Forums of the Megaverse®

Killer Cyborg wrote:you can put in an adjective if you want. "a hut is a small kind of building" doesn't mean a hut is the definition of a building.

and here, for example, we have you inventing your own definition that isn't even *vaguely* backed by the rules in any way, and insisting that any other way of ruling is a house rule. nowhere is "combat training" defined by the number of melee actions you get. a level 1 character with hand to hand assassin has only 3 attacks. do we need to conclude that they're never combat trained because they don't have as many attacks as someone with hand to hand basic? a d-bee could have several extra attacks per round because they have extra arms. does that mean every single member of that species is combat trained, even ones that have no hand to hand combat skill at all? what about a high level character with no hand to hand skill (but 3 attacks per melee just from no hand to hand) and a bonus attack per melee from somewhere (for the sake of argument, they're a slave 'borg with a bionic modification that gives an extra attack per round). does that extra attack suddenly grant them combat training too?

you can't even stick to the definition you're insisting is how you determine combat training (presence or absence of a hand to hand combat skill). and you're still trying to pretend like context is utterly meaningless. if someone posts a job on a job search website looking for a mathematician, do you really think they would need to specify "we need you to be able to do more math than just counting"? if a high school dropout applies and doesn't get hired, do you think there's a court in the entire country that would uphold a charge of discrimination against the potential employer for not hiring that individual?

I didn't write the book so I didn't put the adjective in and, obviously, didn't invent anything. It's written in black and white.

I did not say combat training is defined by the number of melee actions. The number of melee actions you get are determined by your combat training. Also written in black and white.

There's nothing inconsistent to what I have said.

Context is not meaningless. I didn't claim that it was. In fact, I said the only context that matters is that of the game. Other contexts would fall in the realm of House Rules. All job posts I've seen do give expectations of the applicants' degree of training. I suppose there are those that don't but that just speaks to the fact that it's a poorly written post and nothing else.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Natasha wrote:I'm fine with nothing I say changing anything you say. It just means you're talking about House Rules.

Unless there are official rules somewhere for what level of volume mages speak at under various circumstances, then it's all house rules.

What an absurd thing for you to say. Some rules are written, as you know.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Natasha wrote:

Shark_Force wrote:

Natasha wrote:Hand to hand: basic is the definition. It is elementary. There are varying degrees of skill after that.

I'm fine with nothing I say changing anything you say. It just means you're talking about House Rules.

it really isn't a definition. it's stating that hand to hand basic is a kind of combat training. it's written the same way you might write, for example, "a house is a building". is "a house" the definition of "a building"? i would hope you're not convinced that it is, but at this point i'm starting to have doubts.

hand to hand is an elementary form of combat. counting is an elementary form of math. if someone is looking for a mathematician, do you suppose they're going to be happy with a 5 year old child? because i, for one, suspect they're going to be looking for someone who *at least* has taken university level math, and more probably someone who has graduated with a degree in math of some kind.

It's not written that way. It's written that hth: basic is an elementary form. So you would have to say "a house is an elementary form of a building".

"Hand to Hand Basic" is not a statement expressing the essential nature of "combat training."
Repeating the claim that it IS does not change the facts.

It also still ends up with a situation where a person who has combat training with rifles, but who does not have combat training with hand to hand combat, is "not combat trained."
Which might make sense to you, but probably not to anybody else.

It is not a House Rule to apply Horror Factor to any situation or environment the Game Master determines appropriate. It's following the rule exactly as written in the rule book.

GMs can apply HF to what they please according to the rules.
But I don't know of any rules that allow GMs to change the result of a failed roll.

According to the words in the book, hth: basic does precisely that. Sure, it doesn't make any sense. You've probably noticed this is the case in other aspects of the game.

I've already covered the oddity of the rules that hand to hand combat is the basis of modern combat. Stil, the modern weapon proficiency is not combat training; it's "practical experience". All that this means is you're proficient in its use.

Of course I didn't make any claims on changing the results of a HF roll.

Natasha wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:you can put in an adjective if you want. "a hut is a small kind of building" doesn't mean a hut is the definition of a building.

That wasn't me that said that.

The number of melee actions you get are determined by your combat training. Also written in black and white.

Okay.
Weapon Proficiencies provide combat training.
How does the combat training provided by Weapon Proficiencies determine your number of attacks?

In fact, I said the only context that matters is that of the game. Other contexts would fall in the realm of House Rules.

1. So what if it does fall under house rules...?
2. No. I'm pretty sure that real-world definitions of terms are NOT house rules for Palladium.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Natasha wrote:I'm fine with nothing I say changing anything you say. It just means you're talking about House Rules.

Unless there are official rules somewhere for what level of volume mages speak at under various circumstances, then it's all house rules.

What an absurd thing for you to say. Some rules are written, as you know.

Some rules are written for what level of volume mages speak at under various circumstances?
Where...?

According to the words in the book, hth: basic does precisely that.

Does precisely what?
Provides a statement expressing the essential nature of "combat training?"

Which statement specifically are you talking about?

I've already covered the oddity of the rules that hand to hand combat is the basis of modern combat. Stil, the modern weapon proficiency is not combat training; it's "practical experience". All that this means is you're proficient in its use.

Again, RUE 326
Each WP provides combat training with a particular type of weapon.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Natasha wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:you can put in an adjective if you want. "a hut is a small kind of building" doesn't mean a hut is the definition of a building.

That wasn't me that said that.

The number of melee actions you get are determined by your combat training. Also written in black and white.

Okay.
Weapon Proficiencies provide combat training.
How does the combat training provided by Weapon Proficiencies determine your number of attacks?

In fact, I said the only context that matters is that of the game. Other contexts would fall in the realm of House Rules.

1. So what if it does fall under house rules...?
2. No. I'm pretty sure that real-world definitions of terms are NOT house rules for Palladium.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Natasha wrote:I'm fine with nothing I say changing anything you say. It just means you're talking about House Rules.

Unless there are official rules somewhere for what level of volume mages speak at under various circumstances, then it's all house rules.

What an absurd thing for you to say. Some rules are written, as you know.

Some rules are written for what level of volume mages speak at under various circumstances?
Where...?

According to the words in the book, hth: basic does precisely that.

Does precisely what?
Provides a statement expressing the essential nature of "combat training?"

Which statement specifically are you talking about?

I've already covered the oddity of the rules that hand to hand combat is the basis of modern combat. Stil, the modern weapon proficiency is not combat training; it's "practical experience". All that this means is you're proficient in its use.

Again, RUE 326
Each WP provides combat training with a particular type of weapon.

The hut stuff was a copy/paste error.

The extent of Modern W.P. contradicts the note about combat training. It says the character gains practical experience and familiarity. The note is a copy and paste error. The original modern combat rules did not include this note. THe original modern combat rules also describe the extent of the training that is inline with RUE's practical experience and familiarity text.

Only ancient W.P. provide combat training. This differentiates from things like katas which may incorporate weapons but are really nothing more than shadow boxing. You do need to use them against other people to be trained in their use. This is not really required with the modern weapons.

But RUE says all W.P. provide combat training. That does not unlink modern combat from hand to hand combat. A W.P. may give bonus attacks per melee but is rare and still just a bonus to whatever hth skill the character may or may not have. There rules for those characters which lack formal combat training, which is defined to be the hth skills. It is the hth skill or lack thereof that determines base attacks per melee.

The original question is whether or not mages are combat trained? Clearly they are. It's right there in the book. Their voice volume has nothing to do with it.

A rogue scholar has W.P. but no hth by default. They would not be said to be combat trained.

It's totally whacked that RAW bolts modern combat to hand to hand combat, but that's what it does.

Natasha wrote:The extent of Modern W.P. contradicts the note about combat training. It says the character gains practical experience and familiarity.

Gaining practical experience and familiarity does not contradict gaining combat training.
Practical experience and familiarity would be necessary part of combat training.

The note is a copy and paste error.

Where is it copied and pasted from, then?

The original modern combat rules did not include this note.

Things change.

Only ancient W.P. provide combat training.

Okay... so somebody with WP Sword--but no HTH skill--has combat training, but is not combat trained by your definition.

But RUE says all W.P. provide combat training.

Correct--it does.

That does not unlink modern combat from hand to hand combat.

So...?

A W.P. may give bonus attacks per melee but is rare and still just a bonus to whatever hth skill the character may or may not have. There rules for those characters which lack formal combat training, which is defined to be the hth skills. It is the hth skill or lack thereof that determines base attacks per melee.

Right.
And since we know that a character with WP Sword does have combat training with the sword, whether or not he has any HTH skill, we know that HTH skills are not the end-all, be-all of combat training.

The original question is whether or not mages are combat trained? Clearly they are. It's right there in the book. Their voice volume has nothing to do with it.

The original context is specifically about voice volume during combat.
Pretty much everybody agreed on the first page that in some contexts, mages do have combat training.
In the context of the original quote that prompted this thread, they don't seem to as a rule.

A rogue scholar has W.P. but no hth by default. They would not be said to be combat trained.

How do you figure?

Logically,
P1. A WP provides combat training.
P2. A person with combat training is "combat trained*."
Conclusion: A person with a WP is Combat Trained.

*Strictly speaking, devoid of previous contexts from other threads that have carried over.

It's totally whacked that RAW bolts modern combat to hand to hand combat, but that's what it does.

Whatever, but that doesn't mean that a person with WP Rifle, and no HTH skill, is NOT combat trained.

The assertion I'm addressing is that mages are not as a rule trained in combat, nothing about voice volume. Maybe I have a different page 1. My claim is that if they have any hth then they are. If they don't they are not. You've asked me to explain this and your disagreement seems to hinge on W.P. not voice volume.

In Rifts, all questions of combat training start with a character's hth skill. This does not make hth the end-all, be-all of combat training. It does mean that hth forms the basis of all aspects of combat in Rifts. All that W.P.s do is give bonuses. To what do they give bonuses is established by the character's hth training.

I'm iffy whether or not that ancient W.P. give combat training. Suppose they do. This still runs into the problem of not telling us how the character will perform in combat. It's incomplete. W.P. alone cannot answer the question is a character is combat trained. There must be some more to the answer. This is provided by the character's hth training.

But modern W.P. still needs some work. I'd like to see your case for P1's validity. The Note is contradicted by the Rules. The validity to the premise that "combat training" (any, let alone elementary) is the same thing as "having a good feel for the weapon" or "familiarity" is dubious given the meanings of the words involved.

wow this has been all circular arguments for pages, the phrasing changes but the gist is the same.

as far as ED's argument that you have to be a Marine, (or have modern US military training) to be combat trained I agree that it is bunk and totally so.

I am going to toss out an idea that I think resolves some of the issues.

1 combat training is not properly defined in palladium which IS a problem when they make an argument such as "Mages are not combat trained"

2 crazy idea BEING COMBAT TRAINED is NOT CRITICAL TO BEING COMBAT EFFECTIVE!!
its important and tends to make you MORE combat effective but its not the only way to be effective.

3 in most situations a group of SOLDIERS will be more effective than a group of WARRIORS when fighting each other, but in the right situation a WARRIOR can kick a SOLDIERS butt up one side and down the other.

ED may disagree but MARINES, ARMY, NAVY and other modern militaries are all typically built around SOLDIERS.

the Souix, ZULU, Samarai etc. are all examples of WARRIORS.
The Spartans were definitely warriors but I believe they were also proto-soldiers but I would say the roman Legions were an early example of SOLDIERS IE a group that were all trained to fight the same way, with standard weapons and tactics, that were HIGHLY effective for their era.

boot camp is designed (at its root) to turn random civilians, and or individual warriors, into a group of soldiers.

so when you look at things from that perspective... Mages are not combat trained as SOLDIERS. they may be trained as WARRIORS because they all (most) have their OWN way of doing things that works best for them.

in some ways I would actually argue that some of the advanced modern military training courses (and programs) eventually do work on taking the "standard" soldier and giving them the advantages of being a WARRIOR, without loosing the advantages Soldiers have.

so by more flexible definition is a mage combat trained? the answer is "it depends" I would tend to say IF they have some form of hand to hand training, and at least 1 weapon proficiency then I would tend to say that in general they are at least somewhat combat trained. If they do not have any hand to hand skill, then by the "working definition" in palladium then no they aren't.

guardiandashi wrote:the Souix, ZULU, Samarai etc. are all examples of WARRIORS.
The Spartans were definitely warriors but I believe they were also proto-soldiers but I would say the roman Legions were an early example of SOLDIERS IE a group that were all trained to fight the same way, with standard weapons and tactics, that were HIGHLY effective for their era.

boot camp is designed (at its root) to turn random civilians, and or individual warriors, into a group of soldiers.

so when you look at things from that perspective... Mages are not combat trained as SOLDIERS. they may be trained as WARRIORS because they all (most) have their OWN way of doing things that works best for them.

RUE 189
"most can handle themselves in a fight, but they're not warriors, they just aren't."

Natasha wrote:The assertion I'm addressing is that mages are not as a rule trained in combat, nothing about voice volume.

Great.
Then you're on the same page as pretty much everybody, which is that the typical mage is technically combat trained because they have HTH skills and WPs.

The original statement was made in a specific context, and if you're not discussing that context then sure, mages are combat trained.
So is anybody who takes karate at the YMCA, technically.

My claim is that if they have any hth then they are. If they don't they are not. You've asked me to explain this and your disagreement seems to hinge on W.P. not voice volume.

In Rifts, all questions of combat training start with a character's hth skill. This does not make hth the end-all, be-all of combat training. It does mean that hth forms the basis of all aspects of combat in Rifts. All that W.P.s do is give bonuses. To what do they give bonuses is established by the character's hth training.

Where you're coming out of left field is the claim that HTH skills form the basis of all aspects of combat in Rifts.
The fact is, people without HTH skills can engage in combat.
They can officially have "combat training."
HTH skills are not a requirement.

I'd like to see your case for P1's validity.

Palladium flat-out states that "Each Weapon Proficiency provides combat training with a particular type of weapon."
That's their standard.
If you're not going to go with Palladium's official standard, then what are you doing...?

The Note is contradicted by the Rules.

The note IS a rule.
Unless you find a note somewhere that states, "No, we screwed up, WPs do NOT provide combat training," then no, the note is NOT contradicted by the rules.

Again, having a good feel for the weapon and familiarity with the weapon [u]is a standard part of combat training/u].
What's the other option for being combat trained?
"I have a lousy feel for the weapon, and I'm unfamiliar with it... but I'm still combat trained with it"....?
There isn't any contradiction in the rule that WPs provide combat training, and the rules that state that WPs provide familiarity and having a good feel for the weapon.

Edit:
WPs give combat bonuses via trained skills.
How's that not combat training?

Not everyone with combat training as palladium defines it would be a warrior as palladium defines it. A good first step is whether or not they mean this term synonymous with "Men at Arms" or with subtle differences.

The existence of the Temporal Warrior informs us this simply can't be an expression about all mages. So it must be about some of them. How much, undefined. Perhaps only 2 mage characters lack HTH.

Axelmania wrote:Not everyone with combat training as palladium defines it would be a warrior as palladium defines it.

Agreed.

The existence of the Temporal Warrior informs us this simply can't be an expression about all mages. So it must be about some of them. How much, undefined. Perhaps only 2 mage characters lack HTH.

Typically when the books refer to mages, they seem to be referring to LLWs or other main book classes.

Killer Cyborg wrote:The original statement was made in a specific context, and if you're not discussing that context then sure, mages are combat trained.
So is anybody who takes karate at the YMCA, technically.

The book never says that.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

My claim is that if they have any hth then they are. If they don't they are not. You've asked me to explain this and your disagreement seems to hinge on W.P. not voice volume.

In Rifts, all questions of combat training start with a character's hth skill. This does not make hth the end-all, be-all of combat training. It does mean that hth forms the basis of all aspects of combat in Rifts. All that W.P.s do is give bonuses. To what do they give bonuses is established by the character's hth training.

Where you're coming out of left field is the claim that HTH skills form the basis of all aspects of combat in Rifts.
The fact is, people without HTH skills can engage in combat.
They can officially have "combat training."
HTH skills are not a requirement.

Here are Alice and Bob.

Alice
Level: 1
Skills: Hand to hand: basic; W.P. handgun.

Bob
Level: 1
Skills: W.P. handgun.

Describe the first combat round between them without referring to their hth skills.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

I'd like to see your case for P1's validity.

Palladium flat-out states that "Each Weapon Proficiency provides combat training with a particular type of weapon."

It also flat out says how to create a character. But you can't actually create a character with those rules. Because something is written, doesn't mean it works or is not contradicted elsewhere. The training described in W.P. is "practical experience". Practical is not the same thing as combat. If it means combat experience, then "combat" is a pretty good word to use (it's definitely better than "practical"). Having a good feel for a weapon is not necessarily indicative of combat training.

Suppose it's valid. You still can't actually have your character engage in combat without knowing the character's hth training situation. You don't actually know if your character has "pitiful fighting skills" or "combat training" without starting from the character's hth skill.

Maybe the character is a trained sword fighter or a trained gunner. Doesn't much matter if the extent of that is "pitiful fighting skill".

It doesn't make any sense to write the rules that way, but that's the way they're written.

Natasha wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:The original statement was made in a specific context, and if you're not discussing that context then sure, mages are combat trained.
So is anybody who takes karate at the YMCA, technically.

The book never says that.

Never says what?

Killer Cyborg wrote:

My claim is that if they have any hth then they are. If they don't they are not. You've asked me to explain this and your disagreement seems to hinge on W.P. not voice volume.

In Rifts, all questions of combat training start with a character's hth skill. This does not make hth the end-all, be-all of combat training. It does mean that hth forms the basis of all aspects of combat in Rifts. All that W.P.s do is give bonuses. To what do they give bonuses is established by the character's hth training.

Where you're coming out of left field is the claim that HTH skills form the basis of all aspects of combat in Rifts.
The fact is, people without HTH skills can engage in combat.
They can officially have "combat training."
HTH skills are not a requirement.

Here are Alice and Bob.

Alice
Level: 1
Skills: Hand to hand: basic; W.P. handgun.

Bob
Level: 1
Skills: W.P. handgun.

Describe the first combat round between them without referring to their hth skills.

Roll for initiative.
Highest initiative goes first. Let's say it's Bob.
Bob uses an attack, and fires his gun. He either misses or hits.
Alice uses an attack, fires her gun. She either misses or hits.

What about it?

Killer Cyborg wrote:

I'd like to see your case for P1's validity.

Palladium flat-out states that "Each Weapon Proficiency provides combat training with a particular type of weapon."

It also flat out says how to create a character. But you can't actually create a character with those rules.

True enough.

Because something is written, doesn't mean it works or is not contradicted elsewhere. The training described in W.P. is "practical experience". Practical is not the same thing as combat. If it means combat experience, then "combat" is a pretty good word to use (it's definitely better than "practical"). Having a good feel for a weapon is not necessarily indicative of combat training.

It sounds like you think that "combat training" requires "combat experience," not just "practical experience" with the weapon.

Suppose it's valid. You still can't actually have your character engage in combat without knowing the character's hth training situation. You don't actually know if your character has "pitiful fighting skills" or "combat training" without starting from the character's hth skill.

Not all characters have HTH skills.
So I don't know what you're trying to say here.

Maybe the character is a trained sword fighter or a trained gunner. Doesn't much matter if the extent of that is "pitiful fighting skill".

Still no idea what you're talking about.
When the question is whether or not you're combat trained, then it doesn't matter if you're a pitiful fighter or not.
All that matters is whether or not you're combat trained.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Natasha wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:The original statement was made in a specific context, and if you're not discussing that context then sure, mages are combat trained.
So is anybody who takes karate at the YMCA, technically.

The book never says that.

Never says what?

It never says that anybody who takes karate at the YMCA is combat trained or even as trained as the character with hth: basic.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

My claim is that if they have any hth then they are. If they don't they are not. You've asked me to explain this and your disagreement seems to hinge on W.P. not voice volume.

In Rifts, all questions of combat training start with a character's hth skill. This does not make hth the end-all, be-all of combat training. It does mean that hth forms the basis of all aspects of combat in Rifts. All that W.P.s do is give bonuses. To what do they give bonuses is established by the character's hth training.

Where you're coming out of left field is the claim that HTH skills form the basis of all aspects of combat in Rifts.
The fact is, people without HTH skills can engage in combat.
They can officially have "combat training."
HTH skills are not a requirement.

Here are Alice and Bob.

Alice
Level: 1
Skills: Hand to hand: basic; W.P. handgun.

Bob
Level: 1
Skills: W.P. handgun.

Describe the first combat round between them without referring to their hth skills.

Roll for initiative.
Highest initiative goes first. Let's say it's Bob.
Bob uses an attack, and fires his gun. He either misses or hits.
Alice uses an attack, fires her gun. She either misses or hits.

What about it?

Well, it's not a complete combat round for one thing.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Because something is written, doesn't mean it works or is not contradicted elsewhere. The training described in W.P. is "practical experience". Practical is not the same thing as combat. If it means combat experience, then "combat" is a pretty good word to use (it's definitely better than "practical"). Having a good feel for a weapon is not necessarily indicative of combat training.

It sounds like you think that "combat training" requires "combat experience," not just "practical experience" with the weapon.

I would say that "combat training" really means "training for combat" since "combat" isn't an adjective.

It's true that training for combat would include "practical experience", but the actual description of the training that occurs in becoming weapon proficient does not indicate any combat training. It's entirely possible to achieve what the W.P. gives without any combat training. The note may or may not be an editing mistake. But supposing it isn't a mistake, it's still incomplete as a basis for what constitutes being trained for combat by the rules as they're written. You cannot complete a full combat round without referring to the character's hth training or lack thereof. A character who has no hth training has "pitiful fighting skills" and no formal combat training. A character with formal combat training has at least hth: basic.

These details are required engage in combat.

Natasha wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Natasha wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:The original statement was made in a specific context, and if you're not discussing that context then sure, mages are combat trained.
So is anybody who takes karate at the YMCA, technically.

The book never says that.

Never says what?

It never says that anybody who takes karate at the YMCA is combat trained or even as trained as the character with hth: basic.

RMB 28
Hand to Hand: Basic: provides elementary techniques and methods of attack and self-defense as taught in military basic training and self-defense classes.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Alice
Level: 1
Skills: Hand to hand: basic; W.P. handgun.

Bob
Level: 1
Skills: W.P. handgun.

Describe the first combat round between them without referring to their hth skills.

Roll for initiative.
Highest initiative goes first. Let's say it's Bob.
Bob uses an attack, and fires his gun. He either misses or hits.
Alice uses an attack, fires her gun. She either misses or hits.

What about it?

Well, it's not a complete combat round for one thing.

Somehow, your end of the conversation doesn't seem to be clarifying anything.

Bob's out of attacks. Alice uses her other attacks.
Does that help any?
What are you going for?

It's true that training for combat would include "practical experience", but the actual description of the training that occurs in becoming weapon proficient does not indicate any combat training.

It doesn't conflict with combat training.

What exactly do you think is the difference between practical experience and a good feel with a weapon, and in combat training?

It's entirely possible to achieve what the W.P. gives without any combat training.

NOT according to RUE.
According to RUE, WPs provide combat training.

The note may or may not be an editing mistake.

There is no reason so far to assume that it is any kind of mistake.

You cannot complete a full combat round without referring to the character's hth training or lack thereof.

You keep repeating this.
It still makes zero sense to me.
I don't know what you mean by "referring to the character's hth training or lack thereof."
I don't know why you think that there is any importance to it.
Repeating the same thing the same way without clarification is not going to change the results.

A character who has no hth training has "pitiful fighting skills"

Which is irrelevant. A combat trained person can still have pitiful fighting skills.

and no formal combat training.

Incorrect, and irrelevant
They have no formal hand to hand combat training.
Hand to hand combat training is one kind of combat training, but it is not the only kind of combat training.
Likewise, formal hand to hand combat training is not the only kind of hand to hand combat training.

A character with formal combat training has at least hth: basic.

A character with formal Hand to Hand Combat training has at least HTH basic.

These details are required engage in combat.

Completely untrue.
Characters and creatures without HTH combat training engage in combat constantly in Rifts. Most monsters, animals, and supernatural creatures have zero formal hand to hand combat training.
They still engage in combat.

The point of the Alice and Bob example is this: you said they roll initiative. How did you know they don't have init bonuses? If you had gone through the entire round you would have to have known how many attacks each get. How would you know number of attacks? In all cases you have to refer to their hth skills.

The difference between practical experience and combat training is evident from the meanings of the words themselves and the descriptions provided in RUE. If W.P. provided combat training, I would expect to find it in the description. All I find is familiarity with different aspects of the weapon, not combat training with the weapon. I would count as reason to think the note might be a mistake. You wouldn't. That's a subjective call, though You can say there is no reason to assume it's a mistake because there is written some stuff that isn't broken. You could also say there is reason to assume it's a mistake because they've written some stuff that's completely broken. Which one is it? Well, that's a choice we have to make for ourselves. But it really doesn't matter which we choose because you can't engage in combat with W.P. alone. You have to know your character's hth situation. You can't do the Alice and Bob example without referring to their hth skills.

You need the characters' hth (or lack thereof) for things you must do in order to engage in and to resolve combat like initiative and attacks per melee, and there other things like dodge. You cannot engage in combat without determining initiative and knowing how many attacks those characters have. Not without some bizarre-o House Rule. In the Alice and Bob example you referred to their hth skills, you just left out describing the part where you had to refer to their hth skills.

Natasha wrote:The point of the Alice and Bob example is this: you said they roll initiative. How did you know they don't have init bonuses? If you had gone through the entire round you would have to have known how many attacks each get. How would you know number of attacks? In all cases you have to refer to their hth skills.

Incorrect, because one of them does not have a HTH skill.
You cannot refer to the HTH skill of somebody who does not have one.

Init bonuses? They usually don't come from HTH skills anyway. They tend to come from other physical skills, class abilities, cybernetics, psionics, and other stuff.
Of all the bonuses in combat, very few tend to come from HTH skills directly. Other physical skills, class bonuses, Physical Prowess, and other sources make up the bulk of combat bonuses in my experience, especially at first level.

The difference between practical experience and combat training is evident from the meanings of the words themselves and the descriptions provided in RUE. If W.P. provided combat training, I would expect to find it in the description.

It is in the RUE description of Weapon Proficiencies.

All I find is familiarity with different aspects of the weapon, not combat training with the weapon. I would count as reason to think the note might be a mistake. You wouldn't. That's a subjective call, though You can say there is no reason to assume it's a mistake because there is written some stuff that isn't broken. You could also say there is reason to assume it's a mistake because they've written some stuff that's completely broken. Which one is it? Well, that's a choice we have to make for ourselves. But it really doesn't matter which we choose because you can't engage in combat with W.P. alone.

I say that there is no reason to assume that it's a mistake because it doesn't conflict with any other rules.

You have to know your character's hth situation. You can't do the Alice and Bob example without referring to their hth skills.

Uh... no. You have to refer to number of attacks, and you have to refer to combat bonuses, but you can have a number of attacks and you can have combat bonuses without having a HTH skill.
Again, when you're talking about a character without any HTH skill, then it is literally impossible to refer to their HTH skill.

You need the characters' hth (or lack thereof) for things you must do in order to engage in and to resolve combat like initiative and attacks per melee, and there other things like dodge. You cannot engage in combat without determining initiative and knowing how many attacks those characters have. Not without some bizarre-o House Rule. In the Alice and Bob example you referred to their hth skills, you just left out describing the part where you had to refer to their hth skills.

It seems to me that you're confusing "HTH skills" with "combat bonuses" and "number of attacks."

EDIT: I removed the snark. If you think I'm being wonky and there's nothing else to be said, I'm fine with leaving this at that.

I'll just say this. The rules which govern the situation of not having a hth skill are found in the Hand to Hand Combat Skills section. I have pointed this out and I did not feel it would be necessary to say it again because it's obvious. If a character has no hth skill, we still refer to Hand to Hand Combat Skills to find what having no hth skill means. We want to know a character's initiative? Start with hth. Want to know attacks per melee? Start with hth. It doesn't matter if the character has a skill or not. Perhaps that was as source of confusion. Perhaps it doesn't change anything. But the fact remains, you cannot complete a combat round without doing precisely as I have described.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Natasha wrote:The point of the Alice and Bob example is this: you said they roll initiative. How did you know they don't have init bonuses? If you had gone through the entire round you would have to have known how many attacks each get. How would you know number of attacks? In all cases you have to refer to their hth skills.

Incorrect, because one of them does not have a HTH skill.
You cannot refer to the HTH skill of somebody who does not have one.

that is H2H: None and it sets their number of attacks per round.
Just like every one else (other than animals and monsters) have their APM set by their H2H

Killer Cyborg wrote:Init bonuses? They usually don't come from HTH skills anyway. They tend to come from other physical skills, class abilities, cybernetics, psionics, and other stuff.

The fact that they can come from it does mean that you need to check it though.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Of all the bonuses in combat, very few tend to come from HTH skills directly. Other physical skills, class bonuses, Physical Prowess, and other sources make up the bulk of combat bonuses in my experience, especially at first level

I would not call "bonuses to strike, parry, dodge, critical threat range, death blows, what kicks you can use, how many APM you get are the sort of thing you just wave off...
they are pretty core to your ability to fight...
up to the fact that with out knowing your APM (which can only be calculated by referring to your H2H skill) you literally can not do anything.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

You have to know your character's hth situation. You can't do the Alice and Bob example without referring to their hth skills.

Uh... no. You have to refer to number of attacks, and you have to refer to combat bonuses, but you can have a number of attacks and you can have combat bonuses without having a HTH skill.
Again, when you're talking about a character without any HTH skill, then it is literally impossible to refer to their HTH skill.

Again you are mistaken
There is, literally a table entry that says "H2H: None"
That IS their "H2H skills:
And to find out if they us that or anything else...
...guess what? You refer to their H2H skill.
It is literally impossible to do anything combat related with out doing that first step.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

You need the characters' hth (or lack thereof) for things you must do in order to engage in and to resolve combat like initiative and attacks per melee, and there other things like dodge. You cannot engage in combat without determining initiative and knowing how many attacks those characters have. Not without some bizarre-o House Rule. In the Alice and Bob example you referred to their hth skills, you just left out describing the part where you had to refer to their hth skills.

It seems to me that you're confusing "HTH skills" with "combat bonuses" and "number of attacks."

Since "number of attacks" is directly provided by your H2H skill then it seems safe to say that yes, your H2H skill sets your number of attacks.
Just like your H2H skill WILL set your combat bonuses (some of them).

Killer Cyborg wrote:

guardiandashi wrote:the Souix, ZULU, Samarai etc. are all examples of WARRIORS.
The Spartans were definitely warriors but I believe they were also proto-soldiers but I would say the roman Legions were an early example of SOLDIERS IE a group that were all trained to fight the same way, with standard weapons and tactics, that were HIGHLY effective for their era.

boot camp is designed (at its root) to turn random civilians, and or individual warriors, into a group of soldiers.

so when you look at things from that perspective... Mages are not combat trained as SOLDIERS. they may be trained as WARRIORS because they all (most) have their OWN way of doing things that works best for them.

RUE 189
"most can handle themselves in a fight, but they're not warriors, they just aren't."

Untrue if you look up how Warrior is defined.(True if you use a class type warrior.)


Definition of warrior
: a person engaged or experienced in warfare; broadly : a person engaged in some struggle or conflict poverty warriors
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/warrior

Any mage that has participated or engaged in fighting during warfare is a Warrior. Any man at arms that has not is not.
So while no out of the box level 1 is not likely to be a warrior any one who fights in a war is. Warriors typically are not about being combat trained but combat experienced.

If we treat combat training as training to teach some one to act different than a untrained civilians.
Then any serious self defense training or marital arts training would count.(hand to hand skill if some one is not training in them seriously they should not have the skill)
Training to use a weapon in a fight or for self defense should also count. (Perhaps why WP say they are combat training.)


(Personally I would say any skill that can provide a +1 or greater to combat at any level is a form of combat training with total bonuses for combat from training/skills being the level of combat training the person has. I would hope that most men at arms out of the box have a greater level total of training bonuses than out of the box mage. Using the standard mage LLW and the standard soldier the merc soldier the standard merc soldier has more out of the box no special choices bonuses than a mage so has a higher level of combat training than a mage.)

Ed wrote:

eliakon wrote:Your still making the mistake of assuming that the US way is the One True Way and that if you are not trained to operate as a cog in the US machine you are useless.

Not useless. Qualitatively inferior in almost every aspect.

We take that squad and drop it in Rome and they are going to be considered worthless scrubs by every military on the planet?
Why? They have no CLUE how to hold a sword or shield or javelin.
No one knows how to use a bow, or ride a chariot
They have no clue of any sort of tactical doctrine and they keep separating when they try to fight.
Do we now say that suddenly your squad of marines is no longer combat trained?
They wont fit in the local military so they must not be right?

ROFLMMFAO!!! A squad of US Marines would be the most kick ass legionaries in the history of Rome. They wouldn't fit into the local military, they'd be running the local military! They'd be bigger, stronger, faster, healthier, have better teeth, and be immune to most diseases of the day. They all would know more basic sanitation, personal hygene, first aid, and the germ theory of disease than the Emperor's personal physicians. They can all READ! They know basic land navigation and construction techniques. They can march calvary into the ground carrying insane amounts of gear and equipment. Because they paid attention in high school, they know the ingredients and composition of black powder; they couldn't make rifles, but they'd damn sure have grenades. Crossbows too. Marines are trained with knives and bayonets. Bayonets aren't that much different from spears they couldn't make enough for everyone to have two or three. And a good bayonet man will purely kick a swordsman's ass. Those triangular points make wounds that never heal properly. Marines may separate when they go to fight, but that's just so while you're focused on one, another slips up and shoves a kabar through your liver or cuts your throat. Marines also fight at night, something the Romans never did.

And that training is separate from being a soldier.

No that training is central to being a soldier. As opposed to a pistol carrying mountain climber who takes karate at the YMCA.

Or put it another way...
...in Rifts the average adventuring group will never encounter a situation where they are going to be in a 'unit' larger than 4-10 people...
...that does not mean that since they do not know how to operate at the company level that none of them are combat trained.
In Rifts people come from various professional combat backgrounds... that may not EVER involve organized formal militaries (Gunslingers, Juicer, Cyber-Knight, Mystic-Knight, Battle Magus, Assassins, ect)
But in Rifts those people would still be considered 'combat trained'

Wrong. They are trained to fight, shoot, mystic knight, battle magus, or etc. Not trained for combat.

We might not say that they are not military but that doesn't mean that they are not combat trained.
Unless you want to define NO ONE as being combat trained. And I mean NO ONE. Because NO ONE is able to operate as a plug-and-play component of every military force everywhere throughout all of space and time. And unless we are picking a specific force as the sole standard and saying all other forces are not valid... then the claim of plug-and-play has to be everyone or no one... so which is it?

I provided a definition of combat training earlier. Go back and read it. While you're at it read the article KC posted. Your question has been anwsered.

Some one needs to stop drinking the coolaid.
Roman soldiers where in good shape. Romans did understand the concept of hygine. I would expect a roman legionair would eat your spear wielding marines allive. So much of how you claimed they marines are better is dependent on the false hype of the military to be true.

You can not out march a carvery unit in to the ground caring more weight. A endurance ride on a horse is 100 miles in 24 hours. Average riders typically travel about 20 miles a day but horses can travel an average of 31 miles in a day. To get your expert infantry badge you must ruck 12 miles in three hours, not a easy task even for the infantry and not a pace you can keep up all day. Roman infantry had to march 18.4 miles in about 4-6 hours as part of their training. That means your pace is about the same as that a standard roman infantry.

Now lets look at what your marines lack, they do not understand the tactics of the time and can not speak latin, so no leadership. Not a member of the leading class so no leadership. Lack the skills to make a working bow so could not make a crossbow. Unlikely to know how to properly mix black powder and make working fuses so grenade making would be unsafe. Not immunized to the germs of the time so can get sick. Basically your mariens would be useless not knowing the right fighting tactics would be easy to pick off for trained fighters of the time, in the army they would be cannon fodder irregulars only suited to die on the field. Attitude could get them enslaved as gladiators.

Blue_Lion wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

guardiandashi wrote:the Souix, ZULU, Samarai etc. are all examples of WARRIORS.
The Spartans were definitely warriors but I believe they were also proto-soldiers but I would say the roman Legions were an early example of SOLDIERS IE a group that were all trained to fight the same way, with standard weapons and tactics, that were HIGHLY effective for their era.

boot camp is designed (at its root) to turn random civilians, and or individual warriors, into a group of soldiers.

so when you look at things from that perspective... Mages are not combat trained as SOLDIERS. they may be trained as WARRIORS because they all (most) have their OWN way of doing things that works best for them.

RUE 189
"most can handle themselves in a fight, but they're not warriors, they just aren't."

Untrue if you look up how Warrior is defined.(True if you use a class type warrior.)


Definition of warrior
: a person engaged or experienced in warfare; broadly : a person engaged in some struggle or conflict poverty warriors
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/warrior

Now you're going with the dictionary, and NOT with Palladium's definition/standard of the term in question.

Interesting stance.

wait, i'm confused. because some information is derived from hand to hand combat skills, you seem to be arguing that they are the basis of all combat training.

but that doesn't make sense, because WPs (and a number of other skills) *also* contribute to those same pieces of information. WPs typically offer bonuses to strike an parry, and if you're going to start putting in specific numbers, you're going to have to address WPs as a result. some WPs offer other things; increased weapon range, increased critical range (only in the case of WP targeting, as far as i'm aware), possibly even attacks per melee (i can't remember if the latest version of archery still gives a different number of attacks per melee for bows or not, but it used to). then there are skills like fencing, gymnastics, boxing, sniper, etc which *also* provide modifiers that need to be included if you're going to calculate specific numbers in combat, not to mention skills like horsemanship or physical labour that modify other things that can modify combat information.

so if hand to hand basic defines how you're combat trained because it provides information on things relating to combat... how does that fit in with the stance that WP skills absolutely definitely do not in any way shape or form count as any sort of combat training at all, when those WP skills *also* provide information on things relating to combat (and in some cases, the exact same things you're claiming are what makes hand to hand the only form of combat training).

Shark_Force wrote:wait, i'm confused. because some information is derived from hand to hand combat skills, you seem to be arguing that they are the basis of all combat training.

but that doesn't make sense, because WPs (and a number of other skills) *also* contribute to those same pieces of information. WPs typically offer bonuses to strike an parry, and if you're going to start putting in specific numbers, you're going to have to address WPs as a result. some WPs offer other things; increased weapon range, increased critical range (only in the case of WP targeting, as far as i'm aware), possibly even attacks per melee (i can't remember if the latest version of archery still gives a different number of attacks per melee for bows or not, but it used to). then there are skills like fencing, gymnastics, boxing, sniper, etc which *also* provide modifiers that need to be included if you're going to calculate specific numbers in combat, not to mention skills like horsemanship or physical labour that modify other things that can modify combat information.

so if hand to hand basic defines how you're combat trained because it provides information on things relating to combat... how does that fit in with the stance that WP skills absolutely definitely do not in any way shape or form count as any sort of combat training at all, when those WP skills *also* provide information on things relating to combat (and in some cases, the exact same things you're claiming are what makes hand to hand the only form of combat training).

Archery does not give you attacks per melee
That is set by your H2H
Even with Archery, if you have H2H: None, then you can only shoot one arrow in combat at level 1.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Blue_Lion wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

guardiandashi wrote:the Souix, ZULU, Samarai etc. are all examples of WARRIORS.
The Spartans were definitely warriors but I believe they were also proto-soldiers but I would say the roman Legions were an early example of SOLDIERS IE a group that were all trained to fight the same way, with standard weapons and tactics, that were HIGHLY effective for their era.

boot camp is designed (at its root) to turn random civilians, and or individual warriors, into a group of soldiers.

so when you look at things from that perspective... Mages are not combat trained as SOLDIERS. they may be trained as WARRIORS because they all (most) have their OWN way of doing things that works best for them.

RUE 189
"most can handle themselves in a fight, but they're not warriors, they just aren't."

Untrue if you look up how Warrior is defined.(True if you use a class type warrior.)


Definition of warrior
: a person engaged or experienced in warfare; broadly : a person engaged in some struggle or conflict poverty warriors
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/warrior

Now you're going with the dictionary, and NOT with Palladium's definition/standard of the term in question.

Interesting stance.

Sorry I may have missed it but did not know there was a PB defintion. Looking the posters claim did seam to be more along the lines of use of real world meaning.
(It seamed most the thread people been trying to make it about real world not what PB says it is. (as PB says the average mage has combat training.)

eliakon wrote:

Shark_Force wrote:wait, i'm confused. because some information is derived from hand to hand combat skills, you seem to be arguing that they are the basis of all combat training.

but that doesn't make sense, because WPs (and a number of other skills) *also* contribute to those same pieces of information. WPs typically offer bonuses to strike an parry, and if you're going to start putting in specific numbers, you're going to have to address WPs as a result. some WPs offer other things; increased weapon range, increased critical range (only in the case of WP targeting, as far as i'm aware), possibly even attacks per melee (i can't remember if the latest version of archery still gives a different number of attacks per melee for bows or not, but it used to). then there are skills like fencing, gymnastics, boxing, sniper, etc which *also* provide modifiers that need to be included if you're going to calculate specific numbers in combat, not to mention skills like horsemanship or physical labour that modify other things that can modify combat information.

so if hand to hand basic defines how you're combat trained because it provides information on things relating to combat... how does that fit in with the stance that WP skills absolutely definitely do not in any way shape or form count as any sort of combat training at all, when those WP skills *also* provide information on things relating to combat (and in some cases, the exact same things you're claiming are what makes hand to hand the only form of combat training).

Archery does not give you attacks per melee
That is set by your H2H
Even with Archery, if you have H2H: None, then you can only shoot one arrow in combat at level 1.

I would just add to what eliakon said.

When we say phrases like "contribute to", "offer bonuses to", "provide modifiers", the question becomes to what? What is being modified? The next question is what is the origin of what is being contributed to or modified? The answer to that is found in the rules that governs a character's hand to hand combat training (or lack of it).

A character that is not trained in any hth skill is said to have "pitiful fighting skills". Using this we can readily ask and answer whether this character could get hired on to a position requiring "combat training". The character might be good with a sword, a gun, or a bow, but the character isn't qualified. A character with hth: basic would be qualified. A character with hth: expert would be even more qualified.

Palladium linked modern combat to hand to hand combat. RAW is our system boundary. Does the linkage make sense? I don't think it does, but we must remain in the boundary.

Blue_Lion wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Blue_Lion wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

guardiandashi wrote:the Souix, ZULU, Samarai etc. are all examples of WARRIORS.
The Spartans were definitely warriors but I believe they were also proto-soldiers but I would say the roman Legions were an early example of SOLDIERS IE a group that were all trained to fight the same way, with standard weapons and tactics, that were HIGHLY effective for their era.

boot camp is designed (at its root) to turn random civilians, and or individual warriors, into a group of soldiers.

so when you look at things from that perspective... Mages are not combat trained as SOLDIERS. they may be trained as WARRIORS because they all (most) have their OWN way of doing things that works best for them.

RUE 189
"most can handle themselves in a fight, but they're not warriors, they just aren't."

Untrue if you look up how Warrior is defined.(True if you use a class type warrior.)


Definition of warrior
: a person engaged or experienced in warfare; broadly : a person engaged in some struggle or conflict poverty warriors
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/warrior

Now you're going with the dictionary, and NOT with Palladium's definition/standard of the term in question.

Interesting stance.

Sorry I may have missed it but did not know there was a PB defintion.

There may or may not be one.
Did you look?

Either way, they certainly do have a standard for what constitutes a warrior, and mages officially don't make the cut.
They just don't.

Looking the posters claim did seam to be more along the lines of use of real world meaning.
(It seamed most the thread people been trying to make it about real world not what PB says it is. (as PB says the average mage has combat training.)

For me, it's all about context.
As I've said from (IIRC) my first post in this thread: if you're only looking at the game rules and technicalities, then go with that. If you're wanting to interpret a specific person's use of a phrase, look at context of the usage, and maybe ask the person about what sense they meant the term.

Natasha wrote:

eliakon wrote:

Shark_Force wrote:wait, i'm confused. because some information is derived from hand to hand combat skills, you seem to be arguing that they are the basis of all combat training.

but that doesn't make sense, because WPs (and a number of other skills) *also* contribute to those same pieces of information. WPs typically offer bonuses to strike an parry, and if you're going to start putting in specific numbers, you're going to have to address WPs as a result. some WPs offer other things; increased weapon range, increased critical range (only in the case of WP targeting, as far as i'm aware), possibly even attacks per melee (i can't remember if the latest version of archery still gives a different number of attacks per melee for bows or not, but it used to). then there are skills like fencing, gymnastics, boxing, sniper, etc which *also* provide modifiers that need to be included if you're going to calculate specific numbers in combat, not to mention skills like horsemanship or physical labour that modify other things that can modify combat information.

so if hand to hand basic defines how you're combat trained because it provides information on things relating to combat... how does that fit in with the stance that WP skills absolutely definitely do not in any way shape or form count as any sort of combat training at all, when those WP skills *also* provide information on things relating to combat (and in some cases, the exact same things you're claiming are what makes hand to hand the only form of combat training).

Archery does not give you attacks per melee
That is set by your H2H
Even with Archery, if you have H2H: None, then you can only shoot one arrow in combat at level 1.

I would just add to what eliakon said.

When we say phrases like "contribute to", "offer bonuses to", "provide modifiers", the question becomes to what?

Combat bonuses?
Combat rolls?

A character that is not trained in any hth skill is said to have "pitiful fighting skills". Using this we can readily ask and answer whether this character could get hired on to a position requiring "combat training."

The answer is "yes," provided that the position didn't require testing before hiring.
Generally, training is all that's required.
If you have a degree in something, that's generally good enough for most jobs that require that degree.

Now keeping the job might be a different matter.
(Or not... not all jobs require you to be good at them.)

Palladium linked modern combat to hand to hand combat.

Okay, maybe.
But not to HTH skills.
HTH skills affect how many attacks you get across the board, but they don't affect how well you shoot as a rule.

RAW is our system boundary. Does the linkage make sense? I don't think it does, but we must remain in the boundary.

RAW means that HTH attacks determine your ranged attacks.
It does NOT mean anything more than that.
RAW means "Rules As Written."
Unless there's a rule stating that HTH Skills are the basis for all combat training, then it simply ain't so.
Not RAW, anyway.

Meanwhile, RAW definitely states that WPs provide combat training.

I've just grabbed a random Rifts book.
Happens to be Rifts: Canada.

Let's look at a random creature, and see if it:
a) has any HTH skills
b) Refers to any HTH skills

Okay, ready...?

Brown Bear!

Attacks per melee: three
Damage Claws do 2d6+6, bite does blah, blah, blah.
Bonuses: +2 to initiative, +4 to strike, +2 to parry, +4 to save vs HF, and +2 to save vs. poison.

No mention of HTH skills, because they don't have any.
No mention of HTH bonuses, either.

What they have just the usual "Attacks per melee," "Damage," and "Bonuses" and such.

No HTH. No references to HTH.
I could run a combat between two bears with zero cause to discuss HTH skills.

Granted, they're not trained, but the issue at this point seems to be (inexplicably, IMO) whether or not all combat is inherently linked to HTH skills.

And I can guarantee that Brown Bears aren't the only clear example of no linkage.
I can find dozens more, if it helps.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Blue_Lion wrote:
Sorry I may have missed it but did not know there was a PB defintion.

There may or may not be one.
Did you look?

Either way, they certainly do have a standard for what constitutes a warrior, and mages officially don't make the cut.
They just don't.

Looking the posters claim did seam to be more along the lines of use of real world meaning.
(It seamed most the thread people been trying to make it about real world not what PB says it is. (as PB says the average mage has combat training.)

For me, it's all about context.
As I've said from (IIRC) my first post in this thread: if you're only looking at the game rules and technicalities, then go with that. If you're wanting to interpret a specific person's use of a phrase, look at context of the usage, and maybe ask the person about what sense they meant the term.

Really and where is the standard on what constitutes a warrior because I do not recall any the times reading or searching ever seing them say to be a warrior you must be X.

Saying there may or may not be did you check when I said I did not know of any PB definition seams more like "Hey I do not know if they did so go check for me." You are the one claiming PB has a standard then provide the standard, don't say the standard may or may not exist go check for me.

Depends how you conceptualise "shooting well". For me, given a proficiency level, being able to do that 4 times instead of 2 times is an affect on how well a character shoots. It's twice better. YMMV.

W.P.s may provide combat training. RAW definitely states that the character has pitiful fighting skills. So if you can square "pitiful fighting skills" and "combat training", good for you.

Obviously there is no linkage for modern combat and brown bears; they don't engage in modern combat; nor are they trained. Brown bears are a corner case. Most other instances you come up will be edge or corner cases and there are almost none (possibly none) in RUE. Never denied they exist. I don't need to because they have no actual bearing on Alice and Bob.

Natasha wrote:Depends how you conceptualise "shooting well". For me, given a proficiency level, being able to do that 4 times instead of 2 times is an affect on how well a character shoots. It's twice better. YMMV.

W.P.s may provide combat training. RAW definitely states that the character has pitiful fighting skills. So if you can square "pitiful fighting skills" and "combat training", good for you.

Obviously there is no linkage for modern combat and brown bears; they don't engage in modern combat; nor are they trained. Brown bears are a corner case. Most other instances you come up will be edge or corner cases and there are almost none (possibly none) in RUE. Never denied they exist. I don't need to because they have no actual bearing on Alice and Bob.

You can be trained at something and still be bad at it. Training if successful only makes you better than you where before. So if you start of really pitiful you can be trained up to mearly be pitiful.

What if alice or bob was playing a Dirari Ecto-Men RCC how do you determine how they use their WP?

Blue_Lion wrote:

Natasha wrote:Depends how you conceptualise "shooting well". For me, given a proficiency level, being able to do that 4 times instead of 2 times is an affect on how well a character shoots. It's twice better. YMMV.

W.P.s may provide combat training. RAW definitely states that the character has pitiful fighting skills. So if you can square "pitiful fighting skills" and "combat training", good for you.

Obviously there is no linkage for modern combat and brown bears; they don't engage in modern combat; nor are they trained. Brown bears are a corner case. Most other instances you come up will be edge or corner cases and there are almost none (possibly none) in RUE. Never denied they exist. I don't need to because they have no actual bearing on Alice and Bob.

You can be trained at something and still be bad at it. Training if successful only makes you better than you where before. So if you start of really pitiful you can be trained up to mearly be pitiful.

What if alice or bob was playing a Dirari Ecto-Men RCC how do you determine how they use their WP?

Yes you can be trained and pitiful at it; that's my point. For me "pitiful" means something "pitiful" and disqualifies the character from certain categories -- or makes them so pitiful that it's the same difference. *shrug*

Alice and Bob. It depends. Do they take Hand to Hand: Basic or not? If they do, then you use that. If they don't, then you use the rules for characters with pitiful fighting skills.

Killer Cyborg wrote:I've just grabbed a random Rifts book.
Happens to be Rifts: Canada.

Let's look at a random creature, and see if it:
a) has any HTH skills
b) Refers to any HTH skills

Okay, ready...?

Brown Bear!

Attacks per melee: three
Damage Claws do 2d6+6, bite does blah, blah, blah.
Bonuses: +2 to initiative, +4 to strike, +2 to parry, +4 to save vs HF, and +2 to save vs. poison.

No mention of HTH skills, because they don't have any.
No mention of HTH bonuses, either.

What they have just the usual "Attacks per melee," "Damage," and "Bonuses" and such.

No HTH. No references to HTH.
I could run a combat between two bears with zero cause to discuss HTH skills.

Granted, they're not trained, but the issue at this point seems to be (inexplicably, IMO) whether or not all combat is inherently linked to HTH skills.

And I can guarantee that Brown Bears aren't the only clear example of no linkage.
I can find dozens more, if it helps.

Nice strawman
Did you bother to read the "Except for animals and monsters"
Intelligent beings that have the ability to take H2H skills need them.
Since animals are INCAPABLE of taking H2H skills they sort of got a specific work around.
But there is no work around available for intelligent beings.
None.
If your are a race that gets skills, then sorry you have to pick a H2H to find out your number of APM.
Unless of course your race is an exception to the rules and gets a listed number of APM.
Otherwise...

Pretty much.

RUE page 274 tells us the rules starting on page 279 are the "basic rules", the fundamental and essential facts of character creation and combat. That is the use case of Alice and Bob and not of brown bears.

Eliakon there is a table for attacks as you level up, and I think also a dodge bonus, which you use if you don't have a hand to hand skill.

I guess in theory this could apply to bears, in which case I would just add their racial attacks per melee to the table. Another approach could be "use whatever is higher".

Natasha wrote:

Blue_Lion wrote:

Natasha wrote:Depends how you conceptualise "shooting well". For me, given a proficiency level, being able to do that 4 times instead of 2 times is an affect on how well a character shoots. It's twice better. YMMV.

W.P.s may provide combat training. RAW definitely states that the character has pitiful fighting skills. So if you can square "pitiful fighting skills" and "combat training", good for you.

Obviously there is no linkage for modern combat and brown bears; they don't engage in modern combat; nor are they trained. Brown bears are a corner case. Most other instances you come up will be edge or corner cases and there are almost none (possibly none) in RUE. Never denied they exist. I don't need to because they have no actual bearing on Alice and Bob.

You can be trained at something and still be bad at it. Training if successful only makes you better than you where before. So if you start of really pitiful you can be trained up to mearly be pitiful.

What if alice or bob was playing a Dirari Ecto-Men RCC how do you determine how they use their WP?

Yes you can be trained and pitiful at it; that's my point. For me "pitiful" means something "pitiful" and disqualifies the character from certain categories -- or makes them so pitiful that it's the same difference. *shrug*

Alice and Bob. It depends. Do they take Hand to Hand: Basic or not? If they do, then you use that. If they don't, then you use the rules for characters with pitiful fighting skills.

If they are a Dirari Ecto-men RCC not allowed to take hand to hand combat they lack the ability to have that skill. However they are available as a PC.

Secondary skill.

Natasha wrote:Secondary skill.

They have no secondary skill or even OCC related skills.

Bonus secondary from a rogue scholar = basic for all.

Blue_Lion wrote:

Natasha wrote:Secondary skill.

They have no secondary skill or even OCC related skills.

Which book are your referencing?

eliakon wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:I've just grabbed a random Rifts book.
Happens to be Rifts: Canada.

Let's look at a random creature, and see if it:
a) has any HTH skills
b) Refers to any HTH skills

Okay, ready...?

Brown Bear!

Attacks per melee: three
Damage Claws do 2d6+6, bite does blah, blah, blah.
Bonuses: +2 to initiative, +4 to strike, +2 to parry, +4 to save vs HF, and +2 to save vs. poison.

No mention of HTH skills, because they don't have any.
No mention of HTH bonuses, either.

What they have just the usual "Attacks per melee," "Damage," and "Bonuses" and such.

No HTH. No references to HTH.
I could run a combat between two bears with zero cause to discuss HTH skills.

Granted, they're not trained, but the issue at this point seems to be (inexplicably, IMO) whether or not all combat is inherently linked to HTH skills.

And I can guarantee that Brown Bears aren't the only clear example of no linkage.
I can find dozens more, if it helps.

Nice strawman
Did you bother to read the "Except for animals and monsters"

Guess not.
Who said it and when?

Intelligent beings that have the ability to take H2H skills need them.
Since animals are INCAPABLE of taking H2H skills they sort of got a specific work around.
But there is no work around available for intelligent beings.
None.
If your are a race that gets skills, then sorry you have to pick a H2H to find out your number of APM.
Unless of course your race is an exception to the rules and gets a listed number of APM.
Otherwise...

No, you don't have to pick a HTH skill to find out your number of attacks.
You can NOT pick one, and still know your number of attacks.

I like how you say "there no work around available for intelligent beings.
None."

Then you say, "Unless, of course..."

It sounds like the argument is "The only way to be Combat Trained is to be HTH Trained, because it's absolutely impossible for anybody ever to engage in combat without having a HTH skill (or not having one). Some exceptions may apply."

Is that about correct?

Blue_Lion wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Blue_Lion wrote:
Sorry I may have missed it but did not know there was a PB defintion.

There may or may not be one.
Did you look?

Either way, they certainly do have a standard for what constitutes a warrior, and mages officially don't make the cut.
They just don't.

Looking the posters claim did seam to be more along the lines of use of real world meaning.
(It seamed most the thread people been trying to make it about real world not what PB says it is. (as PB says the average mage has combat training.)

For me, it's all about context.
As I've said from (IIRC) my first post in this thread: if you're only looking at the game rules and technicalities, then go with that. If you're wanting to interpret a specific person's use of a phrase, look at context of the usage, and maybe ask the person about what sense they meant the term.

Really and where is the standard on what constitutes a warrior because I do not recall any the times reading or searching ever seing them say to be a warrior you must be X.

I don't know exactly what the standard is.
But we do know RAW that mages do not meet their standard.
Which necessarily means that they DO have one, and that mages necessarily do NOT meet it.

So not even the Temporal Warrior meets the standard of a.warrior?

Not being MaA just means warfare isn't your central theme not that you can't do it. Still awaiting a "mages.can't be warriors" quote.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

guardiandashi wrote:the Souix, ZULU, Samarai etc. are all examples of WARRIORS.
The Spartans were definitely warriors but I believe they were also proto-soldiers but I would say the roman Legions were an early example of SOLDIERS IE a group that were all trained to fight the same way, with standard weapons and tactics, that were HIGHLY effective for their era.

boot camp is designed (at its root) to turn random civilians, and or individual warriors, into a group of soldiers.

so when you look at things from that perspective... Mages are not combat trained as SOLDIERS. they may be trained as WARRIORS because they all (most) have their OWN way of doing things that works best for them.

RUE 189
"most can handle themselves in a fight, but they're not warriors, they just aren't."

guardiandashi Warriors and the RUE Warriors are not in my opinion the same thing, I expect you to Disagree KC but the context is completly different in my mind. Nearly everything in the arguement is extreamly context driven.

Killer Cyborg wrote:It sounds like the argument is "The only way to be Combat Trained is to be HTH Trained, because it's absolutely impossible for anybody ever to engage in combat without having a HTH skill (or not having one). Some exceptions may apply."

Is that about correct?

Close.

All combat starts from the combat rules sourced in the hand to hand combat rules which are the fundamental and essential facts of combat. This is unequivocally stated in RUE. If you find a corner case, then the most likely explanation is equivalence to hand to hand training as is the case with the optional Hand to Hand: Dragon. If you deal in attacks per melee, then you are dealing with something that came out of hand to hand combat rules.

Natasha wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:It sounds like the argument is "The only way to be Combat Trained is to be HTH Trained, because it's absolutely impossible for anybody ever to engage in combat without having a HTH skill (or not having one). Some exceptions may apply."

Is that about correct?

Close.

All combat starts from the combat rules sourced in the hand to hand combat rules which are the fundamental and essential facts of combat. This is unequivocally stated in RUE. If you find a corner case, then the most likely explanation is equivalence to hand to hand training as is the case with the optional Hand to Hand: Dragon. If you deal in attacks per melee, then you are dealing with something that came out of hand to hand combat rules.

Okay...
Now it seems like you're conflating "Hand to Hand Combat Rules" and "Hand to Hand Combat Skills."

I think we agree that from a mechanical perspective, Kevin and any other early writers focused first on melee combat rules, and secondarily on ranged combat rules.

But I don't see why you think that's important.
Ranged combat is still combat.

If you have two characters without any HTH skills, you might still be working with a rules system that has melee as its primary focus, but ranged combat is still combat.
For that matter, vehicular combat is still combat.

You can have two people with no HTH skills shooting at each other, and guess what?
The guy with a WP in his ranged weapon is probably going to be more effective than one without any WP.
Because WPs provide combat training.

Axelmania wrote:So not even the Temporal Warrior meets the standard of a.warrior?

Possibly... but I think that it's much more likely that they don't meet the standard of "mage," certainly not of the common mage that RUE seems to be discussing in that passage.

Temporal Warriors are "lesser practitioners of magic" whose training focuses on combing physical combat and temporal magic.
They'd most likely still be restricted when it comes to spellcasting in combat the way general mages are, but they don't seem likely to have been considered in that passage, the same way that dragons and many other specific kinds of spellcasters weren't.
"Mage" doesn't necessarily mean "anybody and everybody who can cast spells."

Not being MaA just means warfare isn't your central theme not that you can't do it. Still awaiting a "mages.can't be warriors" quote.

There is a difference between "mages aren't warriors, they just aren't" and "No mage (or other spell caster) could ever possibly be a warrior."

Killer Cyborg wrote:I think we agree that from a mechanical perspective, Kevin and any other early writers focused first on melee combat rules, and secondarily on ranged combat rules.

But I don't see why you think that's important.
Ranged combat is still combat.

Well it's important because without it there is no ranged combat. You can't play the game. Seems important to me. *shrug*

The result of that is if you want to know the full extent of a character's combat training, you must consider the character's hth situation. This is not conflating the rules and the skills. It's just pointing out the obvious. It's never been more complicated than that, but some people just like to complicate things.

Natasha wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:I think we agree that from a mechanical perspective, Kevin and any other early writers focused first on melee combat rules, and secondarily on ranged combat rules.

But I don't see why you think that's important.
Ranged combat is still combat.

Well it's important because without it there is no ranged combat. You can't play the game. Seems important to me. *shrug*

Without Hit Points and damage capacity, there is no combat. You can't play the game.
Why not hold THAT as the basis for being combat trained?


But you're wrong.
You can have ranged combat without having melee combat.
You can have ranged combat without having HTH combat skills.

The result of that is if you want to know the full extent of a character's combat training, you must consider the character's hth situation.

You don't need to know the full extent of their combat training if all you're doing is trying to determine if they're technically "combat trained."
All you have to do is to see if they have any skills that provide them with combat training.
WPs provide combat training.
Therefore, anybody with a WP--regardless of how deep any other combat training goes--is technically "combat trained."

This is not conflating the rules and the skills. It's just pointing out the obvious. It's never been more complicated than that, but some people just like to complicate things.

You think that your argument here obviously makes sense.
I think that it most obviously makes zero sense.
We can agree to disagree, or we can try to keep discussing things until one of us sees where the other person is coming from.

Hint: Where I'm coming from is that "A person with combat training is technically combat trained" is a truism.
WPs provide combat training.
Ergo, a person with any WP is technically combat trained.

It's that simple and obvious. No need to complicate things.

I guess I'll take it on faith that you can remove everything from p 339 to 342 inclusive and play by the rules starting on 360.