-Arms OCCs ended up with bonuses.
In CWC:
CS Juicers: +3 vs. HF
RCSG Scientists: +2 to HF at levels 2, 4, 8, and 12.
RPA "Fly Boy" Ace: +2 vs. Horror
ISS Peacekeeper: +2 vs. Horror at levels 2, 4, 7, 10, 12, and 15.
ISS Specter: +1 vs. HF at levels 2, 4, 7, 10, 12, and 15.
Intel Specter: +2 vs HF at levels 2, 4, 7, 10, 12, and 15.
NTSET Protector: +2 vs. HF at levels 2, 4, 6, 10, 12, and 15.
Psi-Net Agent: +1 vs HF at levels 1, 4, 8, 12, and 15.
CS Rangers, Nautical Experts, and such still had a bonus of zero.

I've always thought that--especially as HF was expanded to include non supernatural things, that CS Grunts should have been updated to have a bonus against HF. They are literally the soldiers fighting on the front lines against the supernatural; they should have some resistance to the horrors of it.
But Palladium never asked me, so none of that really matters.

Ultimately, mages DO have a clear superiority when it comes to resisting Horror Factor, and HF is loosely linked with resisting fear in general, sometimes.
So it's worth consideration in the context of how well they can concentrate during battle.

Unless it is clear where their HF bonuses come from, then it is not clear whether or not these bonuses reflect anything about combat training.

Now we know from PF mystires of magic that mages are trained to focus through distracting conditions, the different for combat would be the traumatic nature of it. However the mages are better trained to focus through trauma than almost any one. Spell casting in combat is not about combat training as all combat training is about combat in certain way or with certain things, a average grunt has no combat training for ship to ship combat, even though he is trained to fight with and to hand and some weapons. Instead spell casting as about the ability of the mage to focus being trained to fight like a grunt, tanker, fighter pilot, RPA or sniper does not help a mage cast spells.

1. From what I understand, the PFRPG book "Mysteries of Magic" conflicts with the depiction of mages in RUE, at least when it comes to their ability to concentrate.
2. Combat training would help one deal with the specific stresses of combat, which is helpful with remaining calm during combat. Spell casting in combat IS still going to be reliant on either combat training or combat experience, IMO.

Blue_Lion wrote:

Prysus wrote:

Blue_Lion wrote:Juicer-no bonus to HF.

Greetings and Salutations. Juicers have a +4, as per the official RUE eratta (page 5 of the PDF).

http://www.palladiumbooks.com/images/Do ... Eratta.pdf

Otherwise your figures looked accurate compared to the ones I did as well. Farewell and safe journeys to all.

That is what I get for buying a book when it comes out.

But it does show that mages are better trained to deal with the horrors of wars than most men at arms.

It shows that they're better equipped to deal with horrors in general, not that they're necessarily better trained to deal with the horrors of war specifically.

Note: This is my first post since an accident back in December aside from asking for suggestions to ease my boredom. I can't physically move to where my books are so I'm going to go off of memory here, so bear with me.

When I think of combat training, I don't think of, "A guy who knows basic hand to hand."

Nor do I think that every Martial Artist is combat trained.

I used to be able to do Bok Hak Pai in real life. I was pretty good at it. I took it for seven years. I don't consider that alone enough to be combat trained.

I think of "Combat Trained" someone who has basic proficiency in hand to hand combat as well as proficiency in common combat arms.

So, for example, in our world:
HtH: Basic (or greater)
WP. Pistol
WP. Rifle

Would be on the low end of the spectrum. Like, say, a police officer.

In the median range, I would add:
WP. Knife
WP. Blunt
WP. Heavy Weapons (for say a vehicle mounted weapon)
Pilot: Common Vehicle type often used by military or peace keeping (probably automobile)

If they can't reasonably do all, or at least most of, that then I can't consider them combat trained.

So, using Rifts, I'd say combat trained, to me, would be:

HtH: Basic+
WP. Energy Pistol
WP. Energy Rifle
WP: Heavy Weapons
WP: (Melee Weapon)
Pilot: (Vehicle)

For the bare minimum.

If the OCC skills, not ones they can trade up for, not ones on their related list, the actual OCC list, doesn't contain at least MOST of that, then they aren't combat trained.

HWalsh wrote:Note: This is my first post since an accident back in December aside from asking for suggestions to ease my boredom. I can't physically move to where my books are so I'm going to go off of memory here, so bear with me.

Welcome back!!

When I think of combat training, I don't think of, "A guy who knows basic hand to hand."

Nor do I think that every Martial Artist is combat trained.

I used to be able to do Bok Hak Pai in real life. I was pretty good at it. I took it for seven years. I don't consider that alone enough to be combat trained.

I think of "Combat Trained" someone who has basic proficiency in hand to hand combat as well as proficiency in common combat arms.

So, for example, in our world:
HtH: Basic (or greater)
WP. Pistol
WP. Rifle

Would be on the low end of the spectrum. Like, say, a police officer.

In the median range, I would add:
WP. Knife
WP. Blunt
WP. Heavy Weapons (for say a vehicle mounted weapon)
Pilot: Common Vehicle type often used by military or peace keeping (probably automobile)

If they can't reasonably do all, or at least most of, that then I can't consider them combat trained.

So, using Rifts, I'd say combat trained, to me, would be:

HtH: Basic+
WP. Energy Pistol
WP. Energy Rifle
WP: Heavy Weapons
WP: (Melee Weapon)
Pilot: (Vehicle)

For the bare minimum.

If the OCC skills, not ones they can trade up for, not ones on their related list, the actual OCC list, doesn't contain at least MOST of that, then they aren't combat trained.

Clear and well thought-out.


My view:
I agree that "combat training" is something of a spectrum, which is part of why this question is tricky.
From my view, combat training is somewhat about breadth of training, but also about the nature of the specific training.

If somebody learns proficiency with a rifle by plinking at bottles leisurely, then they're not going to be "combat trained" the way that a soldier going through boot camp and various combat simulations is going to be, for example.
Similarly, somebody who is trained in a sport martial art isn't going to be as "combat trained" as somebody who not only practices lethal hand to hand attacks, but also trains in such a way as to make them familiar with facing off against an opponent who wants (or seems to want) to kill them.

My criteria for "combat training" therefore isn't so much a specific set of skills, but more the kinds of background behind those skills, as well as the level of intensity behind them.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

HWalsh wrote:Note: This is my first post since an accident back in December aside from asking for suggestions to ease my boredom. I can't physically move to where my books are so I'm going to go off of memory here, so bear with me.

Welcome back!!

Thanks.

It's going to be a while before I'm actually back all the way. I'm going to have to try to afford to get PDF versions of all my books since I can't reliably get to the hard copies I had anymore.

Fun fact:
Don't get hit by a semi. Those things do mega damage.

Also if that statement holds true, the optional rules for surviving an MD hit as an SDC creature appears fairly accurate based on my injuries.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Blue_Lion wrote:

Prysus wrote:

Blue_Lion wrote:Juicer-no bonus to HF.

Greetings and Salutations. Juicers have a +4, as per the official RUE eratta (page 5 of the PDF).

http://www.palladiumbooks.com/images/Do ... Eratta.pdf

Otherwise your figures looked accurate compared to the ones I did as well. Farewell and safe journeys to all.

That is what I get for buying a book when it comes out.

But it does show that mages are better trained to deal with the horrors of wars than most men at arms.

It shows that they're better equipped to deal with horrors in general, not that they're necessarily better trained to deal with the horrors of war specifically.

Again you are trying to change the words
You can NOT use the word "Combat Training" to mean different things.
I am sorry, but the book has ALREADY chosen to give those words meaning.
You can not come in and say "Well I want to say that they need to have a special context that I am giving"

"Deal with the stress of combat" sure
"Combat training" no.
The first is a perfectly fine, valid properly narrow non-rules term you can discuss
The second is not because the books have 1) already said that if you have a WP or H2H you have combat training and 2) there is no 'context' to combat training just peoples PERSONAL OPINIONS and house rules...

THAT said NOW it is ludicrous to try and claim that bonuses from your OCC are not 'training"
At this point it looks like the claim is now
"mages are not specially trained in military operations" Which is fine
But there are a lot of other people who are not. You don't have to be "military trained" (what ever THAT is) to be 'able to deal with the stress of combat' let alone combat trained
For dealing with the stress of combat? That would be a function of the things that IN GAME handle that sort of thing... ME, Save vs HF, Save vs Insanity...you know... your mental resilience.

I am curios how does the description of mages being trained to focus in the magic book secretes of magic conflict with how mages are described in RUE?

The reality of the combat rules as of RUE is that HtH Assassin is the best skill a mages can take to improve their spell casting. By second level Assassin generally has one more attack per melee than martial arts or Expert. That extra attack can translates to another spell per round. Sadly there are no skills other than pHtH combat skills including Boxing with the right power armor Robot Combat Skills that improve a mages spell casting.

Mlp7029 wrote:The reality of the combat rules as of RUE is that HtH Assassin is the best skill a mages can take to improve their spell casting. By second level Assassin generally has one more attack per melee than martial arts or Expert. That extra attack can translates to another spell per round. Sadly there are no skills other than pHtH combat skills including Boxing with the right power armor Robot Combat Skills that improve a mages spell casting.

Um What does that have to do with the price of tea in china?
I do not see how it relates to the mater if mages are or are not trained for combat.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

HWalsh wrote:Note: This is my first post since an accident back in December aside from asking for suggestions to ease my boredom. I can't physically move to where my books are so I'm going to go off of memory here, so bear with me.

Welcome back!!

When I think of combat training, I don't think of, "A guy who knows basic hand to hand."

Nor do I think that every Martial Artist is combat trained.

I used to be able to do Bok Hak Pai in real life. I was pretty good at it. I took it for seven years. I don't consider that alone enough to be combat trained.

I think of "Combat Trained" someone who has basic proficiency in hand to hand combat as well as proficiency in common combat arms.

So, for example, in our world:
HtH: Basic (or greater)
WP. Pistol
WP. Rifle

Would be on the low end of the spectrum. Like, say, a police officer.

In the median range, I would add:
WP. Knife
WP. Blunt
WP. Heavy Weapons (for say a vehicle mounted weapon)
Pilot: Common Vehicle type often used by military or peace keeping (probably automobile)

If they can't reasonably do all, or at least most of, that then I can't consider them combat trained.

So, using Rifts, I'd say combat trained, to me, would be:

HtH: Basic+
WP. Energy Pistol
WP. Energy Rifle
WP: Heavy Weapons
WP: (Melee Weapon)
Pilot: (Vehicle)

For the bare minimum.

If the OCC skills, not ones they can trade up for, not ones on their related list, the actual OCC list, doesn't contain at least MOST of that, then they aren't combat trained.

Clear and well thought-out.


My view:
I agree that "combat training" is something of a spectrum, which is part of why this question is tricky.
From my view, combat training is somewhat about breadth of training, but also about the nature of the specific training.

If somebody learns proficiency with a rifle by plinking at bottles leisurely, then they're not going to be "combat trained" the way that a soldier going through boot camp and various combat simulations is going to be, for example.
Similarly, somebody who is trained in a sport martial art isn't going to be as "combat trained" as somebody who not only practices lethal hand to hand attacks, but also trains in such a way as to make them familiar with facing off against an opponent who wants (or seems to want) to kill them.

My criteria for "combat training" therefore isn't so much a specific set of skills, but more the kinds of background behind those skills, as well as the level of intensity behind them.

I personally would not consider a solder right out of basic and AIT combat trained. The truth is that does little to prepare you for actual combat. My experience it is typically 1-2 years after they get the first unit that they may be trained for combat and their roll in it. That is typically how long we spend training new arrivals to the unit so that they can perform their job. I am not talking about 1-2 years in actual combat zone, but 1-2 years receiving additional training from the unit.


The fact that different people have different ideas at what point a person is combat trained is why we can not use such a shifting goal post to prove anything and instead have to use a set goal post from the books.

Prysus wrote:

Blue_Lion wrote:I am curios how does the description of mages being trained to focus in the magic book secretes of magic conflict with how mages are described in RUE?

Greetings and Salutations. There's a few differences that come to mind. I'm sure there are more, but RUE page 189-190 and MoM page 53-54.

RUE: Faster casting times. Also, "the action of parrying, dodging or striking back will break the spell invocation and prevent the mage from casting" as well as "getting popped in the [snip] stomach" or "getting [snip] blinded" are also considered interruptions. Being hammered by a "full press attack [snip even if the sorcerer is successfully parrying each attack" as well as "running or performing any physical action" stops the attack. "A good rule of thumb is if the mage is hit, it breaks his spell casting, especially if he or his armor take any damage from the attack" (so even just hitting armor the mage can lose concentration, and taking damage only makes it "especially," taking damage isn't even a requirement). The magic user then needs "one or two of his melee actions/attacks" to "catch his breath" before he can cast again.

MoM: Slower casting times (standard, they have the faster version as "optional" only). Dodging does NOT break concentration. Being hit (by less than 8 points of damage) does NOT break concentration. The building he's standing in is collapsing and he's getting pelted with debris and there's dust (as long as it's not choking him so he can't speak) will NOT break his concentration. Anything viewed as unclear only has a 50/50 chance of distracting the Practitioner of Magic. Note: There's no reference to armor taking damage breaking concentration, though armor may fall under the 8 points of damage limitation, but that is not specifically addressed whereas it is in RUE.

The rules in MoM make it much easier to retain concentration, while it's much tougher in RUE. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

So it seams more about the mechanics that changed in RUE.
The part about how a mage is trained does not seam to be part of the conflict and should still should be valid.

eliakon wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Blue_Lion wrote:

Prysus wrote:

Blue_Lion wrote:Juicer-no bonus to HF.

Greetings and Salutations. Juicers have a +4, as per the official RUE eratta (page 5 of the PDF).

http://www.palladiumbooks.com/images/Do ... Eratta.pdf

Otherwise your figures looked accurate compared to the ones I did as well. Farewell and safe journeys to all.

That is what I get for buying a book when it comes out.

But it does show that mages are better trained to deal with the horrors of wars than most men at arms.

It shows that they're better equipped to deal with horrors in general, not that they're necessarily better trained to deal with the horrors of war specifically.

Again you are trying to change the words
You can NOT use the word "Combat Training" to mean different things.
I am sorry, but the book has ALREADY chosen to give those words meaning.
You can not come in and say "Well I want to say that they need to have a special context that I am giving"

If you're going to list all the things that I "cannot" do which I am also not doing, then we'll be here a very, very long time.

the books have 1) already said that if you have a WP or H2H you have combat training

I've addressed this.
Either address my previous addressal, or move on.
Don't try to go back in time and pretend that I haven't already covered this.
Context matters. End of story.

and 2) there is no 'context' to combat training just peoples PERSONAL OPINIONS and house rules...

There's a context to the original discussion of whether not mages are "combat trained."
In some senses, the typical mages are combat trained.
But not in the sense of the original conversation.

THAT said NOW it is ludicrous to try and claim that bonuses from your OCC are not 'training"

How so?

At this point it looks like the claim is now
"mages are not specially trained in military operations" Which is fine
But there are a lot of other people who are not. You don't have to be "military trained" (what ever THAT is) to be 'able to deal with the stress of combat' let alone combat trained

Agreed.

For dealing with the stress of combat? That would be a function of the things that IN GAME handle that sort of thing... ME, Save vs HF, Save vs Insanity...you know... your mental resilience.

Not exactly.
ME would help. There's been a successful argument that perhaps GMs should take HF bonuses into account as well.
Saves vs. Insanity are spiffy any time a save vs. insanity is called for, but that's the only time it's really relevant.

There are zero in-game mechanisms that I'm aware of for determining voice volume when speaking forcefully and drawing mystic symbols in the air as part of spell casting during combat.
That seems like more of something to be handled by GMs and players, taking into account the specifics of the situation and the general non-combativeness of typical mages.

Blue_Lion wrote:

Prysus wrote:

Blue_Lion wrote:I am curios how does the description of mages being trained to focus in the magic book secretes of magic conflict with how mages are described in RUE?

Greetings and Salutations. There's a few differences that come to mind. I'm sure there are more, but RUE page 189-190 and MoM page 53-54.

RUE: Faster casting times. Also, "the action of parrying, dodging or striking back will break the spell invocation and prevent the mage from casting" as well as "getting popped in the [snip] stomach" or "getting [snip] blinded" are also considered interruptions. Being hammered by a "full press attack [snip even if the sorcerer is successfully parrying each attack" as well as "running or performing any physical action" stops the attack. "A good rule of thumb is if the mage is hit, it breaks his spell casting, especially if he or his armor take any damage from the attack" (so even just hitting armor the mage can lose concentration, and taking damage only makes it "especially," taking damage isn't even a requirement). The magic user then needs "one or two of his melee actions/attacks" to "catch his breath" before he can cast again.

MoM: Slower casting times (standard, they have the faster version as "optional" only). Dodging does NOT break concentration. Being hit (by less than 8 points of damage) does NOT break concentration. The building he's standing in is collapsing and he's getting pelted with debris and there's dust (as long as it's not choking him so he can't speak) will NOT break his concentration. Anything viewed as unclear only has a 50/50 chance of distracting the Practitioner of Magic. Note: There's no reference to armor taking damage breaking concentration, though armor may fall under the 8 points of damage limitation, but that is not specifically addressed whereas it is in RUE.

The rules in MoM make it much easier to retain concentration, while it's much tougher in RUE. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

So it seams more about the mechanics that changed in RUE.
The part about how a mage is trained does not seam to be part of the conflict and should still should be valid.

Perhaps.
Quote the relevant passages, and I'll take a look and provide my opinions.

Although from Prysus' comparison of the two sets of rules, I'd say that the mages of Rifts Earth mechanically have a much more difficult time concentrating.
This could be indicative of differences in training, with the PFRPG mages being sufficiently trained that dodging, being hit without sustaining damage, taking any physical action, and so forth is insufficient to break the concentration of a PFRPG mage, but being perfectly sufficient to break the concentration of a Rifts mage.

Blue_Lion wrote:I personally would not consider a solder right out of basic and AIT combat trained. The truth is that does little to prepare you for actual combat. My experience it is typically 1-2 years after they get the first unit that they may be trained for combat and their roll in it. That is typically how long we spend training new arrivals to the unit so that they can perform their job. I am not talking about 1-2 years in actual combat zone, but 1-2 years receiving additional training from the unit.

This is one reason why the question is tricky--it's a rather arbitrary term, and it describes a spectrum rather than a binary.
What does the additional training from the unit typically entail?

The fact that different people have different ideas at what point a person is combat trained is why we can not use such a shifting goal post to prove anything and instead have to use a set goal post from the books.

Nah. We can use shifting goals, because that's the context of the discussion. When the original statement was made, it wasn't talking in the context of official book examples of kinds of combat training.
It was made in a more global context, the kind that's more subject to different views and opinions.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Blue_Lion wrote:I personally would not consider a solder right out of basic and AIT combat trained. The truth is that does little to prepare you for actual combat. My experience it is typically 1-2 years after they get the first unit that they may be trained for combat and their roll in it. That is typically how long we spend training new arrivals to the unit so that they can perform their job. I am not talking about 1-2 years in actual combat zone, but 1-2 years receiving additional training from the unit.

This is one reason why the question is tricky--it's a rather arbitrary term, and it describes a spectrum rather than a binary.
What does the additional training from the unit typically entail?

The fact that different people have different ideas at what point a person is combat trained is why we can not use such a shifting goal post to prove anything and instead have to use a set goal post from the books.

Nah. We can use shifting goals, because that's the context of the discussion. When the original statement was made, it wasn't talking in the context of official book examples of kinds of combat training.
It was made in a more global context, the kind that's more subject to different views and opinions.

That's not a very good thing to do though...
...since the books have a CLEAR definition of what the books define as "combat trained"
So coming along and using a personal term that conflicts with the book is bad...
...that would be like trying to argue what 'rune magic' is or 'necromancy' or 'circle magic' are.
There can be personal definitions of those and they are subjective... BUT Palladium has made a specific statement that for their purposes in the game that they have specific meaning and that meaning is fixed.
Once Palladium fixes that meaning it no longer becomes subjective when talking about Palladium products. And trying to argue that it is still subjective is... bad.
Its confusing at best and deliberately misleading at worst.

I would propose that if we want to continue this we need to make a specific, clear statement on what is being discussed...
AND that it NOT be something that Palladium has already ruled on.

eliakon wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Blue_Lion wrote:I personally would not consider a solder right out of basic and AIT combat trained. The truth is that does little to prepare you for actual combat. My experience it is typically 1-2 years after they get the first unit that they may be trained for combat and their roll in it. That is typically how long we spend training new arrivals to the unit so that they can perform their job. I am not talking about 1-2 years in actual combat zone, but 1-2 years receiving additional training from the unit.

This is one reason why the question is tricky--it's a rather arbitrary term, and it describes a spectrum rather than a binary.
What does the additional training from the unit typically entail?

The fact that different people have different ideas at what point a person is combat trained is why we can not use such a shifting goal post to prove anything and instead have to use a set goal post from the books.

Nah. We can use shifting goals, because that's the context of the discussion. When the original statement was made, it wasn't talking in the context of official book examples of kinds of combat training.
It was made in a more global context, the kind that's more subject to different views and opinions.

That's not a very good thing to do though...
...since the books have a CLEAR definition of what the books define as "combat trained"

No, they do NOT.
Try again.

You might want to reread all the stuff I've said about this last time, pointing out the difference between "examples of something" and "a definition of something."

So coming along and using a personal term that conflicts with the book is bad...

That's not what's happening.
It's the opposite.
I used the term in a specific context based on personal views on the term... so coming along and trying to use book examples that conflict with the original context is bad.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Blue_Lion wrote:I personally would not consider a solder right out of basic and AIT combat trained. The truth is that does little to prepare you for actual combat. My experience it is typically 1-2 years after they get the first unit that they may be trained for combat and their roll in it. That is typically how long we spend training new arrivals to the unit so that they can perform their job. I am not talking about 1-2 years in actual combat zone, but 1-2 years receiving additional training from the unit.

This is one reason why the question is tricky--it's a rather arbitrary term, and it describes a spectrum rather than a binary.
What does the additional training from the unit typically entail?

The fact that different people have different ideas at what point a person is combat trained is why we can not use such a shifting goal post to prove anything and instead have to use a set goal post from the books.

Nah. We can use shifting goals, because that's the context of the discussion. When the original statement was made, it wasn't talking in the context of official book examples of kinds of combat training.
It was made in a more global context, the kind that's more subject to different views and opinions.

The statement that was made may have been made in a debate about mages being unable to deal with the trauma of combat. But the statement itself needs to have a set goal post as every one has a different idea of what combat trained is we have to look for set goal post in RAW.

This thread is not a continuation of our debate on combat causing a penalty to spell casting. So the lock thread can not change the goal post.

Your statement was Mages (as a rule) are not trained for combat.
So people where looking at weather or not mages (as a rule) are trained for combat. And acording to the books almost every mage starts with training for combat. As combat training to us is subjective, we must then go into the rules to get a set goal post to prove it. (Your statement was that mage are not trained for combat as a rule, so any combat training that mages have as a default or the rule means the statement is false as it was written.) Almost every mage is trained for hand to hand combat, so they are trained as a rule for combat.

The fact you used it as justification for a special penalty only for mages is irrelevant to if the statement is true. In addition it is a flawed justifiction path to be combat training to not get the penalty but then setting an shifting goal post with the intent of making the statement true. What you are trying is any time that some one proves a mage is trained for combat moving the goal post so you can maintain your claim they are not.

That means this is about the accuracy of the statement at all not the context it was used.
By RAW almost all mages have combat training.
Mages are better able to deal with horror than any one else and that includes the horror of combat when it applies. +4 to save vs horror when combat based horror would cause some one to panic, or freeze up.

(I would think as this is a debate about weather or not your statement is true, then logically you can not be the one to set the standard of truth. That amounts to it is true because I say it is and any time you disprove it I will just change the standard.)

Blue_Lion wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Blue_Lion wrote:I personally would not consider a solder right out of basic and AIT combat trained. The truth is that does little to prepare you for actual combat. My experience it is typically 1-2 years after they get the first unit that they may be trained for combat and their roll in it. That is typically how long we spend training new arrivals to the unit so that they can perform their job. I am not talking about 1-2 years in actual combat zone, but 1-2 years receiving additional training from the unit.

This is one reason why the question is tricky--it's a rather arbitrary term, and it describes a spectrum rather than a binary.
What does the additional training from the unit typically entail?

The fact that different people have different ideas at what point a person is combat trained is why we can not use such a shifting goal post to prove anything and instead have to use a set goal post from the books.

Nah. We can use shifting goals, because that's the context of the discussion. When the original statement was made, it wasn't talking in the context of official book examples of kinds of combat training.
It was made in a more global context, the kind that's more subject to different views and opinions.

The statement that was made may have been made in a debate about mages being unable to deal with the trauma of combat. But the statement itself needs to have a set goal post as every one has a different idea of what combat trained is we have to look for set goal post in RAW.

Your use of the word "needs" here puzzles me.
What happens if there is no set goalpost?

This thread is not a continuation of our debate on combat causing a penalty to spell casting. So the lock thread can not change the goal post.

Yeah, it kinda is, because the original post quoted me, and followed it up with:
"I'm not sure what criteria he used to reach this conclusion, but to say i disagree is an understatement."

That's directly discussing the original context.

If people want to discuss things devoid of the original context, that's cool... but NOT if they want to claim that my statement is accurate or inaccurate, because such a claim only makes sense with the original context.

The fact you used it as justification for a special penalty only for mages is irrelevant

It also isn't true.
I've never mentioned any penalty for mages.
But that's irrelevant to this conversation, and I'm not sure why you're making that kind of claim.

What you are trying is any time that some one proves a mage is trained for combat moving the goal post so you can maintain your claim they are not.

The goal post is the same as it originally was: are mages combat trained in such a way that ensures complete voice control during mega-damage combat.
The goal post has been consistent. On my end, at least.

By RAW almost all mages have combat training.

Sure. So's Dennis the Menace.
If you want to ignore context, then congratulations--you have your answer right there. Anybody with any WP fits your standard of "combat trained."
So... why are you still arguing?

If you want to address the actual context of the statement--the only way to truly address its accuracy--then that's another matter.

Mages are better able to deal with horror than any one else

Remind me to start a new thread with this quote, and see how it holds up.


Wait... I don't have to. Paratroopers are better able to deal with horror than mages are. So are Bots, and likely any number of other "anybody"s.

(I would think as this is a debate about weather or not your statement is true, then logically you can not be the one to set the standard of truth. That amounts to it is true because I say it is and any time you disprove it I will just change the standard.)

I'm not setting the standard of truth. I'm describing the context, and arguing about accuracy.

With no set goal post weather or not the statement is true can not be determined. As this is about if the statement is true then there needs to be a set goal post to prove it. That is why I used needs as this is about if as a rule something is true, not in my opinion it is true.

No it did not reference the context but the validity of the claim that mages as a rule are not trained for combat itself. It is about the claim not the context.

(Irreverent to this post but as I said requiring a mage to talk louder in combat to cast a spell than he would when not in combat is a penalty, especially when used so every one knows he is casting a spell as you made it sound like you where claiming. At the time you seamed to me that you where saying you wanted people to admit things where subjective but arguing they where obvious.)

The statement being debated is are mages trained for combat. The statement being debated is not are they trained for combat in such a way that they maintain voice control. (What you are doing amounts to saying mages do not have voice control because I do not think they are trained for combat. And then trying to use that as a goal post to determine if mage is trained for combat as a rule. It is circular logic you can not use lack of being trained for combat to justify no voice control but then require evidence of voice control to be trained for combat.)

You are right my wording on that was bad and as written it was wrong.
So let me rephrase it, magic users as a whole are better able to deal with horror than any other major category such as men at arms, adventures and psi.

(-Again you are referencing back to using what the statement was said to prove as a requirement to it accuracy. That is circular logic, mages do not have combat voice control because they are not trained for combat, but to prove a mage is trained for combat you want the standard to be a level of training to be a level that proves the have voice control.--You see the circle there? If not being trained for combat is used to as evidence of mages not having voice control, then having training to maintain voice control can not be a goal post to determine if they are trained for combat.)

(By RAW even in the context you originally used it the statement is untrue.)

Blue_Lion wrote:With no set goal post weather or not the statement is true can not be determined.

Agreed.
And?

No it did not reference the context but the validity of the claim that mages as a rule are not trained for combat itself. It is about the claim not the context.

The nature of the claim is that it is only true or untrue depending on context.

(Irreverent to this post but as I said requiring a mage to talk louder in combat to cast a spell than he would when not in combat is a penalty, especially when used so every one knows he is casting a spell as you made it sound like you where claiming. At the time you seamed to me that you where saying you wanted people to admit things where subjective but arguing they where obvious.)

I say that mages sometimes, when speaking forcefully in order to focus their will on the universe, and when drawing mystic symbols in the air, in the middle of stressful combat, will sometimes--depending on circumstances--speak loudly enough to be heard.

Is this a controversial of a view?
Is this some kind of penalty?
I don't think so.

All it IS is NOT giving mages some secret bonus that is NEVER granted to them in canon.
But, as you say, that's irrelevant to this thread.
We can agree to disagree on this one, in this place, as it could count as attempting to resurrect a locked thread.

Again you are refercing back to using what the statement was said to prove as a requirement to it accuracy. That is circular, mages do not have combat voice control because they are not trained for combat, but to prove a mage is trained for combat you want the standard to be a level of training to be a level that proves the have voice control.

That's not circular.
My original point was that mages are not even combat trained, in the sense that they're not conditioned to avoid panic in large firefights and such.
If you want to prove me wrong, then all you'd have to do is to prove that mages as a rule ARE trained for large firefights and such.
But you can't prove that, because it isn't true.
That's not circular logic--that's me being right.

So, if you want to prove mages' ability to always cast spells silently, no matter what the conditions, then go with something other than just combat training. Go with Horror resistance, for example. That has some traction, even though it's not "combat training" per se.
It doesn't prove that mages always maintain perfect and inaudible voice control independent of circumstances, but it's perhaps a step in that direction.

At the risk of derailing the conversation, I spent several years studying a handful of related martial arts. We studied all sorts of techniques, improved our strength and endurance, and trained our reflexes so that our instinctive responses did not work against us. And it was all very cool. But the most important thing we did was to study fighting theory. Examining scenarios and study what kinds of strategies yield better percentages than others (because nothing is a sure thing). Building situational awareness and recognizing how a scenario has been stacked against you. And then drilling on those scenarios.

I consider fighting theory to be combat training. Knowing how to throw a punch or shoot a pistol accurately is great to know, but if you don't know WHEN and WHERE to do it, then you're unlikely to use those skills effectively.

With that in mind, a character could be combat trained even if they lack a H-to-H or any WPs. But it seems unlikely. For game purposes, I would assume that H-to-H and WP skills would include some amount of fighting theory. I would also assume that any spell caster who has one or more offensive or defensive spells has likely made some amount of effort to consider how those spells might be effectively applied in combat. But no amount of training covers everything and actual combat experience, especially repeated combat experience, is more valuable from a "nerves" or "keeping your cool" perspective which is what it seems this thread is really about.

--flatline

flatline wrote:At the risk of derailing the conversation, I spent several years studying a handful of related martial arts. We studied all sorts of techniques, improved our strength and endurance, and trained our reflexes so that our instinctive responses did not work against us. And it was all very cool. But the most important thing we did was to study fighting theory. Examining scenarios and study what kinds of strategies yield better percentages than others (because nothing is a sure thing). Building situational awareness and recognizing how a scenario has been stacked against you. And then drilling on those scenarios.

I consider fighting theory to be combat training. Knowing how to throw a punch or shoot a pistol accurately is great to know, but if you don't know WHEN and WHERE to do it, then you're unlikely to use those skills effectively.

Good posting.

With that in mind, a character could be combat trained even if they lack a H-to-H or any WPs. But it seems unlikely. For game purposes, I would assume that H-to-H and WP skills would include some amount of fighting theory. I would also assume that any spell caster who has one or more offensive or defensive spells has likely made some amount of effort to consider how those spells might be effectively applied in combat.

Would you assume that anybody who has bought a firearm has likely made some amount of effort to consider how those weapons might be effectively applied in combat?
To a significant degree?

But no amount of training covers everything and actual combat experience, especially repeated combat experience, is more valuable from a "nerves" or "keeping your cool" perspective which is what it seems this thread is really about.

--flatline

Agreed.
Combat training is one thing, but there's no substitute for combat experience.
The best is a combination of the two.

Regarding the early spellcasting mention of verbal components being necessary to most spell casting, I will compare it to the D&D conventions of all spells by definition have a variety of components:
Verbal, Somatic (Gestures) and Material, (either reusable foci, or disposable IE 1 shot)
if the spell has a verbal component that means you have to SAY something to satisfy that requirement.
Somatic means you have to make gestures to satisfy that component.
Material components mean you pull out your focus such as a holy symbol, or use another kind of material component such as throwing a ball of pitch, bat guano, and sulfur at someone for a "fireball"
sometimes as you get more skilled you can eliminate or substitute an alternate "component" to use a customized variant of the spell.

as far as why speaking is a common spell component is that the act of speaking concentrates, focuses and modulates the thought processes necessary for successful spell casting, it may also give a "boost" to the success and power of the spell. I am reminded of a book series by Christopher Stasheff "Wizard in Rhyme" series, where a modern scholar found himself in a universe where magic works by rhyme and poetry IF you also have the talent to channel it, at a certain level if your talent is really low you could recite some really awesome and powerful spell and barely get the equivalent of strikeing a match. if you have a powerful talent you can recite garbage and get a campfire, and if you used the super wonderful prose start a WMD level fire. and if you have a strong enough talent you can effectively "recite" the spell in your head (such as while gaged) and get weak and imprecise results.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Blue_Lion wrote:With no set goal post weather or not the statement is true can not be determined.

Agreed.
And?

No it did not reference the context but the validity of the claim that mages as a rule are not trained for combat itself. It is about the claim not the context.

The nature of the claim is that it is only true or untrue depending on context.

(Irreverent to this post but as I said requiring a mage to talk louder in combat to cast a spell than he would when not in combat is a penalty, especially when used so every one knows he is casting a spell as you made it sound like you where claiming. At the time you seamed to me that you where saying you wanted people to admit things where subjective but arguing they where obvious.)

I say that mages sometimes, when speaking forcefully in order to focus their will on the universe, and when drawing mystic symbols in the air, in the middle of stressful combat, will sometimes--depending on circumstances--speak loudly enough to be heard.

Is this a controversial of a view?
Is this some kind of penalty?
I don't think so.

All it IS is NOT giving mages some secret bonus that is NEVER granted to them in canon.
But, as you say, that's irrelevant to this thread.
We can agree to disagree on this one, in this place, as it could count as attempting to resurrect a locked thread.

Again you are refercing back to using what the statement was said to prove as a requirement to it accuracy. That is circular, mages do not have combat voice control because they are not trained for combat, but to prove a mage is trained for combat you want the standard to be a level of training to be a level that proves the have voice control.

That's not circular.
My original point was that mages are not even combat trained, in the sense that they're not conditioned to avoid panic in large firefights and such.
If you want to prove me wrong, then all you'd have to do is to prove that mages as a rule ARE trained for large firefights and such.
But you can't prove that, because it isn't true.
That's not circular logic--that's me being right.

So, if you want to prove mages' ability to always cast spells silently, no matter what the conditions, then go with something other than just combat training. Go with Horror resistance, for example. That has some traction, even though it's not "combat training" per se.
It doesn't prove that mages always maintain perfect and inaudible voice control independent of circumstances, but it's perhaps a step in that direction.

This was about the claim not your point. Your claim did not match your point just as my wording on mages being better than any one else did not match my point that as a whole magic users are better than any other category as a whole.
The thing is that is not what you said, so there is no need to prove that point wrong to disprove mages (as a rule) are not trained for combat.

In realty weather or not the claim is true is not the same to weather or not the point is true.
If I have the point that God loves the infantry. And use the claim The sky is blue because god loves the infantry.
You do not need to prove that god hates the infantry to disprove the claim, just that it is not the reason the sky is blue.

In this case we are not disproving your original point but if the statement mages as a rule are not trained for combat is true.
So it is not about the level of combat training they have but weather or not they have any combat training as a rule.
To determine that we have to look to see if the books call any of their default training combat training.

(I would not call the fire fight most PC are in a large fire fight, typically they are less than 20 people in the fight. A large fire fight to me is when you have company or greater elements in a fire fight. Typically at this level you also have some sort of artillery or air strikes going off. That is something that typically is only encounted in wars or when 1 or more nations are involved.)


Training wise a typical mage spends years getting training while professional soldiers typically get months(only weeks of that would be actual training in combat skills) of training. Mages are not known for being stupid, so to not to get any training to defend themselves and others in a MD fight during the years of training does seam a bit of a stretch. Given that most mages have some form of combat training as part of there OCC skills would support the idea that most mages in rifts are trained for what their mentor considered typical combat risks they would face.

(and yes as presented your statement is not you being right but a circular defense. Mages get no voice control because they are not combat trained. That is the claim you presented as evidence. then when people point out mages do have combat training you then change the goal to combat training has to equal having voice control. That is defensive circular logic as you claim mages are penalized for not as a rule having combat training. Then when evidence of mage combat training is provided you make the require ment to call it combat training that they have training to grant them voice control. Thus making a full circle to avoid a challenge of claim based on the fact the claim was made for X. Now then lets look at why you made the claim because I disagreed with mages would not have voice control in a fight. Your support for them not having voice control was based on them not having as a rule been trained for combat. However as a rule almost every mage does have some form of combat training. So your self imposed I am right because I am right logic circle is not the standard. So if you include the context of why you made the claim, it is a circular logic that is right only if it is right. ****It amounts circular logic in simple terms it amounts to I am right because I am right regardless of evidence my claim being untrue.

RubberBoot wrote:OK so lets talk about North America. In Lazlo there is constant worry about the CS turning their attention to the city as spoken about in RUE Page 21 and its also stated that the city defenses are a citizen militia of Dragons, Mages, Psycics and men at arms. Therefore the citizens of these citys you speak of know they must be combat trained to defend themselves. Consider any druid type mage who is a defender of the forest they will not be living in cities therefore must have some ability to defend themselves in the wild.

Now the federation of magic, city of brass defenders.

"City Defenders: Includes Necromancers, witches, Minions of
Splugorth, practitioners of magic, Shadow Beasts, demons and a
host of others. Average experience level of front-line troops
(fodder) is 3-5th level, leaders 5-9th level. As with most cities of
sorcerers and monster races, virtually half or more of the city’s
inhabitants possess some measure of magic power and make
formidable opponents." p. 33 world book 16

Now what about small villages and Towns. If a mage lived in one of these towns the mage must know how to fight and have offensive and defensive spells to protect the people who can not defend themselves like farmers and typical workers. To think that mages are not combat trained and would rather bury themselves in books when the CS is hunting them down and killing them the Tolkeen wars many mages probably have family that have died due to the dangers of the outside world and just like people of today would want to protect their loved ones from danger.

why would all magic users necessarily be trained? by default, 2 of the 4 common types of mages have no hand to hand skills unless they *choose* to pick them up. the ones that do have hand to hand, start with only basic, and most don't even have the option for martial arts. 3 of the 4 lack WP skills.

in addition to what KC has already said on this (which i broadly agree with)...

a mage does not need to be able to fire a gun to be useful in a militia, or even in combat, or to fight against something. the mage i posted could levitate monsters that only have melee attacks, put prisoners into trances, fend off vampires, depending on the optional spell selections could act as a medic, extinguish fires, protect against gas attacks, set up alarms, exercise limited control before a fight starts with charismatic aura, and use magical or technological MD weapons with telekinesis, all without needing to have any WP or hand to hand skill. now, obviously, those are certainly assets when it comes to full-blown combat... but there's no particular reason even a druid could not (for the sake of argument) combat demons and other enemies by summoning minor elementals to do the fighting, or by acting as a force multiplier for a group of people fighting those demons (by providing weapons, healing wounds, buffing allies and such) in spite of not being particularly amazing at combat. the simple fact of the matter is i bet most police departments would LOVE to have someone with the spells i listed (or some variation on them) on call. you could even give one or two slightly more combative spells (it's fairly easy to slip, say, blinding flash into the level 1 spell list without losing too much elsewhere) and have someone who can be reasonably effective in combat without any hand-to-hand skill or WP (seriously, if you get a blinding flash off on half a dozen enemies, you've probably done as much to win the fight as the people with 4 attacks/round using energy rifles. if you stop the fight before it starts with a charismatic aura, you've MORE than earned your keep).

so, simply put... i'm still not seeing why the fact that some mages are in militias inherently means that most mages are combat trained. there's tons of reasons for them not to be combat trained, and if a place listed a local militia as including, say, farmers, i don't think anyone would automatically assume that means all or even most farmers are automatically members of the militia (i also suspect that you have a very inflated opinion of what it means to be in a militia group... if you look at militias over the course of history, well... let's just say there's a REASON that once someone was able to have a professional army, everyone else either got a professional army too or stopped existing as an independent state).