Forums of the Megaverse®

Shark_Force wrote:

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).

Ok so looking through the books lets talk about the mages that are guaranteed combat trained

-Combat trained:

Elemental fusionist- 3 WP basic HtoH and initial spell lists consisting of offensive and defensive spells

Techno- Wizard- 2 WP Initial spells consist of offensive and defensive spells . From looking at the books its pretty save to assume they have some sort of TW weapon to defend themselves and the WP to use it.
Also Ninja Techno-Wizard with more WP and HtoH expert

Battle Magus: everyone can agree combat trained

Controller- subset of battle magus 3 WP and expert HtoH similar to CS Grunt Pilots Automatons designed for combat

Lord Magus- 2 WP HtoH basic can pilot automatons get combat bonuses as a class. Guaranteed to have combat spells.

High Magus- 2 WP HtoH basic can pilot automatons get combat bonuses as a class. Guaranteed to have combat spells.

Conjurer - 3 WP HtoH basic can conjure weapons. supernatural physical strength in initial spell knowledge.

The Corrupt- still a mage states instinctive fighters... though might be considered a monster

Mystic knight- Much like the Battle Magus no argument here

Tattooed Man- still a mystic warrior comparable to the battle magus and mystic knight only casting in a different way 2 WP HtoH expert considered a warrior.
T-Monster Men- grouped with Tattooed Men
Maxi- Man also grouped.

Undead Slayers- Tattoo magic 5 WP HtoH martial arts

Stone masters- 2 WP HtoH basic stone magic can be offensive plus spells from Gems

The Filidh- 4 WP HtoH martial arts herb magic to "combat supernatural beings"

The Dryad- 2 WP HtoH basic herb magic has access to combat spells

The scathach Druid- 5 WP HtoH martial arts herb magic boxing weapon creation


Temporal Warrior- 6 WP and HtoH martial arts

Demon Queller- 4 WP HtoH kendo Body hardening and offensive and defensive spells

Born Mystic-2 WP HtoH basic magic and psionic abilities.

Russian Fire Sorcerer- 2 WP HtoH basic combat fire spells

Mysic Kuznya- 5 WP HtoH Expert supernatural PS high MDC powerfult weapons and spells to make melee fighting stronger

The old Believer- 2 WP HtoH basic learns random spells from leylines .

Gypsy wizard thief- 1 WP HtoH basic

-Nature Magic users typically in nature having to be trained to defend themselves

The Herbalist- 2 WP HtoH Baisc

The millenium Druid- WP blunt millennium tree gifts more of a support mage

-Summoning Magic users though they might not have HtoH or WP themselves they have the ability to summon things to fight for them

Shifter- HtoH basic Connection to Gods and supernatural intial combat spells Summoning and controlling demons undead and the such to fight for them or to protect them while they cast spells.

Russian Necromancer- 2 WP Augmentation for bonuses summon the dead access to combat spells.

Warlock-2 Wp HtoH Basic access to combat spells summon elementals any high level warlock 7 or 8 has access to some of the most powerful spells in the game.

Not necessarily combat Trained but has access to combat spells

ley line walker- HtoH basic access to invocations and all the spells that come with standard equipment has weapons.

Mystic- no HtoH or WP has access to them and combat spells.

We could probably guarantee any mage above 5th level has some sort of combat magic most have WP, HtoH of some kind of initial combat spells.

-So if we talk about whether or not mages are combat trained

Lets look at a CS Grunt- 3 WP and HtoH expert
OK, so what makes a CS grunt combat trained? they can use a Gun follow orders and fight in HtoH. the strength comes from working as a team having military precision But lets take that soldier out of the squad put him by himself he is a guy who can fight with Hands and shoot a gun.

A mage with a WP and HtoH can do the same but now also have access to magic that can give him an instant win in some cases escape take on multiple foes better the odds for himself.

if we are talking combat trained strip both the CS grunt and Mage of your choice naked no weapons who has the advantage? HtoH expert vs an assortment of spells plus HtoH basic in most cases.

So combat trained is the same as being capable of combat level 1 Grunt hasn't seen actual combat or he would not be level one he can trained and is combat capable just like any mage can be combat capable but with the added benefit to turn the tides of a fight with mystical powers.

only thing is as the mage increases in level the power level of the mage far surpasses any single soldier. As for range any mage with WPs can shoot a laser just as far as a soldier and mages are not ignorant to the limitations of magic and their PPE levels and will prepare themselves to fight in situations like that.

You comparing real world militias to professional armies yes the professional army wins but that is because they are fighting with the same weapons mages fight with magic not even comparable.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

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?

For game purposes, I'll willing to assume that the 2 days per spell level of practice required in order to achieve competency with a spell includes some consideration of the application of the spell. I am also willing to assume that a professional spell caster routinely drills on the use of their spells the same way a gunslinger drills on the use of their guns.

In real life, I do not assume that gun ownership implies any knowledge of fighting theory. But this is a game, a dangerous game, so I'm willing to give the characters the benefit of the doubt as long as they've put enough time in to develop proficiency.

--flatline

Blue_Lion wrote:

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.

Nope. I'm not going to decipher that response.
I have no idea what "this" is referring to, I don't know which point of mine that you're talking about. And that's just the first sentence.

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.

No idea where you're going with that one, but I think that would be a rather hard claim to prove.

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.

The statement is only true or untrue contextually.
Which is why the original context matters; if you change or remove the context, then you can render a true statement into a false one.

(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.

The bolded is a straw man.
I never made that claim.
Have fun beating on your own made-up argument.

What you bolded and called a straw man is what your point boils down to in this.
I simply said it in my own words instead of a quote I did leave out the part about combat that is my bad but that is what you claim boils down to.

Not being trained for combat (as a rule) was a statement you made to prove them not having voice control in combat.
You then set a standard to be combat trained to have voice control in combat in this thread.

That is circular logic defense - you are using evidence to prove a point true, but then claiming the evidence is only untrue if the point is proven untrue, but then the evidence is prof that the point is true, the point is true because the evidence is true, the evidence is only untrue if the point is untrue, the point is true because of the evidence, the evidence is only untrue if the point is untrue, the point is true because of the evidence.(That is a circular logic defense, a statement made to prove a point can not have the point it proves as the standard of its accuracy without forming circular logic. So in context you want the level of training to grant voice control as the standard is circular logic.)

I do not logically need to disprove your point to disprove your evidence you used to prove it. We where debating weather or not they had voice control you presented the reason they do not have voice control is they are not as a rule trained for combat. So in this thread people are looking at weather or not a mage is trained for combat. In the context of this thread voice control is irrevant, and demanding that to be the standard is saying I am right because I am right.

Blue_Lion wrote:What you bolded and called a straw man is what your point boils down to in this.

Nope.
It's a straw man.
I've never claimed that mages have no voice control in the first place, much less that it's because they don't have combat training.

Care to try again?

So you are saying that when we where debating if mages had voice control in combat you did not use them as not being combat trained as a justification?

I could have sworn the all context was a debate about mages having voice control in combat. During which we said.
I said-provoice control in combat
"A mage is as much a specialist at casting as SF is at combat and with +4 to horror factor not easily thrown off their game."

Killercyborg said-anti voice control in combat
"Not so much.
Mages as a rule are not trained for combat."

So in the context I was saying mages would have voice control because they are casting experts and hard to scare.
Your counter would then mean to me that you are saying they do not have voice control because they generally are not trained for combat.

Prysus wrote:

Blue_Lion wrote:So you are saying that when we where debating if mages had voice control in combat you did not use them as not being combat trained as a justification?

Greetings and Salutations. You're claiming he said they have "no" voice control. What he actually is claiming is that they do not have 100% infallible voice control, and that combat (due to their lack of training in situations such as a M.D. firefight) is one such situation where they may loose a degree of control (such as even a normal speaking volume instead of just a whisper). There's a difference. If you don't understand the difference, ask more questions.

Think of real life, standing next to a loud machine for a while and then go to talk to someone. The person tells you to stop shouting, but you didn't realize you were. A common trait of many people is to raise their voice (typically unknowingly) when they're stressed or scared. That's what he's discussing. There's not a game mechanic for this, but more or less everyone else is arguing how impossible this is and a mage can never, ever lose control.

Everything else is merely trying to pick apart specific words instead of actually addressing the points behind the words. Farewell and safe journeys to all.

If I am debating they would have voice control and he is debating against them having voice control it kind of does mean he is debating that it would cause them to have not voice control. The 100% is more about picking apart words than the general context that he was against them having voice control in the debate. It was not about how much control they would have but weather or not hey would have it.


This does show the point that a degree of training to have voice control is not needed to disprove if mages generally have combat training. If we are discussing if they have combat training in general then any thing that is generally combat training is combat training.
If we are discussing if the combat training gives them voice control that is something different. This thread was suppose to be about does a mage have combat training not the level of combat training.

There may be allot of numbers between 0-100 but the voice control is being used here instead of saying they will or will not talk louder.

He was presenting it as they will talk louder because they are in combat.-no voice control
I was saying they would not talk louder because they are disciplined.-voice control.

So as this was about weather or not something would happen it is a binary 0 or 1, yes or no.

So while there are many numbers between 1 and zero if the debate is about weather or not some one has something it is a one or the other.

This thread was not about the context though but the statement mages generally are not trained for combat.

The goal post should be to determine if they generally have combat training not if they have a certain type or level of combat training.
1 is a fixed goal the other has to many variables that are subjective.
If you want to prove or disprove a statement you should use the least subjective standard. In a game that wold be RAW.

The statement is fairly straight forward claim, that mages are not generally trained for combat. Claiming that trained for combat is not based on the book saying they have combat training but meeting a goal post from another augment.

Taking at a glance the two quotes can easily be mistaken for talking about something else, the only reason we know it was about a mage controlling his voice is because that was what was being debated.(honestly our views beyound the voice control on the matter where never that far apart

I originally pointed out that in combat people get tunnel vision and may not see something that should be obvious. That was to show that in combat you can not take noticing anything for granted as being just seen. I was always about it being subjective if something is noticed Some people might notice things that others miss, if I do recall right I told a story from when I was in PLDC where my squad was flanked and even with me yelling it out no one else noticed that we where flanked. So out of 16 people 1 person noticed the guys standing up(the flankers where actually out in the open) and shooting from the side, and no one heard the yelling. It then digressed into an debate about mages level of discipline and if they would loose it just because they are in combat. (I see spell casting for mages as muscle memory they do it the same all the time unless something stops them.)

Blue_Lion wrote:There may be allot of numbers between 0-100 but the voice control is being used here instead of saying they will or will not talk louder.

Sounds like you're saying that the accuracy of your statement is dependent on context, and by what you personally meant by "voice control" instead of by somebody else's official definition.




(Other than that, pretty much what Prysus said.)

(Oh, and that magician who has to take 1-2 attacks to recover between "performing any physical action" and casting a spell, shouldn't be described as "not easily thrown off their game." )

So how about we get back to the issue...
...what "amount' of "combat training" would be needed to make someone STOP being suicidal in a battle?
i.e. when are you experienced enough to not suddenly develop 'shoot me please' syndrome and start shouting your spells instead of just speaking the words like normal?

Or conversely what part of combat would make a person be so terrified that they would shout their words and thus be an easy mark?

There is nothing about "MD Combat" that is inherently so terrifying or nerve wracking that it causes a Horror Factor check...
There is nothing about "MD Combat" that is so terrifying or scary that people need to make any sort of skill check, or save or anything to suffer any sort of penalty to any other skill or combat ability...
...so why then would mages, many of whom have years of training which is designed to allow them to perform their abilities by rote suddenly be rattled by the "mega damage battlefield" to the point that they loose all their nerve and start shouting their spells?

eliakon wrote:So how about we get back to the issue...
...what "amount' of "combat training" would be needed to make someone STOP being suicidal in a battle?

Can you explain why you equate "sometimes speaks loudly or shouts in a battle" with "being suicidal?"

when are you experienced enough to not suddenly develop 'shoot me please' syndrome and start shouting your spells instead of just speaking the words like normal?

You don't speak spells "like normal" in the first place; you say the magic words forcefully, while drawing mystic symbols in the air.

When would you be louder than normal? How loud is that? Can it be heard over the battlefield?
All that depends on the character and the circumstances.

Or conversely what part of combat would make a person be so terrified that they would shout their words and thus be an easy mark?

"What part of combat might make a person shout?" is a question so basic and vague that it's almost philosophical.

I've never been in real combat, not the kind with people shooting at each other, so I can't say.
In paintball, people tend to get excited from adrenaline and so forth, and can get pretty loud sometimes.

There is nothing about "MD Combat" that is inherently so terrifying or nerve wracking that it causes a Horror Factor check...

There is nothing about "MD Combat" that is so terrifying or scary that people need to make any sort of skill check, or save or anything to suffer any sort of penalty to any other skill or combat ability...
...so why then would mages, many of whom have years of training which is designed to allow them to perform their abilities by rote suddenly be rattled by the "mega damage battlefield" to the point that they [lose] all their nerve and start shouting their spells?

You don't have to lose all nerve in order to shout. Sometimes, in combat, people shout to rally their nerves. Sometimes they do it to be heard.

As for mages' training, I'd like to see the passage that states they can cast all their spells by rote.
Then we can get to discussing why, with all their nerves of steel, all their universally superb training, and so forth, they have to stop for an attack or two to catch their breath after performing any physical action during combat, before they can focus enough to cast a spell.
And why their spells are so easily disrupted.
And why armor weighs them down more than it seems to do with Men At Arms.
And why KS describes mages as not being good at combat, when they're such well-trained war-machines who never lose their cool.

And hey, we can watch a series of clips of some movie wizards casting spells, and we can look to see if perhaps the volume or pitch of their voice ever changes depending on the circumstances that they find themselves in.

Here's a compilation from the Harry Potter movies:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHPqO0UnaW8

Anybody else got examples of wizards saying magic words (preferably in combat)?

I think that there is a fundamental disconnect with how magic works. Mages don't "speak at a normal volume" to cast spells in Rifts (or Palladium Fantasy or any other Megaversal game) as can be taken from any of the stories or even the description of what it takes to be a mage in the BoM.

A mage believes in their power. They don't, according to the BoM, use guns even if the gun damage is better because they have magic! Magic is their strength! They command it!

Lesser, more pitiable, creatures learn to fight with their fists like savages. Some petulant ignorants put their faith in machines. Mages know that magic is the only true power!

This overconfidence is often their downfall, yes, but it is part of the flavor. It is also, likely, why Kevin S. says they're poor in combat. Mages, as stated in the BoM, will go for their magic over superior options in battle because they have that much faith in it.

HWalsh wrote:I think that there is a fundamental disconnect with how magic works. Mages don't "speak at a normal volume" to cast spells in Rifts (or Palladium Fantasy or any other Megaversal game) as can be taken from any of the stories or even the description of what it takes to be a mage in the BoM.

A mage believes in their power. They don't, according to the BoM, use guns even if the gun damage is better because they have magic! Magic is their strength! They command it!

Lesser, more pitiable, creatures learn to fight with their fists like savages. Some petulant ignorants put their faith in machines. Mages know that magic is the only true power!

This overconfidence is often their downfall, yes, but it is part of the flavor. It is also, likely, why Kevin S. says they're poor in combat. Mages, as stated in the BoM, will go for their magic over superior options in battle because they have that much faith in it.

Pretty much.

I have issues with that essay, especially the part that says that Mages will choose magic over more effective means, 'cause MAGIC... but overall I agree that the portrayal of the typical mage in Rifts certainly is NOT somebody who pretends to be something else, and/or who is not usually all shy and quiet or covert when casting spells.
And yes, they have faith in their abilities.

Does this make them suicidal?
No. Not unless somebody also plays them as suicidal.
You can have confidence in your spellcasting without standing in the open; you can hide behind cover.
You can have confidence in your spellcasting without being stupid with what you cast.

The original conversation was about identifying mages, and some people seem to feel that mages being at all identified means instant death for the mage... that it's suicidal for mages to ever let anybody know what they are.
But that's not how mages are depicted in the books, and it's not something that fits with my gaming experience.

I've had mages that hide who they are. My main Rifts character is a Shifter named "Killer Cyborg from Heck," who disguises himself as a borg, for crying out loud.
But he's not the normal mage of the setting, and I've played plenty of other mages who wear the traditional armor/clothing, who let the world know who they are, and who do NOT die immediately as a consequence.
I even have a HU Stage Magician who passes himself off as a Line Walker, a non-mage passing himself off as a mage. And he hasn't gotten himself killed yet either.

There are enemies who will prioritize spell-casters, but there are lots of OCCs/Races/Etc. that are priority targets.
All you as a player have to do is to be aware of this fact, and to compensate.
Some mages might do that by hiding who/what they are.
Other mages might use their first attack to turn invisible or otherwise hide themselves from sight entirely.
Other mages might use their first attack to cast protective magic that negate incoming enemy attacks. With the right protective spell, in the right situation, a smart mage should WANT to be a target, to draw enemy fire away from other party members.
Other mages might seek cover, making anybody trying to shoot them use 2-3 attacks on a Called Shot (or on trying to blow through the cover).

Magic can do a LOT of stuff. Mages are capable.
They can survive without constantly being afraid that they'll get killed if it's know that they're a spell caster.
I really don't understand why some people think that the world of Rifts Earth typically works the opposite way.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

eliakon wrote:So how about we get back to the issue...
...what "amount' of "combat training" would be needed to make someone STOP being suicidal in a battle?

Can you explain why you equate "sometimes speaks loudly or shouts in a battle" with "being suicidal?"

Because the original context of this was that mages had to shout their spells like some anime so that they were easily targeted in combat...
...i.e. suicidal.
Basically the original statement as that metagamers were justified in just 'knowing' when mages started casting in battles because well mages shout their spells because they are not combat trained and thus they loose their cool and stuff.
Which was why the entire thread here demonstraited that the vast majority of mages ARE combat trained, not just combat trained but they have Combat Training at PROFESSIONAL grade quality. Which then resulted in the goal posts being shifted to it being contextual...
...and I am calling bunk on that
It seems to me that the core issue is that certain people want a specific game world (specifically the D&D/Anime world where mages do song and dance and call their attacks) which is fine... you can have that at your table... but I disagree that that is what the OFFICIAL world view is.
I don't think that the official world has mages drawing giant magic circles in the air while shouting "FIREBALL!". I think they snap their wrist in a throwing motion and speak Lictum Yin Pera Mota with the same force and inflection as "My name is Inigo Montoya".... Calm, quiet... and with a force that could shatter steel.
BOTH are "speaking magic words" and both have "gestures"
Both are valid...
But I would be SHOCKED to find canon support for the first

Killer Cyborg wrote:

when are you experienced enough to not suddenly develop 'shoot me please' syndrome and start shouting your spells instead of just speaking the words like normal?

You don't speak spells "like normal" in the first place; you say the magic words forcefully, while drawing mystic symbols in the air.

'speaking forcefully' isn't 'shouting' and 'gestures' isn't 'drawing mystic symbols in the air'
I know that some people want this to be some song and dance anime but that's a house rule.
Snapping your wrist as you 'throw' a spell is a gesture...
Folding your hand in a specific mudra as you cast a spell is a gesture as well...
So his pointing with two fingers at a target that you want to affected by an illusion...
None of which involve "drawing mystic symbols in the air"
Now if you can find a text support for this "drawing mystic symbols in the air" book and page please... otherwise that's just your table.

Killer Cyborg wrote:When would you be louder than normal? How loud is that? Can it be heard over the battlefield?
All that depends on the character and the circumstances.

exactly..
...which takes us back to the fact that it is a fallacy to claim that mages 'lack of combat training' makes them shout and thus makes it obvious that they are casting and thus lets people target them.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Or conversely what part of combat would make a person be so terrified that they would shout their words and thus be an easy mark?

"What part of combat might make a person shout?" is a question so basic and vague that it's almost philosophical.

not if someone is trying to pin an active game mechanic on mages its not.
If we are trying to argue that there is a specific effect at work that makes it so that mages are so loud that people automatically notice their spell casting and thus can prioritize them then it is not some abstract philosophical question, it is a hard and fast 'gee why does Timmy do that, but not George'

Killer Cyborg wrote:I've never been in real combat, not the kind with people shooting at each other, so I can't say.
In paintball, people tend to get excited from adrenaline and so forth, and can get pretty loud sometimes.

So we are back to the "well some people might get excited... so logically we should assume that all mages will make a rookie mistake that is SO HUGE that it logically will get most mages killed in the first battle they are in. But they will never learn from this and keep on doing this...
...Just so that the metagamers can have an in game justification for why they know when people are casting and can play 'gank the mage'

There is nothing about "MD Combat" that is inherently so terrifying or nerve wracking that it causes a Horror Factor check...

There is nothing about "MD Combat" that is so terrifying or scary that people need to make any sort of skill check, or save or anything to suffer any sort of penalty to any other skill or combat ability...
...so why then would mages, many of whom have years of training which is designed to allow them to perform their abilities by rote suddenly be rattled by the "mega damage battlefield" to the point that they [lose] all their nerve and start shouting their spells?

You don't have to lose all nerve in order to shout. Sometimes, in combat, people shout to rally their nerves. Sometimes they do it to be heard.[/quote]
None of which answers the question of "why it is valid to claim that mages routinely do this"
The claim was not that "some mages might say spells louder to rally their nerves"
The claim was that mages, because they are not trained in combat loose their nerve and thus shout their spells. And thus they are legitimately a target for anyone as soon as they start casting.
Yes, in combat sometimes people do shout.
But that is not the same as "in combat ALL people must ALWAYS shout EVERYTHING at ALL TIMES"
Because that is what is being applied here. Because if mages are being penalized by being easily targeted then we are, in effect being told that all mages will, all ways, shout their spells, in every fight...
That is something that maybe a green rookie with no training will do sure...
...but not someone who has any form of combat training or actual combat experience.

Killer Cyborg wrote:As for mages' training, I'd like to see the passage that states they can cast all their spells by rote.

If you have memorized your spells to the point that you can cast them from memory that is pretty much 'cast by rote'
I mean if you know 'fireball' you can cast the fireball spell... but that is all.
You can't cast fire spear, or flame cloud, or ice ball...
sounds like the definition of "caste by rote" to me

Killer Cyborg wrote:Then we can get to discussing why, with all their nerves of steel, all their universally superb training, and so forth, they have to stop for an attack or two to catch their breath after performing any physical action during combat, before they can focus enough to cast a spell.

Lovely tangent there.
And nice red herring I believe?
Care to explain exactly how much the 'take an action' rule applies to your proposed 'you must shout in combat' rule?

Killer Cyborg wrote:And why their spells are so easily disrupted.

As much as the irrelevant tangents matter...
How much concentration it takes to focus your magic and how loud you have to cast seem to have SOO much in common..

Killer Cyborg wrote:And why armor weighs them down more than it seems to do with Men At Arms.

...umm because it doesn't?

Killer Cyborg wrote:And why KS describes mages as not being good at combat, when they're such well-trained war-machines who never lose their cool.

Where does he say this?
And I don't say they are "well trained ware machines" it is a pretty petty thing to deliberately put false words in my mouth to try and score points.
You know as well as I do that is NOT what anyone here is claiming.
What we ARE claiming is that the OCCs we have in the books are, in general, moderately well trained and have some fair to middling combat training.
I mean after all... the majority of them all start with PROFESSIONAL GRADE COMBAT TRAINING.
I don't write the books... but hey that's what the books say not me.
The books set the criteria that Hand to Hand skills and Weapon Proficiencies provide combat training
The books set the criteria that if you have a skill via OCC or OCCr that the skill is of professional quality

Its just like how the books set the fluff that mages hate tech... but give mages weapons, and armor and vehicles.

Killer Cyborg wrote:And hey, we can watch a series of clips of some movie wizards casting spells, and we can look to see if perhaps the volume or pitch of their voice ever changes depending on the circumstances that they find themselves in.

Here's a compilation from the Harry Potter movies:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHPqO0UnaW8

Anybody else got examples of wizards saying magic words (preferably in combat)?

Nice... to bad this Rifts not Harry Potter
So... utterly, totally, irrelevant in all ways.
I know a lot of people want rifts mages to be anime mages calling out their attacks with songs and dance...
but no matter how many clips of that we show it doesn't matter.
So unless you have a film of RIFTS mages casting then all you have is a lovely (I'm not sure is it a red herring or a straw man?)
Try to focus on the actual game and not other peoples universes where untrained kids do things differently (gee amazing what happens when you have professional grade combat training eh?)

Well KC, I think there is nothing wrong with a Mage taking cover, I do get a bit twitchy with them disguising themselves as non-mages.

Here is why I say, "A bit twitchy."

To quote BoM for those who may not have it:

Sure they can use technology, and they will, but they know magic is superior (or at least they think so), so they will have a strong tendency to use it over feeble technology (see below).

So, as a mage, you are aware that your magic is better than armor. They might wear armor (Ley Line Walkers certainly do) but it won't be anything that interferes with magic because that weakens them.

When a player says, "No! I know the math says otherwise! My character isn't deluded like that!"

That is a cool idea, but we know that a mage only is able to use magic because of their belief in the power of magic and their belief in their ability to master that power. When a character starts doing things "because I realize that magic isn't mechanically/technically as good" that is when I, as the GM, have to start questioning the character's belief and conviction in their magic. I have stripped a character of their magic for such becoming too common place in games before.

So it depends why a Mage covers their identity. Are they doing it because they fear their magic can't protect them? Are they doing it because they like to see their enemies shocked when the ruse is revealed? Character motivation in such situations is fairly key.

I get covering your identity when traveling through CS territory because you want to avoid getting shot on sight by a random CS patrol. When a character starts doing it all the time for reasons that basically amount to, "I know I'm squishy so I am disguising myself as something less squishy." That is when problems arise.

HWalsh wrote:Well KC, I think there is nothing wrong with a Mage taking cover, I do get a bit twitchy with them disguising themselves as non-mages.

Here is why I say, "A bit twitchy."

To quote BoM for those who may not have it:

Book of Magic pg. 10]Sure they can use technology, and they will, but they know magic is superior (or at least they think so), so they will have a strong tendency to use it over feeble technology (see below).

So, as a mage, you are aware that your magic is better than armor. They might wear armor (Ley Line Walkers certainly do) but it won't be anything that interferes with magic because that weakens them.

When a player says, "No! I know the math says otherwise! My character isn't deluded like that!"

That is a cool idea, but we know that a mage only is able to use magic because of their belief in the power of magic and their belief in their ability to master that power. When a character starts doing things "because I realize that magic isn't mechanically/technically as good" that is when I, as the GM, have to start questioning the character's belief and conviction in their magic. I have stripped a character of their magic for such becoming too common place in games before.

So it depends why a Mage covers their identity. Are they doing it because they fear their magic can't protect them? Are they doing it because they like to see their enemies shocked when the ruse is revealed? Character motivation in such situations is fairly key.

I get covering your identity when traveling through CS territory because you want to avoid getting shot on sight by a random CS patrol. When a character starts doing it all the time for reasons that basically amount to, "I know I'm squishy so I am disguising myself as something less squishy." That is when problems arise.

It's up to the mage why they do what they do.
The important thing is that most mages don't hide who they are as a default.
Let's agree on that, rather than going over the pros and cons of that particular essay specifically.

HWalsh wrote:Well KC, I think there is nothing wrong with a Mage taking cover, I do get a bit twitchy with them disguising themselves as non-mages.

Here is why I say, "A bit twitchy."

To quote BoM for those who may not have it:

Sure they can use technology, and they will, but they know magic is superior (or at least they think so), so they will have a strong tendency to use it over feeble technology (see below).

So, as a mage, you are aware that your magic is better than armor. They might wear armor (Ley Line Walkers certainly do) but it won't be anything that interferes with magic because that weakens them.

When a player says, "No! I know the math says otherwise! My character isn't deluded like that!"

That is a cool idea, but we know that a mage only is able to use magic because of their belief in the power of magic and their belief in their ability to master that power. When a character starts doing things "because I realize that magic isn't mechanically/technically as good" that is when I, as the GM, have to start questioning the character's belief and conviction in their magic. I have stripped a character of their magic for such becoming too common place in games before.

So it depends why a Mage covers their identity. Are they doing it because they fear their magic can't protect them? Are they doing it because they like to see their enemies shocked when the ruse is revealed? Character motivation in such situations is fairly key.

I get covering your identity when traveling through CS territory because you want to avoid getting shot on sight by a random CS patrol. When a character starts doing it all the time for reasons that basically amount to, "I know I'm squishy so I am disguising myself as something less squishy." That is when problems arise.

Since when does recognizing the limitations on their magic even remotely equate to a lack of belief and acceptance of magic? That's ridiculous. There's no reason they'd actually doubt that magic's real particularly to the level that they stopped being mages. They've been casting magic, they know it's real and it works, they aren't going to lose that 100% acceptance in magic just because they also realize that other things are a good thing to make use of instead of magic. The game does not actually require mages to have to use magic for everything all the time.

One thing mages are not is stupid at level one they have limited PPE amounts, haven't acquired PPE batteries, as well as have limited spell knowledge. It takes time for their PPE to return so during a combat in the wilderness while travelling they should be careful how much magic they use and what spells. Standard equipment for mages in general state light MDC body armour and modern weapon of some kind. So if I am against a foe without optics some bandits and i feel the need to rid the world of them before they hurt more travellers. Say i cast invisibility simple.. Now I have an edge why would I completely deplete my PPE reserves at this point? i could cast fire ball countless times and leave myself more vulnerable in a future attack or If something in the battle changes like reinforcements. Or like someone who manages resources use my advantage to pick my shots and kill the bandits quickly and efficiently with my energy weapon. maybe using a couple useful defensive spells that will reduce the damage I take to my Armour like armour of Ithan. Not to mention this modern weapon could also be a TW weapon. I think this post has moved away from the fact of whether or not mages are combat trained to whether or not we think mages are stupid when it comes to combat and survival. Maybe we should have started the discussion with a poll to see in general what the community thinks then discussing each others points rather that arguing things like whether or not a mage will have control over his/her voice in combat which in game terms is completely useless to this topic. If in the book of magic in a short Q and A there is one thing that says mages are poor in combat and shooting yet there are countless books and majority of OCCs that have HtoH and WPs and mages specifically created for combat purposes shows the people against this are looking for what shows their ideology and are completely ignorant to the landslide of evidence that states otherwise.

RubberBoot wrote:So if I am against a foe without optics some bandits and i feel the need to rid the world of them before they hurt more travellers. Say i cast invisibility simple.. Now I have an edge why would I completely deplete my PPE reserves at this point

Actually that is largely what BoM says a mage would do.

It is literally a line like, "Why would a mage deplete their PPE by casting a couple fire bolts instead of using their pistol, which only uses ammo, and has better damage and range?"

The answer is, "Because magic."

HWalsh wrote:

RubberBoot wrote:So if I am against a foe without optics some bandits and i feel the need to rid the world of them before they hurt more travellers. Say i cast invisibility simple.. Now I have an edge why would I completely deplete my PPE reserves at this point

Actually that is largely what BoM says a mage would do.

It is literally a line like, "Why would a mage deplete their PPE by casting a couple fire bolts instead of using their pistol, which only uses ammo, and has better damage and range?"

The answer is, "Because magic."

To me, that's like taking your Porsche mudding, when you might have a trip on the autobahn in the near future.

Killer Cyborg wrote:To me, that's like taking your Porsche mudding, when you might have a trip on the autobahn in the near future.

Stop by a car wash on the way. If you've got a Porsche and you are going to the autobahn, you can afford the $5 fee.

HWalsh wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:To me, that's like taking your Porsche mudding, when you might have a trip on the autobahn in the near future.

Stop by a car wash on the way. If you've got a Porsche and you are going to the autobahn, you can afford the $5 fee.

I'm guessing you've never gone mudding.

A couple of points on the tangents on spell magic and magic uses use of tech:

With regard to the volume necessary to cast spells in PB games there is an interesting point from PFRPG main book pg 104 on wizards use of spell magic:

It is the properly spoken repetition of words or series of words that invokes and ignites the spell into being. These incantations are carefully guarded and rarely shared, even with a fellow wizard. Thus, wizards usually disguise the words of the incantation amidst a string of meaningless gibberish, often mumbling the true key words. Furthermore, spell incantations are often whispered so quietly that they are barely audible. Only the meaningless parts are ever spoken clearly or shouted aloud, and then only for dramatic effect; showmanship can be as much a part of wizardry as anything else. After all, a snarling, bellowing wizard, seemingly molding forces around him out of sheer force of will, is more imposing than a soft spoken, calm and ordinary person. Another trick is to recite the spell by combining several different languages; the spell can be invoked in any tongue. Consequently, the same spell may be spoken differently by every wizard using it. In fact, the same spell can sound different every time the same wizard recites it!

Where as RUE only says on pg 186 that incantation spells need spoken words and gestures to cast, with no indication on volume of any sort being required.

Also BoM pg 18 tells us spell casters do see regular tech as good:

It is important to point out that unlike the CS who completely rejects magic in all its forms, few practitioners of magic dismiss technology out of hand. While it is true most rely heavily on their magic powers and natural abilities, many human and D-Bee sorcerers also use technology. Energy weapons, Vibro-Blades, portable computers, recorders, cameras, robot medical systems, language translators, radio communicators, optic systems (binoculars, etc.), partial M.D.C. body armor, light vehicles, air filters, and goggles are all commonly part of the magic characters' gear and equipment.

Though back on pgs 10- 11 we have Hugh King's opinions on roleplaying mages and that magic users see magic as superior:

Sure, mages can and will use technology, they are smart guys (and gals), but generally speaking, they strongly prefer to rely on magic whenever possible.

Which I take to mean out side of game mechanics and maximizing results on a meta level, players should ROLE PLAY their mages that way and be rewarded for in EXP, but not lose their ability to cast magic because the player decided for favor their laser rifle in combat.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:To me, that's like taking your Porsche mudding, when you might have a trip on the autobahn in the near future.

Stop by a car wash on the way. If you've got a Porsche and you are going to the autobahn, you can afford the $5 fee.

I'm guessing you've never gone mudding.

Hehe, I'd love to see how long a 911 can last out a muddy field with it's low suspension.

J_cobbers wrote:A couple of points on the tangents on spell magic and magic uses use of tech:

With regard to the volume necessary to cast spells in PB games there is an interesting point from PFRPG main book pg 104 on wizards use of spell magic:

It is the properly spoken repetition of words or series of words that invokes and ignites the spell into being. These incantations are carefully guarded and rarely shared, even with a fellow wizard. Thus, wizards usually disguise the words of the incantation amidst a string of meaningless gibberish, often mumbling the true key words. Furthermore, spell incantations are often whispered so quietly that they are barely audible. Only the meaningless parts are ever spoken clearly or shouted aloud, and then only for dramatic effect; showmanship can be as much a part of wizardry as anything else. After all, a snarling, bellowing wizard, seemingly molding forces around him out of sheer force of will, is more imposing than a soft spoken, calm and ordinary person. Another trick is to recite the spell by combining several different languages; the spell can be invoked in any tongue. Consequently, the same spell may be spoken differently by every wizard using it. In fact, the same spell can sound different every time the same wizard recites it!

Where as RUE only says on pg 186 that incantation spells need spoken words and gestures to cast, with no indication on volume of any sort being required.

Also BoM pg 18 tells us spell casters do see regular tech as good:

It is important to point out that unlike the CS who completely rejects magic in all its forms, few practitioners of magic dismiss technology out of hand. While it is true most rely heavily on their magic powers and natural abilities, many human and D-Bee sorcerers also use technology. Energy weapons, Vibro-Blades, portable computers, recorders, cameras, robot medical systems, language translators, radio communicators, optic systems (binoculars, etc.), partial M.D.C. body armor, light vehicles, air filters, and goggles are all commonly part of the magic characters' gear and equipment.

Though back on pgs 10- 11 we have Hugh King's opinions on roleplaying mages and that magic users see magic as superior:

Sure, mages can and will use technology, they are smart guys (and gals), but generally speaking, they strongly prefer to rely on magic whenever possible.

Which I take to mean out side of game mechanics and maximizing results on a meta level, players should ROLE PLAY their mages that way and be rewarded for in EXP, but not lose their ability to cast magic because the player decided for favor their laser rifle in combat.

That's some good researchin'!

J_cobbers wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:To me, that's like taking your Porsche mudding, when you might have a trip on the autobahn in the near future.

Stop by a car wash on the way. If you've got a Porsche and you are going to the autobahn, you can afford the $5 fee.

I'm guessing you've never gone mudding.

Hehe, I'd love to see how long a 911 can last out a muddy field with it's low suspension.

Exactly.
You take your porsche mudding, you're probably not going to have it for the autobahn.
You blow your PPE on direct damage spells, you're likely to be screwed when it comes time to teleport, telekinese, or do other stuff that your gun won't help you with.
Magic is versatile above all else. To waste it on direct damage, when you have a perfectly good rifle?
That's both foolish and vulgar.

HWalsh wrote:

RubberBoot wrote:So if I am against a foe without optics some bandits and i feel the need to rid the world of them before they hurt more travellers. Say i cast invisibility simple.. Now I have an edge why would I completely deplete my PPE reserves at this point

Actually that is largely what BoM says a mage would do.

It is literally a line like, "Why would a mage deplete their PPE by casting a couple fire bolts instead of using their pistol, which only uses ammo, and has better damage and range?"

The answer is, "Because magic."

Except it doesn't actually say that as a rule mages are going to use magic without exception and they went too far even having a general 'here's how mages think' bit of fluff text anyway BECAUSE some would try and treat it as a rule to force onto players. So BoM doesn't actually say that said mage must use up all his PPE casting a few spells or that he must use magic as long as he has PPE available to cast it rather than alternatives.

The way I tend to see it is that Mages view magic as superior... because they can do ANYTHING they wish (just ask them)
Sure they could do a direct damage spell... if they feel like it. And they might if some one bothers them.
But they also are just as likely to decide that the bandit isn't worth the 'waste of magic' and shoot them with their gun (Which is like as not going to be a TW one but that's a whole different kettle of fish)
They don't CARE about 'damage dealing' because as my mages like to say "yeah, yeah so what any chump with two brain cells to rub together can use a gun so what? Its not like you can turn invisible. Or see the invisible. Or raise the dead. Or summon spirits. Or teleport between worlds. Or mend the broken. Or lift curses or turn undead or gee anything but just be a self propelled sand bag that shoots back huh?"

My mages use guns... they don't deign to use their magic for something so pedestrian as simple direct damage if they don't have to...
...they prefer to save their magic to rub in the faces of the non-mages when they do all the various things that magic can do that pretty much ONLY magic can do...
That is their sense of "the superiority of magic"

why use a gun or a firebolt spell, when you can just cast levitate and leave the badguy spinning around fifty feet in the air?
or cloud of slumber, and leave the entire group of badguys snoozing on the ground?

alternately, it is entirely possible that you believe in letting the other people around you use the guns.

i mean, there must be *some* reason you travel around with a bunch of heavily armed murderhobos who can't even create a globe of sunlight let alone hurl a meteor at your enemies, and it probably isn't that they're such good company

(but seriously, i would certainly agree that many mages would have a rather poor view of direct damage magic. whether they think it's superior to guns or not purely on the basis that it's magic, i find it rather doubtful that they would find a gun to be a superior solution to tying up a bunch of people with a magic net or blinding a group of enemies, and not only is blinding flash less expensive than most direct damage spells, it's probably much more effective in terms of winning a fight too).

clearly my main character was a "bad mage" oh wait she wasn't really a mage, she was a special forces character (originally) who also happened to be a major psionist, who picked up some magic abilities around the time she became a god, If I remember right (although its been years so I forget the exact sequence and timing) of course the GM who ran the game was heavily into crossovers, so she ended up a LOT of places, ones that come to mind, rifts earth (lots) robotech, went through the SDF crash landing up through the rain of death, multiple times (enough that if it was all the same time line and time stream she could have piloted at least a squadron all by herself) went through the entire "robotech" timeline several times. went to phase world a few times, nightspawn at least once I think, manhunter once, "classic Battlestar galactica" several times, the "battletech verse" a number of times, star wars enough that actually has an interdictor cruiser that she "stole" and a heavily custom star destroyer, and star trek enough that if she wanted to she could quite possibly reduce the borg from a major menace, to a nuisance.

although I never would claim that she was a "typical" character.

as far as mages in general I would tend to say that the statement that mages as a "rule" aren't combat trained is biased or misleading. I believe that they aren't combat trained in the sense that a "grunt" or other man at arms character is arguably built around the idea that combat is going to be a major part of their life. on the other hand most of the mage occ's have a moderate to fair amount of capacity to get along just fine in a combat situation but said mage is likely to consider combat to be a distraction, or complication that occurs as they are attempting to accomplish their goals, rather than something to be expected, and or the purpose behind them going wherever.

One of the reasons magic is generally superior to tech (from a mage's perspective) is that it is the swiss army knife of the all the things that people can do on Rifts Earth. Need direct damage and don't have a MD weapon? Use magic. Have a supernatural opponent who's immune to conventional weapons? Bet some magic would leave a mark. Need to hide from your enemies? abraca-Magic and you're invisible or gone. Need to have someone stick around awhile? Carpet of Adhesion is just magic for that problem. Gotta swim deep in the ocean and no scuba gear? Try some magic. Feeling injured or sick? Rub some Magictussin on that. Point being it's superiority is it's versatility, it's always useful or can provide a solution for just about any given problem. However, it is a finite resource and sometimes tech is better for a given circumstances, such as dealing damage in combat. Mages should realize this and act accordingly, though they may just keep a charged TW weapon handy for when combat does pop up, just like a tech character would keep their handy side arm loaded with them.

Killer Cyborg wrote:
That's some good researchin'!

Researching is a good chunk of what I do for a living, being as I'm a paralegal/legal clerk and trying to pass the bar exam.

Kevin just disliked the 5th level character nuke of other systems and wanted to scale back the caster. Unfortunately he went too far in defanging them. As it is there is little reason to play a caster unless you want a challenge or you are doing more role-play than pure combat and they aren't very good at interaction compared to most classes.

Nox Equites wrote:Kevin just disliked the 5th level character nuke of other systems and wanted to scale back the caster. Unfortunately he went too far in defanging them. As it is there is little reason to play a caster unless you want a challenge or you are doing more role-play than pure combat and they aren't very good at interaction compared to most classes.

you're kidding, right?

spellcasters are tremendously powerful in rifts. they're just powerful in a different way from a laser rifle.

now, a laser rifle is a powerful in its own way, don't get me wrong. but it's not the *only* kind of powerful. and i don't just mean "laser rifles are good for combat, and casters are good for other things" either. a good spellcaster can win you a fight, in addition to winning the economic battle handily (which is important, because that means you don't start the next fight at 90%, and then the one after that at 80%, and then the one after that at 60%, etc).

you just don't use them as a laser rifle, that's all. that's what laser rifles are for. a good mage, you use as a force multiplier. you cast armour of ithan so that you don't lose MDC from your conventional armour, which is your emergency ambush protection. you cast magic net so that you can take out half of an opposing force from the battle and fight the other half with a large advantage. you use invisibility so that you get to ambush the enemy. you use mind control spells to take out an enemy without requiring you to expend e-clips, and to get their e-clips and armour before they're expended and destroyed, respectively. and there are plenty of other tricks a good mage can do.

provided, of course, that particular mage is the kind of mage that *is* trained for combat (because again, i don't think anyone has argued that mages are *never* trained for combat, merely that it isn't typical for mages to be combat-trained any more than it is typical for bankers or salespeople or small business owners (but any individual banker or salesperson or small business owner could likewise potentially be combat trained, it just isn't common).

Shark_Force wrote:

Nox Equites wrote:Kevin just disliked the 5th level character nuke of other systems and wanted to scale back the caster. Unfortunately he went too far in defanging them. As it is there is little reason to play a caster unless you want a challenge or you are doing more role-play than pure combat and they aren't very good at interaction compared to most classes.

you're kidding, right?

spellcasters are tremendously powerful in rifts. they're just powerful in a different way from a laser rifle.

now, a laser rifle is a powerful in its own way, don't get me wrong. but it's not the *only* kind of powerful. and i don't just mean "laser rifles are good for combat, and casters are good for other things" either. a good spellcaster can win you a fight, in addition to winning the economic battle handily (which is important, because that means you don't start the next fight at 90%, and then the one after that at 80%, and then the one after that at 60%, etc).

you just don't use them as a laser rifle, that's all. that's what laser rifles are for. a good mage, you use as a force multiplier. you cast armour of ithan so that you don't lose MDC from your conventional armour, which is your emergency ambush protection. you cast magic net so that you can take out half of an opposing force from the battle and fight the other half with a large advantage. you use invisibility so that you get to ambush the enemy. you use mind control spells to take out an enemy without requiring you to expend e-clips, and to get their e-clips and armour before they're expended and destroyed, respectively. and there are plenty of other tricks a good mage can do.

provided, of course, that particular mage is the kind of mage that *is* trained for combat (because again, i don't think anyone has argued that mages are *never* trained for combat, merely that it isn't typical for mages to be combat-trained any more than it is typical for bankers or salespeople or small business owners (but any individual banker or salesperson or small business owner could likewise potentially be combat trained, it just isn't common).

Yup; all that.

Also, I'm still baffled by people thinking that mages are weak, because mages can use technology AND magic.
How is that a less powerful combo than using JUST technology by itself...?

I mean, I'm probably showing my age here, but I switched to Rifts from 2nd edition AD&D, where mages at low level could cast a spell or two, then they were stuck hiding in the back row in their robes, trying to use daggers and darts to defend themselves.
I got to Rifts, and it was like, "Mages can wear armor? Sweet! They can use guns?! Makes sense to me!"

Palladium tried to gimp mages a little with the Mage Armor Rule, but no incarnation of it has been a serious impediment. There are still decent armors to choose from, and worst case scenario, you can wear heavy armor and have to plan slightly more before casting a spell.
(Actually, there are the mobility penalties too, for Heavy... which is a bigger inconvenience depending on interpretation.)

It is a specialist - generalist argument. Mages are generalists not specialists at combat.

Ed wrote:It is a specialist - generalist argument. Mages are generalists not specialists at combat.

For some (I would say even most) mages that is probably true...
...excepting of course all of the mages who are combat specialists of course.
Because 'mage' is a whole category of being.
And it includes every single military spell caster.
Combat Mage, Battle Magus, Temporal Warrior, Mystic Knight, Sky Knight... the list goes on and on of "mages who are combat specialists"
True, not all mages are combat specialists...
...just like not all 'men at arms' are special forces...
...but some of them ARE.

eliakon wrote:

Ed wrote:It is a specialist - generalist argument. Mages are generalists not specialists at combat.

For some (I would say even most) mages that is probably true...
...excepting of course all of the mages who are combat specialists of course.
Because 'mage' is a whole category of being.
And it includes every single military spell caster.
Combat Mage, Battle Magus, Temporal Warrior, Mystic Knight, Sky Knight... the list goes on and on of "mages who are combat specialists"
True, not all mages are combat specialists...
...just like not all 'men at arms' are special forces...
...but some of them ARE.

The End is Ni! Because yet again I find myself siding with Eliakon

Mages are weak because their specialness can be sensed, and the masses will turn against them out of fear. Being able to seduce the peasant is the exception, not the rule.

Think of how terrifying a spell like 'Compulsion' is. Merely level 6, can even be put on a Talisman. That could heavily disrupt society. I'm not sure I could trust the potential for such power to others.

Imagine for example, a mage wants to kill someone. They could cast compulsion on some vagabond and make them obsessed with being a fusion block kamikaze against their enemy.

Even if you could somehow stop that and save them, would there even be a way to tell which mage implanted the compulsion?

Savings throws make spells seem less scary, and maybe they are in head to head confrontations... but spells like Compulsion could be cast against someone unknowing over and over until they work... you'd need at least +10 vs magic to guarantee immunity to even a 1st level caster.

Axelmania wrote:Mages are weak because their specialness can be sensed, and the masses will turn against them out of fear. Being able to seduce the peasant is the exception, not the rule.

Think of how terrifying a spell like 'Compulsion' is. Merely level 6, can even be put on a Talisman. That could heavily disrupt society. I'm not sure I could trust the potential for such power to others.

Imagine for example, a mage wants to kill someone. They could cast compulsion on some vagabond and make them obsessed with being a fusion block kamikaze against their enemy.

Even if you could somehow stop that and save them, would there even be a way to tell which mage implanted the compulsion?

Savings throws make spells seem less scary, and maybe they are in head to head confrontations... but spells like Compulsion could be cast against someone unknowing over and over until they work... you'd need at least +10 vs magic to guarantee immunity to even a 1st level caster.

How is this post related to the topic?

--flatline

flatline wrote:

Axelmania wrote:Mages are weak because their specialness can be sensed, and the masses will turn against them out of fear. Being able to seduce the peasant is the exception, not the rule.

Think of how terrifying a spell like 'Compulsion' is. Merely level 6, can even be put on a Talisman. That could heavily disrupt society. I'm not sure I could trust the potential for such power to others.

Imagine for example, a mage wants to kill someone. They could cast compulsion on some vagabond and make them obsessed with being a fusion block kamikaze against their enemy.

Even if you could somehow stop that and save them, would there even be a way to tell which mage implanted the compulsion?

Savings throws make spells seem less scary, and maybe they are in head to head confrontations... but spells like Compulsion could be cast against someone unknowing over and over until they work... you'd need at least +10 vs magic to guarantee immunity to even a 1st level caster.

How is this post related to the topic?

--flatline

not sure. also don't really agree.

yes, compulsion is pretty scary. but any random person could pretty much grab a knife and start stabbing people. in many parts of the world, guns are relatively easy to access and most anyone you meet *could* just shoot you dead, and kill many of the people you care about. any person driving a car could ram and kill dozens of people before police stopped them, most likely (they'd have to choose the right area to try, but if you go to most any major city in the downtown area, you could inflict a lot of damage if for some reason you want to). heck, i'd be absolutely shocked if i couldn't go find out how to make some kind of explosive relatively cheaply. i've personally spoken to some people who grew up in the boonies and talk about how they used to make bombs for fun and take them out into the middle of nowhere to set them off just to see the explosion.

ultimately, it isn't about what you *can* do, it's about what people think you *will* do. any random person around you *could* kill you at almost any moment if they really wanted to. you could get beaten, crippled, tortured, or any number of other horrible things. but random people aren't scary until you think they're actually going to do those things.

flatline wrote:How is this post related to the topic?

I intended it as a reply to KC's post:

Killer Cyborg wrote:I'm still baffled by people thinking that mages are weak, because mages can use technology AND magic. How is that a less powerful combo than using JUST technology by itself...?

But I forgot to quote.

Shark_Force wrote:ultimately, it isn't about what you *can* do, it's about what people think you *will* do. any random person around you *could* kill you at almost any moment if they really wanted to. you could get beaten, crippled, tortured, or any number of other horrible things. but random people aren't scary until you think they're actually going to do those things.

The problem is that you can begin to trust people because they proved they are good, self-sacrificing, peaceful, moral, etc. and then relax and let your guard down a bit, and then Compulsion changes who they are and endangers people who do that.

Axelmania wrote:Mages are weak because their specialness can be sensed, and the masses will turn against them out of fear. Being able to seduce the peasant is the exception, not the rule.

That's something that is used against them in CS territory, certainly. But I don't think it's something that keeps very many people from playing mages, and it doesn't mage mages less effective in combat as a rule.

Think of how terrifying a spell like 'Compulsion' is. Merely level 6, can even be put on a Talisman. That could heavily disrupt society. I'm not sure I could trust the potential for such power to others.

Indeed, there are many terrifying spells.

Savings throws make spells seem less scary, and maybe they are in head to head confrontations... but spells like Compulsion could be cast against someone unknowing over and over until they work... you'd need at least +10 vs magic to guarantee immunity to even a 1st level caster.

That's something that I wish Palladium would have addressed sometime, whether or not a person who saves against a mental attack knows that they've been attacked or not.
I've seen it run either way, but I don't know of anything official.

eliakon wrote:

Ed wrote:It is a specialist - generalist argument. Mages are generalists not specialists at combat.

For some (I would say even most) mages that is probably true...
...excepting of course all of the mages who are combat specialists of course.
Because 'mage' is a whole category of being.
And it includes every single military spell caster.
Combat Mage, Battle Magus, Temporal Warrior, Mystic Knight, Sky Knight... the list goes on and on of "mages who are combat specialists"
True, not all mages are combat specialists...
...just like not all 'men at arms' are special forces...
...but some of them ARE.

Considering that in North America, less than 2% of all mages fit this description and the best of the rest have the equilivent of martial arts classes from the YMCA, as a rule mages are not trained for combat.

Ed wrote:

eliakon wrote:

Ed wrote:It is a specialist - generalist argument. Mages are generalists not specialists at combat.

For some (I would say even most) mages that is probably true...
...excepting of course all of the mages who are combat specialists of course.
Because 'mage' is a whole category of being.
And it includes every single military spell caster.
Combat Mage, Battle Magus, Temporal Warrior, Mystic Knight, Sky Knight... the list goes on and on of "mages who are combat specialists"
True, not all mages are combat specialists...
...just like not all 'men at arms' are special forces...
...but some of them ARE.

Considering that in North America, less than 2% of all mages fit this description and the best of the rest have the equilivent of martial arts classes from the YMCA, as a rule mages are not trained for combat.

Again this is just randomly picking a number out of thin air.
Or do you have a number to back up that 98% of all mages have all their combat skills as secondary skills only?
(And yes, they MUST be secondary skills only as we have already established that OCC and OCCr are 'professional quality' and no, I am sorry you can NOT claim that someone is BOTH 'professional quality' and 'the equivalent of martial arts classes from the YMCA')
If you DO have such evidence I am all ears
But considering that so far the listed OCC breakdown is HEAVILY against that I am skeptical in the extreme.