Forums of the Megaverse®

Posted: **Mon Mar 06, 2017 3:30 pm**

Natasha wrote: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.

It's not that I don't use those rules (well, some form of them; they're unplayable RAW).

It's that it does not matter that those rules are labeled "Hand to Hand Combat."

So Palladium got lazy, and didn't rewrite the rules a second time for ranged combat.
What about it?
Palladium's formatting is often illogical and unclear.

Again, you can't have combat without the rules for HP/SDC/MDC either.
What about it?

You can't have combat without the rules for character creation.
You can't have combat without the rules for skills.
You can't have combat without a lot of different things.
What about it?

What about "these rules are necessary for playing combat" makes you think that skills that you associate with those certain necessary rules are essential for being Combat Trained?
Because I'm not seeing it. It makes absolutely no sense to me.

It's like saying that in order to be a trained auto mechanic, you have to have training specifically on repairing wheels, because without wheels the car doesn't go.
Or repeat that analogy with virtually any other single part of the car, pretending that THAT part--and only that part--is the sole way to determine if somebody is a trained mechanic.

It doesn't follow logically.
There is nothing about "these rules are necessary for game play combat" that means "a character with a skill related to these specific rules--and only a skill related to these specific rules--is combat trained."
It is, IMO, a bizarre leap sideways that does not follow any linear path of logic.

Certainly not one as succinct as "If a character has a skill that provides combat training, then they are combat trained."

You're delving into the history and format of game mechanics, and trying to look at which rules are attached to which other rules, all in order to decide that a character who has combat training from a WP is not combat trained.

It just seems like an illogical process that leads to an obviously incorrect answer, for no real gain.
It seems convoluted for no purpose, and for no meaningful conclusion.

Again, you seem to think that it's all obvious... but I think that it's a series of unsound leaps leading to a preposterous conclusion.

Posted: **Mon Mar 06, 2017 8:45 pm**

Killer Cyborg wrote:
Natasha wrote: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.

It's not that I don't use those rules (well, some form of them; they're unplayable RAW).

It's that it does not matter that those rules are labeled "Hand to Hand Combat."

So Palladium got lazy, and didn't rewrite the rules a second time for ranged combat.
What about it?
Palladium's formatting is often illogical and unclear.

Again, you can't have combat without the rules for HP/SDC/MDC either.
What about it?

You can't have combat without the rules for character creation.
You can't have combat without the rules for skills.
You can't have combat without a lot of different things.
What about it?

What about "these rules are necessary for playing combat" makes you think that skills that you associate with those certain necessary rules are essential for being Combat Trained?
Because I'm not seeing it. It makes absolutely no sense to me.

It's like saying that in order to be a trained auto mechanic, you have to have training specifically on repairing wheels, because without wheels the car doesn't go.
Or repeat that analogy with virtually any other single part of the car, pretending that THAT part--and only that part--is the sole way to determine if somebody is a trained mechanic.

It doesn't follow logically.
There is nothing about "these rules are necessary for game play combat" that means "a character with a skill related to these specific rules--and only a skill related to these specific rules--is combat trained."
It is, IMO, a bizarre leap sideways that does not follow any linear path of logic.

Certainly not one as succinct as "If a character has a skill that provides combat training, then they are combat trained."

You're delving into the history and format of game mechanics, and trying to look at which rules are attached to which other rules, all in order to decide that a character who has combat training from a WP is not combat trained.

It just seems like an illogical process that leads to an obviously incorrect answer, for no real gain.
It seems convoluted for no purpose, and for no meaningful conclusion.

Again, you seem to think that it's all obvious... but I think that it's a series of unsound leaps leading to a preposterous conclusion.

The hand to hand skills are the only skills that explicitly define what it means to be combat trained. If modern combat is an add-on to hand to hand combat due to lazy game developers or for any other reason, then we need to go no further. If this is true, then W.P. just become constituents of a character's combat training.

Posted: **Mon Mar 06, 2017 9:00 pm**

Natasha wrote:The hand to hand skills are the only skills that explicitly define what it means to be combat trained.

All WPs provide combat training according to the rules.
It doesn't need to be defined.
If the book state that WPs provide "gobble Gibber Goo," that is true whether or not the books ever provide a definition for that particular term.

If modern combat is an add-on to hand to hand combat due to lazy game developers or for any other reason, then we need to go no further. If this is true, then W.P. just become constituents of a character's combat training.

How so?

Posted: **Mon Mar 06, 2017 9:26 pm**

Killer Cyborg wrote:
Natasha wrote:The hand to hand skills are the only skills that explicitly define what it means to be combat trained.

All WPs provide combat training according to the rules.
It doesn't need to be defined.
If the book state that WPs provide "gobble Gibber Goo," that is true whether or not the books ever provide a definition for that particular term.

If modern combat is an add-on to hand to hand combat due to lazy game developers or for any other reason, then we need to go no further. If this is true, then W.P. just become constituents of a character's combat training.

How so?

If it doesn't need to be defined for you, then there is no reason for you to bother with how I define it.

How so? Combat training = Hand to hand + W.P.

Posted: **Mon Mar 06, 2017 9:43 pm**

Greetings and Salutations. I'm going to respond to a few different posts, but most of them will be from Natasha and eliakon, as this is primarily addressing the stance that "Hand to Hand: Basic" is somehow the definition of combat training.

Natasha wrote:Attacks per melee: Characters with any kind of formal hand to hand combat training (basic, expert, ...).

Hand to hand: basic: This is an elementary form of hand to hand combat training.

Hand to hand: expert: This is the fighting style taught to ...

And so on.

It's defined. The minimum amount is defined by hand to hand: basic. Horror factor covers horrific situations. Discipline and self-control are covered by the 1D20 (with bonuses/penalties) results.

This is a false statement. The minimum amount is not defined there. What "Basic" says is "an" elementary form. This does NOT state it's the only elementary form. Let's try a few different sentences.

Addition is an elementary form of math.
Subtraction is an elementary form of math.
Multiplication is an elementary form of math.
Division is an elementary form of math.

By your stance, I made four contradicting statements, except I didn't. Or let's try going the reverse.

Algebra is an advanced form of math.

By your stance, my sentence says "Algebra is the only advanced form of math." Except, you know, that's not what the sentence actually says. Geometry is an advanced form of math. Trigonometry is an advanced form of math. Calculus is an advanced form of math. Do I need to go on? The sentence in "Basic" is an inclusionary statement, it is not an exclusionary statement as you try to present it.

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

This is mostly true as of RUE. Pre-RUE you had things like bursts that can take a full melee round (regardless of attacks per melee), casting spells (which took a set amount of melee round, possibly all of it or multiple melee rounds, regardless of attacks per melee), and then there's Archery (which uses Rater of Fire instead of Attacks per melee, and still exists even in RUE).

eliakon wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote: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.

Except, as far as I can see, RUE doesn't actually call it Hand to Hand: None. If I'm wrong and it's there, provide a page number and quote please. Because what it's looking like is that it's just something you made up so you can say you have to refer to hand to hand. That's like saying everyone is literate. Someone who can't read is just Literate: None. Everyone has math skills! Someone who can't count just has Math: None. Apparently that's a skill now or something.

For the record, I don't even need to go to the Hand to Hand Skills section to see what "Characters with No Hand to Hand Combat Skill" (what it's actually called, not Hand to Hand: None), as I can go to Combat Terms & Moves and find it under Attacks per Melee (not having to look at the Hand to Hand skills at all, just "Attacks per Melee" description will tell me, though it's not as detailed).

eliakon wrote: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.

Half right. Archery does NOT give you attacks per melee. Archery DOES give you a Rate of Fire, which operates separately from Attacks per Melee. Whether you have 1 or 50 attacks per melee, your Rate of Fire remains the same. The exact quote from RUE, page 326 ...

Rate of Fire: Two shots per melee round at level one and an extra shot per melee round is added at levels ...

If you want to claim that quote is false, and that Attacks per Melee Round override the Rate of Fire, then I'd like to see proof. Otherwise, it's just an attempt to insert house rules to prove a point, which is poor form.

Now, I will say that, as an individual, I do think that Hand to Hand is one of the better mechanics to represent combat training (in the context of the original quote). Even though it's not perfect, the increased attacks per melee wouldn't indicate (to me) an increase in speed, but an increased ability to handle oneself in combat situations. From a game mechanics standpoint, Palladium tends to assume (from what I can tell) that player characters are suppose to be heroes above the norm (at least in the original concept), and as such are generally prepared to do things like get in a M.D. firefight. Now role-playing someone on edge from the experience could be great, but it's not really a game mechanic (of course, I have yet to see a game mechanic for voice volume in general, so anything regarding it will be a house rule, naturally). I'm not against the idea of using Hand to Hand to symbolize combat training, but I am against bad information. Farewell and safe journeys to all.

Posted: **Mon Mar 06, 2017 10:00 pm**

Prysus wrote:
Greetings and Salutations. I'm going to respond to a few different posts, but most of them will be from Natasha and eliakon, as this is primarily addressing the stance that "Hand to Hand: Basic" is somehow the definition of combat training.

Natasha wrote:Attacks per melee: Characters with any kind of formal hand to hand combat training (basic, expert, ...).

Hand to hand: basic: This is an elementary form of hand to hand combat training.

Hand to hand: expert: This is the fighting style taught to ...

And so on.

It's defined. The minimum amount is defined by hand to hand: basic. Horror factor covers horrific situations. Discipline and self-control are covered by the 1D20 (with bonuses/penalties) results.

This is a false statement. The minimum amount is not defined there. What "Basic" says is "an" elementary form. This does NOT state it's the only elementary form. Let's try a few different sentences.

Addition is an elementary form of math.
Subtraction is an elementary form of math.
Multiplication is an elementary form of math.
Division is an elementary form of math.

By your stance, I made four contradicting statements, except I didn't. Or let's try going the reverse.

Algebra is an advanced form of math.

By your stance, my sentence says "Algebra is the only advanced form of math." Except, you know, that's not what the sentence actually says. Geometry is an advanced form of math. Trigonometry is an advanced form of math. Calculus is an advanced form of math. Do I need to go on? The sentence in "Basic" is an inclusionary statement, it is not an exclusionary statement as you try to present it.

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

This is mostly true as of RUE. Pre-RUE you had things like bursts that can take a full melee round (regardless of attacks per melee), casting spells (which took a set amount of melee round, possibly all of it or multiple melee rounds, regardless of attacks per melee), and then there's Archery (which uses Rater of Fire instead of Attacks per melee, and still exists even in RUE).

Addition (and the others) is not an elementary form of math; it's an operation in arithmetic. And arithmetic is an elementary form of number theory.

Nevertheless, hth: basic is an elementary form of combat training. In RUE is't also the only one. There could be others, but they would always be in terms of hand to hand. That's just the way the game is written.

How do you know if you have 1 attack per melee to do the burst?

Posted: **Tue Mar 07, 2017 12:32 am**

Natasha wrote:Addition (and the others) is not an elementary form of math; it's an operation in arithmetic. And arithmetic is an elementary form of number theory.

Greetings and Salutations.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/elementary

elementary
ADJECTIVE

1Relating to the rudiments of a subject.
‘an elementary astronomy course’
More example sentencesSynonyms
1.1 Of the most basic kind.
‘the elementary rights of citizenship’
More example sentencesSynonyms
1.2 Straightforward and uncomplicated.
‘a series of elementary exercises’
More example sentencesSynonyms
2Not decomposable into elements or other primary constituents.

I'll point to 1.1.: "of the most basic kind." Well, we know Palladium considers addition "basic" math (it's literally in the skill), but apparently you think they're wrong.

Or how about 1.2. I personally feel addition is straightforward and uncomplicated. Is it complicated for you?

#2 actually sounds like the definition you're trying to use and enforce, but it's far from the only one. Let's look at some more dictionaries.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dict ... elementary

elementary
adjective US /ˌel·əˈmen·tri, -ˈmen·tə·ri/
elementary adjective (BASIC)

simple or easy; basic:
I’m taking a course in elementary Russian.
elementary adjective (OF CHEMICAL SUBSTANCE)

chemistry, physics [ not gradable ] relating to the chemical elements:

Again, I consider it simple and easy math. Palladium considers it basic math. Why do you consider it so advanced?

I'd like to think we can agree that it's not chemistry or physics.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/elementary

elementary
[el-uh-men-tuh-ree, -tree]
Spell Syllables
Synonyms Examples Word Origin
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
adjective
1.
pertaining to or dealing with elements, rudiments, or first principles:
an elementary grammar.
2.
of or relating to an elementary school :
elementary teachers.
3.
of the nature of an ultimate constituent; simple or uncompounded.
4.
pertaining to the four elements, earth, water, air, and fire, or to the great forces of nature; elemental.
5.
Chemistry. of or noting one or more elements.

1: Rudimentary. I mean, you won't get very far in math without being able to add and subtract. And again, it is pretty basic math.

2: Relating to elementary school? Well, they definitely taught addition and subtraction there, so it qualifies, though I'll admit that's probably not the version Palladium was using (as I don't think they intended to imply it's fighting taught to you in elementary school).

3: Simple and uncompounded ... except to you?

4: Well, it doesn't pertain to the four elements, but I don't think that Hand to Hand: Basic is meant to be the martial art form for the Avatar either.

5: Again, pretty sure none of us are talking about chemistry in this regards.

And, even setting all dictionary definitions aside, let's just say I'm wrong. Let's say Palladium is wrong for calling it math. None of that changes that you're only attempting to deflect the point. You're attempting to focus on the tiny details to avoid the fact you're claiming an inclusionary statement is an exclusionary one.

Natasha wrote:Nevertheless, hth: basic is an elementary form of combat training. In RUE is't also the only one. There could be others, but they would always be in terms of hand to hand. That's just the way the game is written.

Well, I agree Hand to Hand: Basic is a basic, simple, easy form of combat training. Of course, RUE also tells us that W.P. is combat training. So the book does NOT say it has to be in terms of hand to hand, you're making that up. When the book says that W.P. are combat training you claim it's a mistake, trying to make the book wrong so that your interpretation is correct. You started off posting how we should be using the book, but then want to disregard it when you don't like what it says.

Natasha wrote:How do you know if you have 1 attack per melee to do the burst?

Rifts Main Book (original), page 34 ...

Empty the entire magazine/one target: All rounds fired, inflicts normal damage x20. Counts as all melee attacks/one full melee.

Empty the entire magazine in a spray: All rounds fired, inflicts normal damage x2, hits 2D8 targets. Counts as ALL melee attacks/one full melee.

So I don't need one attack, I just need to use them all. Zero or a hundred, I just spend a melee round and done.

Also, once again, you attempt to focus on one detail, as if somehow disprove the rest. You ignore things like Archery, or the older magic system, which didn't use the attack per melee system at all. You also ignore the fact that if I don't have any hand to hand at all, I don't have to look at the skills or the hand to hand section, I can simply look at the Attacks per Melee definition in RUE and it'll tell me I have one attack. I didn't even get into the various races that won't follow your claims. Farewell and safe journeys.

Posted: **Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:22 am**

The basic mathematics skill says the character is skilled in the operations of arithmetic. It makes sense to call this skill basic mathematics because it does not involve analytical number theory and certainly not algebraic number theory. The skill never says addition is an elementary form of math. If it did, that would be incorrect.

"There could be others" is not exclusionary.

I don't recall quoting the book as saying it will be in terms of hand to hand. It just turns out there is no other choice without a new set of rules.
Hand to Hand Combat
STEP 1: Determine Initiative
STEP 2: Attacker Rolls to Strike
STEP 3: Defender May Parry, Dodge or Entangle
STEP 4: Attacker Rolls Damage
STEP 5: Defender May Attempt to Roll with Impact

The archery W.P. gives bonuses to strike, parry, and disarm. These activities are in terms of steps 2 and 3. Of course, all characters who engage in combat must determine initiative, even if it is automatic.

Same thing with Attacks per Melee. The definition is written in terms of hand to hand combat.

Old magic system? I'm not avoiding the issue, but I wonder if that's appropriate in (un)armed combat discussion? Perhaps a new thread for it?

What races exist that engage in combat with a separate set of rules not covered by the steps already enumerated for hand to hand combat?

You may have missed where I said combat training = hand to hand + W.P. I suppose the part of the discussion you're talking about is where I said the note is probably an error, but it's never been a factor in anything I said. It seems to be central to this as yet unsourced set of combat rules that do not use hand to hand combat rules as the basis.

Posted: **Tue Mar 07, 2017 10:56 am**

Natasha wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:
Natasha wrote:The hand to hand skills are the only skills that explicitly define what it means to be combat trained.

All WPs provide combat training according to the rules.
It doesn't need to be defined.
If the book state that WPs provide "gobble Gibber Goo," that is true whether or not the books ever provide a definition for that particular term.

If modern combat is an add-on to hand to hand combat due to lazy game developers or for any other reason, then we need to go no further. If this is true, then W.P. just become constituents of a character's combat training.

How so?

If it doesn't need to be defined for you, then there is no reason for you to bother with how I define it.

You know, I can agree with that.
Your personal definition conflicts directly with what's in the books, so I really shouldn't bother discussing it any further.
I don't need to understand it in order to know that it's incorrect.

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2017 2:08 pm**

VictoryWeaver wrote:
Ed wrote: snip

This right here, all of this. This made me very sad. Seriously, open a history book. Oh, and they stopped teaching LINE ten years ago, they us MCMAP. Learn about things before using them to (not) prove a point.

I have. More than one, actually. I went through Paris Island in the 1980's and learned LINE. That prove my point?

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2017 6:46 pm**

This thread seems to have broken down into sophistry, circular arguments, personal opinions, and arguments about what is is.
As far as I can tell...
...basically the entire argument stems from trying to justify the claim that mages are not trained for combat...
...by defining combat in a way that excludes mages and arguing that any definition of combat training that does include mages, isn't combat training.

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2017 7:28 pm**

eliakon wrote:This thread seems to have broken down into sophistry, circular arguments, personal opinions, and arguments about what is is.
As far as I can tell...
...basically the entire argument stems from trying to justify the claim that mages are not trained for combat...
...by defining combat in a way that excludes mages and arguing that any definition of combat training that does include mages, isn't combat training.

Nah.
For one thing, everybody agreed early on that typical mages are combat trained in some contexts.
They're just not combat trained in ALL contexts.

Lately, if you read the conversation you've been involved in, it's switched to where Natasha insists that HTH training is the only standard for Combat Training, and I insist that the minimum standard would be having any HTH or WP skill.
Mages would be Combat Trained by either standard, in this context.

Then we reached the point, the believe, where we decided that it's not really worth talking about any more.

Then things were quiet, until you decided to chime in with an accusatory post about people's motives.

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2017 7:37 pm**

Killer Cyborg wrote:
eliakon wrote:This thread seems to have broken down into sophistry, circular arguments, personal opinions, and arguments about what is is.
As far as I can tell...
...basically the entire argument stems from trying to justify the claim that mages are not trained for combat...
...by defining combat in a way that excludes mages and arguing that any definition of combat training that does include mages, isn't combat training.

Nah.
For one thing, everybody agreed early on that typical mages are combat trained in some contexts.
They're just not combat trained in ALL contexts.

That's a no brainer.
NO ONE is combat trained in ALL contexts (possibly excepting some gods of war)

Killer Cyborg wrote:Lately, if you read the conversation you've been involved in, it's switched to where Natasha insists that HTH training is the only standard for Combat Training, and I insist that the minimum standard would be having any HTH or WP skill.
Mages would be Combat Trained by either standard, in this context.

Then we reached the point, the believe, where we decided that it's not really worth talking about any more.

Then things were quiet, until you decided to chime in with an accusatory post about people's motives.

The issue I have is that what you claim was in the first part I haven't seen...
...I have yet to see the 'typical mage are combat trained in some contexts'
Just justifications on why they are not, or why it did really apply because that context didn't really mean combat...

So, no I have not seen anything of the sort like your claim which is why I said what I said.
From what I have seen, I have only seen blanket support for the "most mages aren't trained for combat" with various justifications for that.
Now if I have missed the post that said that in the last 11 pages... oops, my bad. But I don't see it, and I really don't see anyone referring to it to try and settle a ground state and then argue that some sort of 'advanced combat' is better.
I will admit that part of the problem is that there are a lot of people posting in this though.

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2017 7:44 pm**

Killer Cyborg wrote:
eliakon wrote:This thread seems to have broken down into sophistry, circular arguments, personal opinions, and arguments about what is is.
As far as I can tell...
...basically the entire argument stems from trying to justify the claim that mages are not trained for combat...
...by defining combat in a way that excludes mages and arguing that any definition of combat training that does include mages, isn't combat training.

Nah.
For one thing, everybody agreed early on that typical mages are combat trained in some contexts.
They're just not combat trained in ALL contexts.

Lately, if you read the conversation you've been involved in, it's switched to where Natasha insists that HTH training is the only standard for Combat Training, and I insist that the minimum standard would be having any HTH or WP skill.
Mages would be Combat Trained by either standard, in this context.

Then we reached the point, the believe, where we decided that it's not really worth talking about any more.

Then things were quiet, until you decided to chime in with an accusatory post about people's motives.

Setting the record straight.

I just used Ockham's razor to shave off some complexity. Mine is simpler with just one standard which applies to every character in the game, and can actually be played.

I never said "only standard". In fact, I said others could exist and even described possible equivalent standards.

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2017 7:46 pm**

Natasha wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:
eliakon wrote:This thread seems to have broken down into sophistry, circular arguments, personal opinions, and arguments about what is is.
As far as I can tell...
...basically the entire argument stems from trying to justify the claim that mages are not trained for combat...
...by defining combat in a way that excludes mages and arguing that any definition of combat training that does include mages, isn't combat training.

Nah.
For one thing, everybody agreed early on that typical mages are combat trained in some contexts.
They're just not combat trained in ALL contexts.

Lately, if you read the conversation you've been involved in, it's switched to where Natasha insists that HTH training is the only standard for Combat Training, and I insist that the minimum standard would be having any HTH or WP skill.
Mages would be Combat Trained by either standard, in this context.

Then we reached the point, the believe, where we decided that it's not really worth talking about any more.

Then things were quiet, until you decided to chime in with an accusatory post about people's motives.

Setting the record straight.

I just used Ockham's razor to shave off some complexity. Mine is simpler with just one standard which applies to every character in the game, and can actually be played.

I never said "only standard". In fact, I said others could exist and even described possible equivalent standards.

Killer Cyborg wrote:I don't need to understand it in order to know that it's incorrect.

Basically he's playing God Mode in Single Player.

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2017 8:09 pm**

Natasha wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:
eliakon wrote:This thread seems to have broken down into sophistry, circular arguments, personal opinions, and arguments about what is is.
As far as I can tell...
...basically the entire argument stems from trying to justify the claim that mages are not trained for combat...
...by defining combat in a way that excludes mages and arguing that any definition of combat training that does include mages, isn't combat training.

Nah.
For one thing, everybody agreed early on that typical mages are combat trained in some contexts.
They're just not combat trained in ALL contexts.

Lately, if you read the conversation you've been involved in, it's switched to where Natasha insists that HTH training is the only standard for Combat Training, and I insist that the minimum standard would be having any HTH or WP skill.
Mages would be Combat Trained by either standard, in this context.

Then we reached the point, the believe, where we decided that it's not really worth talking about any more.

Then things were quiet, until you decided to chime in with an accusatory post about people's motives.

Setting the record straight.

I just used Ockham's razor to shave off some complexity. Mine is simpler with just one standard which applies to every character in the game, and can actually be played.

No.
"The original game mechanics for combat started with HTH combat and spread outward to encompass other things, therefore those later elements of combat don't count when it comes to Combat Training, because they all refer back to the origin of the rules" (or whatever)
Is NOT less complex than
"If you have a skill that states it provides combat training, then you are combat trained.

I never said "only standard". In fact, I said others could exist and even described possible equivalent standards.

Okay.

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2017 8:10 pm**

lather wrote:Basically he's playing God Mode in Single Player.

I don't know whether to

or

to that.

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2017 8:39 pm**

eliakon wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:
eliakon wrote:This thread seems to have broken down into sophistry, circular arguments, personal opinions, and arguments about what is is.
As far as I can tell...
...basically the entire argument stems from trying to justify the claim that mages are not trained for combat...
...by defining combat in a way that excludes mages and arguing that any definition of combat training that does include mages, isn't combat training.

Nah.
For one thing, everybody agreed early on that typical mages are combat trained in some contexts.
They're just not combat trained in ALL contexts.

That's a no brainer.
NO ONE is combat trained in ALL contexts (possibly excepting some gods of war)

Agreed!

Killer Cyborg wrote:Lately, if you read the conversation you've been involved in, it's switched to where Natasha insists that HTH training is the only standard for Combat Training, and I insist that the minimum standard would be having any HTH or WP skill.
Mages would be Combat Trained by either standard, in this context.

Then we reached the point, the believe, where we decided that it's not really worth talking about any more.

Then things were quiet, until you decided to chime in with an accusatory post about people's motives.

The issue I have is that what you claim was in the first part I haven't seen...
...I have yet to see the 'typical mage are combat trained in some contexts'
Just justifications on why they are not, or why it did really apply because that context didn't really mean combat...

So, no I have not seen anything of the sort like your claim which is why I said what I said.
From what I have seen, I have only seen blanket support for the "most mages aren't trained for combat" with various justifications for that.
Now if I have missed the post that said that in the last 11 pages... oops, my bad. But I don't see it, and I really don't see anyone referring to it to try and settle a ground state and then argue that some sort of 'advanced combat' is better.
I will admit that part of the problem is that there are a lot of people posting in this though.

From page 1:
viewtopic.php?p=2949589#p2949589

eliakon wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:
eliakon wrote:So the official rules are that OCC and OCCr skills are professional quality.

I would say that being Professional Quality in a combat skill is a good definition of "combat trained"

I'd say that it depends lot on what the combat skill is, and what the context of the conversation is.
HTH Basic runs a pretty wide spectrum. Being Professional quality at YMCA Self Defense isn't necessarily as good as being trained in HTH combat through the military.
Even if it's as good--it's not the same. Somebody tries to mug him with a switchblade or their fists, Mr. Pro Y should be cool. His "combat training" should cover that.

He ends up in the middle of a MD firefight?
Nah.

I can see that...

Edit:
Also, posting.php?mode=quote&f=8&p=2952001

Killer Cyborg wrote:
eliakon wrote:and 2) there is no 'context' to combat training just peoples PERSONAL OPINIONS and house rules...

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

And various variations on that theme, throughout the thread.

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2017 8:58 pm**

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

Checking up on the preceding context of this sure is interesting...

"With the arguable exception of the Shifter, practitioners of magic aren't experts in hand to hand combat."

Wait, wut? Shifters are HTH experts now? What's this all about... well let's check their HTH capabilities on page 126.

Basic, Expert for 1, Martial Arts or Assassin (anarchist or below) for 2. Physical: can't get boxing or wrestling.

How do other practitioners of magic compare?

Fusionist: nice PS/PE bonus, p 104 Basic, Expert for 1 skill (probably because martial arts / assassin are urban-based styles and these are wilderness folk)

Line Walker 116, Basic, Expert for 1, Martial Arts or Assassin (evil only) for 2. Physical: can get boxing but no wrestling. So on the downside: no anarchist assassins, but Boxing to me says these guys have better HTH potential than Shifters.

119 Mystic: none to start, basic 1, expert 2, MA 3, ass (anarchist or below) 4. Can't buy Boxing/Wrestling. They have a slight leg up on Ley Line Walkers in that they can be Anarchist Assassins (like the Shifter) but that's hardly worth not getting Boxing so they still come in 3rd place. Obviously the Shifter wins here in terms of initial skill and the cost to get to higher skill.

129 Technowizard: same as the Mystic

My instinct here: 189 is only discussing the main book practitioner OCCs, and when it was written the Shifter had gotten Basic but the Line Walker hadn't, then the author also gave Line Walkers Basic but it didn't occur to them to go and amend this.

That, or initially Line Walkers had Basic, Shifters had Expert, then the authors nerfed the Shifters' Expert down to Basic and forgot to amend the statement. As it is, in the final copy, the Ley Line Walker has the best HTH potential of the RUE mages, so the writing on 189 is pretty suspect in terms of meaning anything useful, as the end result of the OCCs clearly contradict it.

...

Oh wait but I forgot about LINKS. Pg 124. Yeah that's the difference-maker... sometimes.

Gods of Darkness can give a huge PP or Supernatural PS bonus, both very helpful in HTH. Warrior God makes them Martial Artists. Nature Spriit gives strike/dodge/SDC.

So I guess that might be the arguable exception, although I do like my initial theories about last-minute changes to the OCC skills.

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2017 9:05 pm**

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

Checking up on the preceding context of this sure is interesting...

"With the arguable exception of the Shifter, practitioners of magic aren't experts in hand to hand combat."

Wait, wut? Shifters are HTH experts now? What's this all about... well let's check their HTH capabilities on page 126.

Basic, Expert for 1, Martial Arts or Assassin (anarchist or below) for 2. Physical: can't get boxing or wrestling.

How do other practitioners of magic compare?

Fusionist: nice PS/PE bonus, p 104 Basic, Expert for 1 skill (probably because martial arts / assassin are urban-based styles and these are wilderness folk)

Line Walker 116, Basic, Expert for 1, Martial Arts or Assassin (evil only) for 2. Physical: can get boxing but no wrestling. So on the downside: no anarchist assassins, but Boxing to me says these guys have better HTH potential than Shifters.

119 Mystic: none to start, basic 1, expert 2, MA 3, ass (anarchist or below) 4. They have a slight leg up on Ley Line Walkers in that they can be Anarchist Assassins (like the Shifter) but obviously the Shifter wins here in terms of initial skill and the cost to get to higher skill.

129 Technowizard: same as the Mystic

My instinct here: 189 is only discussing the main book practitioner OCCs, and when it was written the Shifter had gotten Basic but the Line Walker hadn't, then the author also gave Line Walkers Basic but it didn't occur to them to go and amend this.

That, or initially Line Walkers had Basic, Shifters had Expert, then the authors nerfed the Shifters' Expert down to Basic and forgot to amend the statement.

I think that Palladium puts a LOT less thought into all of this than we do.

It wouldn't surprise me if, when writing that passage, the writer had the thought of "But wait, Shifters are badass!!", and adjusted the text accordingly.

But I don't think that starting with HTH Basic makes one an Expert in HTH.
I'd expect that HTH Expert or better would do that.

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2017 9:26 pm**

Axelmania wrote:Checking up on the preceding context of this sure is interesting...

"With the arguable exception of the Shifter, practitioners of magic aren't experts in hand to hand combat."

Wait, wut? Shifters are HTH experts now? What's this all about... well let's check their HTH capabilities on page 126.

Greetings and Salutations. Reading the whole section, I'd have a different interpretation on why Shifters are an "arguable" exception. Hand to Hand itself doesn't seem to play an actual part in the statement. Even if Shifters had Basic and LLW didn't, or Shifters had Expert and LLW had Basic, the statement would still only be "arguable" (ergo, not a fact, or an actual exception, just that someone could make a case for it).

The section is about how, well, ineffective magic is in direct combat. Even if when a battle starts if a LLW has Armor of Ithan up as a defense, while casting a Level 1 spell he could still be interrupted in combat. In a one on one battle against a Men at Arms, it would be an uphill battle for the LLW. With a Shifter however, if when starting the battle s/he has a monster summoned, the monster could fight alongside the Shifter. This would allow the Shifter to fight two on one, or have the monster keep the opponent busy while s/he casts a different spell. The Shifter's "Link to the Supernatural" ability also adds advantages including potentially: Extra W.P., Hand to Hand: Martial Arts, the ability to shapeshift and fight as an animal(including bonuses to initiative which is important for getting spells off before getting interrupted, strike, and parry, as well as possibly acting as a disguise to make the Shifter less likely of a target, once again allowing more spell casting), and I think all options provide extra S.D.C.

That's how I'd take it. It's not the Hand to Hand which is the advantage (as any of the other mages can have that one), but their abilities as an O.C.C., and even then it's only "arguable." Farewell and safe journeys for now.

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2017 10:45 pm**

Natasha wrote:The basic mathematics skill says the character is skilled in the operations of arithmetic. It makes sense to call this skill basic mathematics because it does not involve analytical number theory and certainly not algebraic number theory. The skill never says addition is an elementary form of math. If it did, that would be incorrect.

Greetings and Salutations. I guess I'll give this one more token effort. Palladium lists: "addition, subtraction, multiplication, division ..." within Mathematics: Basic. I listed those four for a reason. And no, they don't use the term "elementary." They do use the term "basic" and, as I quoted above from various dictionaries, one of the meanings of elementary is basic. Just because you don't like the definition, or it's not the definition you want to enforce as the only true definition, doesn't make it less true. So the statement of addition being elementary math is true, per Palladium and the actual meaning of words.

Natasha wrote:"There could be others" is not exclusionary.

That isn't an exclusionary statement.

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

This statement, made by you, is exclusionary though, at least in context of what I said. Technically, you allow for higher, but you do NOT allow for anything lower or equivalent. "An elementary form" is not the only elementary form.

Natasha wrote:I don't recall quoting the book as saying it will be in terms of hand to hand.

Not really. You just keep claiming the book does say it. Such as ...

Natasha wrote:What's wrong with using the Rifts definition of combat trained? It's about as straight forward as checking the character sheet for rope works when a character is trying to tie a knot.

Natasha wrote:Attacks per melee: Characters with any kind of formal hand to hand combat training (basic, expert, ...).

Hand to hand: basic: This is an elementary form of hand to hand combat training.

Hand to hand: expert: This is the fighting style taught to ...

And so on.

It's defined. The minimum amount is defined by hand to hand: basic. Horror factor covers horrific situations. Discipline and self-control are covered by the 1D20 (with bonuses/penalties) results.

Natasha wrote:Hand to hand: basic is the definition.

So if your claim is NOT that Palladium defines combat training has hand to hand, I'm curious what the above quotes are trying to say.

Natasha wrote:It just turns out there is no other choice without a new set of rules.
Hand to Hand Combat
STEP 1: Determine Initiative
STEP 2: Attacker Rolls to Strike
STEP 3: Defender May Parry, Dodge or Entangle
STEP 4: Attacker Rolls Damage
STEP 5: Defender May Attempt to Roll with Impact

Interesting. It's listed under the "Combat Rules," but can't say I noticed the subheading before, defining it has Hand to Hand Combat. While I don't think there's anything in those steps that make it special to Hand to Hand, I won't deny that the section detailing the steps is considered hand to hand. Of course, we can still learn most of those things from the Combat Terms, which is not Hand to Hand Combat specific. While it does come between the basic 5 steps (which are far from covering many aspects anyways, like if you wanted to cast a spell you can't do it using that section) and the Hand to Hand Skills, but Combat Terms is a separate section of the Combat Rules. If you don't believe me, look at the Table of Contents on page 6. While contained within the Combat Rules (general, not specific to Hand to Hand), it's NOT included in Hand to Hand combat. So when you say things like ...

Natasha wrote:The archery W.P. gives bonuses to strike, parry, and disarm. These activities are in terms of steps 2 and 3. Of course, all characters who engage in combat must determine initiative, even if it is automatic.

While it's true they're listed in Steps 2 and 3, they're also defined in Combat Terms & Moves which is NOT the Hand to Hand section. Furthermore, you say things like ...

Natasha wrote: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.

Yet, Modern Combat specifically tells us to NOT add bonuses from Hand to Hand. So when using a gun, you definitely should NOT look at the character's hand to hand skill (there are exceptions such as the RUE version of HtH: Assassin, but those are definitely exceptions). Trying to argue you need to look at the character's bonuses to things like initiative or strike in cases such as magic or ranged combat is wrong.

Natasha wrote:Same thing with Attacks per Melee. The definition is written in terms of hand to hand combat.

Well, they reference Hand to Hand combat, as well as lack thereof, but referencing something doesn't make it hand to hand combat in and of itself. The Cyber-Knight O.C.C. references a bonus attack per melee, and attacks per melee reference hand to hand combat, so I guess that makes the Cyber-Knight O.C.C. another hand to hand combat term?

Natasha wrote:Old magic system? I'm not avoiding the issue, but I wonder if that's appropriate in (un)armed combat discussion? Perhaps a new thread for it?

More apart of the list showing the various separations from Attacks per Melee. This came about from lines like ...

Natasha wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:
Natasha wrote:What's wrong with using the Rifts definition of combat trained? It's about as straight forward as checking the character sheet for rope works when a character is trying to tie a knot.

There is no Rifts definition of "combat trained."
Beyond that, there's nothing wrong with doing so, depending on the context of the usage and the context of the conversation.

Attacks per melee gives a definition.

What context beyond the game itself should we consider instead?

I want to say you claimed you can't complete a melee round without Attacks per Melee as well, but I didn't see it in my quick glance and I'm getting bored. So maybe I misremembered that part.

Natasha wrote:What races exist that engage in combat with a separate set of rules not covered by the steps already enumerated for hand to hand combat?

There are various races which provide combat bonuses and even attacks per melee (not just a bonus, but their attacks per melee as a whole) in their racial write-up. While the Combat Sequence is helpful, the rest can be covered by Combat Terms & Moves.

Natasha wrote:You may have missed where I said combat training = hand to hand + W.P. I suppose the part of the discussion you're talking about is where I said the note is probably an error, but it's never been a factor in anything I said.

Nope, it's just contradicted by all the times you've said W.P. isn't combat training, despite the book saying it is. Also, the W.P. does not require Hand to Hand to be selected, and as Palladium states it's combat training, then Hand to Hand: Basic isn't required per Palladium, as you claim they do.

It's all the contradictions of the book you make in your claims of following what the book tells us that bothers me, not the actual house ruled concept you have. Farewell and safe journeys.

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2017 11:02 pm**

The only way I can think to interrupt a level 1 spell is a simultaneous attack.

Plenty of low spells useful in combat, prepping for it any. Superhuman PS and Superhuman Speed for example, or that higher level Adrenaline rush.

I figure expert in HTH combat refers to skills though.

Posted: **Thu Mar 09, 2017 12:28 am**

Axelmania wrote:The only way I can think to interrupt a level 1 spell is a simultaneous attack.

Plenty of low spells useful in combat, prepping for it any. Superhuman PS and Superhuman Speed for example, or that higher level Adrenaline rush.

I figure expert in HTH combat refers to skills though.

Maybe quote what you're responding to?
Because I don't get it.

Posted: **Thu Mar 09, 2017 12:28 am**

Axelmania wrote:The only way I can think to interrupt a level 1 spell is a simultaneous attack.

Plenty of low spells useful in combat, prepping for it any. Superhuman PS and Superhuman Speed for example, or that higher level Adrenaline rush.

I figure expert in HTH combat refers to skills though.

Greetings and Salutations. RUE, page 189, Step 7: Magic Combat, 4th Paragraph. If you're casting a low level spell (level 1-5), you then have to roll initiative. If the caster, then you get your spell off. If not, then the enemy can hit you first (and using the rules for interrupting magic, you won't get your spell off). Now, this could be, randomly, discussing the initiative sequence before combat starts. The wording "as usual" gives this some support. However, the paragraph is discussing casting the spell, which wouldn't happen until after combat starts and you've already rolled initiative. Because the initiative roll here is linked to casting a level 1-5 spell, the "as usual" would (to me) suggest that it's linked to rolling the D20 as usual, but this particular initiative roll is rolled after you start casting, as a special circumstance to see if you can cast before you potentially get interrupted.

You're welcome to disagree. This isn't something I'm going to really debate over. I admit it's not exactly the clearest of statements, and admittedly I wouldn't be particularly fond of the ruling as an individual (but my preference has no bearing on our attempts to interpret what's written). Farewell and safe journeys.

Posted: **Thu Mar 09, 2017 1:49 am**

actually, i'm pretty sure the reason shifters were listed as being possibly an exception to the statement that mages aren't great at one on one combat is that one of the ways many of the creatures a shifter summons will attempt to resolve who should obey who by combat. winner gets to do what they want with the loser.

now, that certainly isn't how every creature the shifter might summon would work; that probably makes sense for a brodkil or gargoyle, but not for an elemental or tectonic entity. so not every shifter will be used to combat as a result of their summoning activities. but for many shifters they will probably have dealings with the kinds of creatures that will (on occasion) determine who goes where in the pecking order with combat... and for those shifters, it's fair to argue that they're sufficiently accustomed to the scenario that it's pretty normal for them.

in contrast, a techno-wizard, mystic, or ley line walker who just lives in town, maybe runs a store, and otherwise avoids the adventuring life (as most magic users - and, indeed, most people in general - will try to do) has no particular reason to have experience with real combat. a techno-wizard will not (generally) be attacked by the TW engine they're installing into a hovercycle. a ley line walker will not (generally) be assaulted by a spell they're trying to learn. a mystic will (generally) not get attacked while meditating. and so on.

but yeah, i suspect that's mostly only considering the standard 4 types of mages... obviously, a combat mage has every reason to expect to have either been in combat as part of their training, or to have been through the kind of intense experiences that are used to help prepare people for combat training, as a default of being a combat mage.

Posted: **Thu Mar 09, 2017 2:08 am**

Killer Cyborg wrote:
Natasha wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:
eliakon wrote:This thread seems to have broken down into sophistry, circular arguments, personal opinions, and arguments about what is is.
As far as I can tell...
...basically the entire argument stems from trying to justify the claim that mages are not trained for combat...
...by defining combat in a way that excludes mages and arguing that any definition of combat training that does include mages, isn't combat training.

Nah.
For one thing, everybody agreed early on that typical mages are combat trained in some contexts.
They're just not combat trained in ALL contexts.

Lately, if you read the conversation you've been involved in, it's switched to where Natasha insists that HTH training is the only standard for Combat Training, and I insist that the minimum standard would be having any HTH or WP skill.
Mages would be Combat Trained by either standard, in this context.

Then we reached the point, the believe, where we decided that it's not really worth talking about any more.

Then things were quiet, until you decided to chime in with an accusatory post about people's motives.

Setting the record straight.

I just used Ockham's razor to shave off some complexity. Mine is simpler with just one standard which applies to every character in the game, and can actually be played.

No.
"The original game mechanics for combat started with HTH combat and spread outward to encompass other things, therefore those later elements of combat don't count when it comes to Combat Training, because they all refer back to the origin of the rules" (or whatever)
Is NOT less complex than
"If you have a skill that states it provides combat training, then you are combat trained.

You still don't know what she said.

We can have hand to hand combat without modern combat. We cannot have modern combat without hand to hand combat. A modern W.P. alone is an incomplete description of the character's training (or equivalent such as with dragons where it is innate). This was demonstrated by example.

Posted: **Thu Mar 09, 2017 3:35 am**

Prysus wrote:
Natasha wrote:The basic mathematics skill says the character is skilled in the operations of arithmetic. It makes sense to call this skill basic mathematics because it does not involve analytical number theory and certainly not algebraic number theory. The skill never says addition is an elementary form of math. If it did, that would be incorrect.

Greetings and Salutations. I guess I'll give this one more token effort. Palladium lists: "addition, subtraction, multiplication, division ..." within Mathematics: Basic. I listed those four for a reason. And no, they don't use the term "elementary." They do use the term "basic" and, as I quoted above from various dictionaries, one of the meanings of elementary is basic. Just because you don't like the definition, or it's not the definition you want to enforce as the only true definition, doesn't make it less true. So the statement of addition being elementary math is true, per Palladium and the actual meaning of words.

Natasha wrote:"There could be others" is not exclusionary.

That isn't an exclusionary statement.

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

This statement, made by you, is exclusionary though, at least in context of what I said. Technically, you allow for higher, but you do NOT allow for anything lower or equivalent. "An elementary form" is not the only elementary form.

Natasha wrote:I don't recall quoting the book as saying it will be in terms of hand to hand.

Not really. You just keep claiming the book does say it. Such as ...

Natasha wrote:What's wrong with using the Rifts definition of combat trained? It's about as straight forward as checking the character sheet for rope works when a character is trying to tie a knot.
Natasha wrote:Attacks per melee: Characters with any kind of formal hand to hand combat training (basic, expert, ...).

Hand to hand: basic: This is an elementary form of hand to hand combat training.

Hand to hand: expert: This is the fighting style taught to ...

And so on.

It's defined. The minimum amount is defined by hand to hand: basic. Horror factor covers horrific situations. Discipline and self-control are covered by the 1D20 (with bonuses/penalties) results.
Natasha wrote:Hand to hand: basic is the definition.

So if your claim is NOT that Palladium defines combat training has hand to hand, I'm curious what the above quotes are trying to say.

Natasha wrote:It just turns out there is no other choice without a new set of rules.
Hand to Hand Combat
STEP 1: Determine Initiative
STEP 2: Attacker Rolls to Strike
STEP 3: Defender May Parry, Dodge or Entangle
STEP 4: Attacker Rolls Damage
STEP 5: Defender May Attempt to Roll with Impact

Interesting. It's listed under the "Combat Rules," but can't say I noticed the subheading before, defining it has Hand to Hand Combat. While I don't think there's anything in those steps that make it special to Hand to Hand, I won't deny that the section detailing the steps is considered hand to hand. Of course, we can still learn most of those things from the Combat Terms, which is not Hand to Hand Combat specific. While it does come between the basic 5 steps (which are far from covering many aspects anyways, like if you wanted to cast a spell you can't do it using that section) and the Hand to Hand Skills, but Combat Terms is a separate section of the Combat Rules. If you don't believe me, look at the Table of Contents on page 6. While contained within the Combat Rules (general, not specific to Hand to Hand), it's NOT included in Hand to Hand combat. So when you say things like ...

Natasha wrote:The archery W.P. gives bonuses to strike, parry, and disarm. These activities are in terms of steps 2 and 3. Of course, all characters who engage in combat must determine initiative, even if it is automatic.

While it's true they're listed in Steps 2 and 3, they're also defined in Combat Terms & Moves which is NOT the Hand to Hand section. Furthermore, you say things like ...

Natasha wrote: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.

Yet, Modern Combat specifically tells us to NOT add bonuses from Hand to Hand. So when using a gun, you definitely should NOT look at the character's hand to hand skill (there are exceptions such as the RUE version of HtH: Assassin, but those are definitely exceptions). Trying to argue you need to look at the character's bonuses to things like initiative or strike in cases such as magic or ranged combat is wrong.

Natasha wrote:Same thing with Attacks per Melee. The definition is written in terms of hand to hand combat.

Well, they reference Hand to Hand combat, as well as lack thereof, but referencing something doesn't make it hand to hand combat in and of itself. The Cyber-Knight O.C.C. references a bonus attack per melee, and attacks per melee reference hand to hand combat, so I guess that makes the Cyber-Knight O.C.C. another hand to hand combat term?

Natasha wrote:Old magic system? I'm not avoiding the issue, but I wonder if that's appropriate in (un)armed combat discussion? Perhaps a new thread for it?

More apart of the list showing the various separations from Attacks per Melee. This came about from lines like ...

Natasha wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:
Natasha wrote:What's wrong with using the Rifts definition of combat trained? It's about as straight forward as checking the character sheet for rope works when a character is trying to tie a knot.

There is no Rifts definition of "combat trained."
Beyond that, there's nothing wrong with doing so, depending on the context of the usage and the context of the conversation.

Attacks per melee gives a definition.

What context beyond the game itself should we consider instead?

I want to say you claimed you can't complete a melee round without Attacks per Melee as well, but I didn't see it in my quick glance and I'm getting bored. So maybe I misremembered that part.

Natasha wrote:What races exist that engage in combat with a separate set of rules not covered by the steps already enumerated for hand to hand combat?

There are various races which provide combat bonuses and even attacks per melee (not just a bonus, but their attacks per melee as a whole) in their racial write-up. While the Combat Sequence is helpful, the rest can be covered by Combat Terms & Moves.

Natasha wrote:You may have missed where I said combat training = hand to hand + W.P. I suppose the part of the discussion you're talking about is where I said the note is probably an error, but it's never been a factor in anything I said.

Nope, it's just contradicted by all the times you've said W.P. isn't combat training, despite the book saying it is. Also, the W.P. does not require Hand to Hand to be selected, and as Palladium states it's combat training, then Hand to Hand: Basic isn't required per Palladium, as you claim they do.

It's all the contradictions of the book you make in your claims of following what the book tells us that bothers me, not the actual house ruled concept you have. Farewell and safe journeys.

If you want to stick with the basic mathematics analogy then "math: basic" is analogous to "hth: basic". Addition and multiplication are like strike and parry. In "math: basic" you can do addition and in "hth: basic" you can do strikes. If you want to say "addition is basic math" this is a) not what the skill says and b) incorrect. To be correct, we say "addition is a basic mathematical/arithmetical operation". If you still want to say "addition is basic math" then it must be understood that what you mean is "addition is a basic mathematical/arithmetical operation". You seem keen on definitions so I think you would prefer precision. Furthermore, I have used "basic" and "elementary" as the same such as "basic rules" on RUE page 274. I appreciate you think I don't like this, but the thought is demonstrably incorrect.

I do allow for equivalents. For instance, I pointed out Hand to Hand: Dragon.

Prysus wrote:I'm curious what the above quotes are trying to say.

The scope was (un)armed combat, that part of the game covered by the section Combat Rules. The words were about a scenario in which equivalence wasn't necessary to be discussed. If equivalence were necessary I would have used words that encompassed equivalence. However, the discussion was about characters that did not require equivalence; we were discussing characters like Ley Line Walkers and CS Grunts. Not dragons or some other race.

Generally speaking I think the Magic Combat covers magic combat. Still, there is always initiative. It also happens in magic that there is strike, dodge, and roll with impact rolls. With modern W.P. alone you do not know how many Aimed Shots the character can pull off in a round. Combat Terms & Moves comes after the enumeration of hand to hand combat rules; furthermore, that section is incomplete; of the examples of this, one is that it defines critical strike but does not say when it occurs. So I am not saying that Cyber-Knight O.C.C. is another combat term but I am saying if you don't know what x is, you cannot evaluate x + 1.

If you want to bring up specific races, I'll take a look. As it stands, you're making claims that are not supported. Most likely the situation with those races is going to be equivalence much like with dragons. Again, without examples, it is an invalid counter.

So there have been plenty of claims that I contradict RUE, but no actual examples of it offered. So, again, unsupported claims should be abandoned or made supported. Basically, if you can demonstrate that my example contradicts the rules, you're on to something.

Posted: **Thu Mar 09, 2017 9:49 am**

lather wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:
Natasha wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:
eliakon wrote:This thread seems to have broken down into sophistry, circular arguments, personal opinions, and arguments about what is is.
As far as I can tell...
...basically the entire argument stems from trying to justify the claim that mages are not trained for combat...
...by defining combat in a way that excludes mages and arguing that any definition of combat training that does include mages, isn't combat training.

Nah.
For one thing, everybody agreed early on that typical mages are combat trained in some contexts.
They're just not combat trained in ALL contexts.

Lately, if you read the conversation you've been involved in, it's switched to where Natasha insists that HTH training is the only standard for Combat Training, and I insist that the minimum standard would be having any HTH or WP skill.
Mages would be Combat Trained by either standard, in this context.

Then we reached the point, the believe, where we decided that it's not really worth talking about any more.

Then things were quiet, until you decided to chime in with an accusatory post about people's motives.

Setting the record straight.

I just used Ockham's razor to shave off some complexity. Mine is simpler with just one standard which applies to every character in the game, and can actually be played.

No.
"The original game mechanics for combat started with HTH combat and spread outward to encompass other things, therefore those later elements of combat don't count when it comes to Combat Training, because they all refer back to the origin of the rules" (or whatever)
Is NOT less complex than
"If you have a skill that states it provides combat training, then you are combat trained.

You still don't know what she said.

We can have hand to hand combat without modern combat. We cannot have modern combat without hand to hand combat. A modern W.P. alone is an incomplete description of the character's training (or equivalent such as with dragons where it is innate). This was demonstrated by example.

Pretty much as I said.
Still irrelevant, imo.
More to the point, still clearly NOT simpler.

Posted: **Thu Mar 09, 2017 9:53 am**

I am amazed we are still debating this, have we even agreed on what is Combat Trained yet?

Posted: **Thu Mar 09, 2017 10:00 am**

Saitou Hajime wrote:I am amazed we are still debating this, have we even agreed on what is Combat Trained yet?

Philosophical questions are not easily resolved.

Posted: **Thu Mar 09, 2017 10:46 am**

Killer Cyborg wrote:Pretty much as I said.
Still irrelevant, imo.
More to the point, still clearly NOT simpler.

Nothing like what you said. In fact, you did not come close to correctly quoting her. You've already admitted you're fine with your ignorance.

Which means you're trolling.

Her point isn't whether W.P. gives combat training or not. It's that this is incomplete. "Are you trained for maintaining this equipment?" "Well I'm trained in the use of a screwdriver." For her to actually be wrong, it has to be true that HtH combat training has no bearing on modern combat training. Maybe that's true. I would say it isn't. I would say that things like attacks per melee and initiative are inextricably linked to training and practice if they are not innate.

But it has absolutely no bearing on the fact that the game is played is as she explains. Maybe that isn't as simple as the stuff you say, but it's as simple as it can be and still be RAW.

Posted: **Thu Mar 09, 2017 11:33 am**

Since I'm talking about the fullest extent it's odd for him to say but if we go to a lesser extent, that I'm wrong. It's applying what I said to stuff it wasn't meant to be.

Posted: **Thu Mar 09, 2017 11:39 am**

Natasha wrote:Since I'm talking about the fullest extent it's odd for him to say but if we go to a lesser extent, that I'm wrong. It's applying what I said to stuff it wasn't meant to be.

You must be new here.

Posted: **Thu Mar 09, 2017 5:50 pm**

Saitou Hajime wrote:I am amazed we are still debating this, have we even agreed on what is Combat Trained yet?

No, no they haven't. I have to agree though with the person who notes that some of the definitions for Combat Trained seem to be arbitrarily designed solely to exclude mages.

Posted: **Thu Mar 09, 2017 6:29 pm**

We don't have to agree. But we should probably think twice about telling somebody who shares their goal and method to reach it that they should use a different method that necessarily falls short of their stated goal.

Posted: **Thu Mar 09, 2017 6:43 pm**

Nightmask wrote:
Saitou Hajime wrote:I am amazed we are still debating this, have we even agreed on what is Combat Trained yet?

No, no they haven't. I have to agree though with the person who notes that some of the definitions for Combat Trained seem to be arbitrarily designed solely to exclude mages.

The only one so far that excludes typical mages is "has military combat training," and that one excludes most everybody who isn't a Man-At-Arms.
So I don't get the whole "arbitrarily designed solely to exclude mages" viewpoint.
There are even some mages who would qualify.

Posted: **Thu Mar 09, 2017 10:14 pm**

Killer Cyborg wrote:Maybe quote what you're responding to? Because I don't get it.

Was responding to Pry...

Prysus wrote:Even if when a battle starts if a LLW has Armor of Ithan up as a defense, while casting a Level 1 spell he could still be interrupted in combat.

Speaking of which I missed the second part...

Prysus wrote:In a one on one battle against a Men at Arms, it would be an uphill battle for the LLW. With a Shifter however, if when starting the battle s/he has a monster summoned, the monster could fight alongside the Shifter. This would allow the Shifter to fight two on one, or have the monster keep the opponent busy while s/he casts a different spell.

So they're hand to hand experts because they have others to do the hand to hand for them? I guess that works. Being a war expert wouldn't necessarily mean you do the combat yourself after all.

Prysus wrote:The Shifter's "Link to the Supernatural" ability also adds advantages including potentially: Extra W.P., Hand to Hand: Martial Arts, the ability to shapeshift and fight as an animal(including bonuses to initiative which is important for getting spells off before getting interrupted, strike, and parry, as well as possibly acting as a disguise to make the Shifter less likely of a target, once again allowing more spell casting), and I think all options provide extra S.D.C.

Yup, I mentioned it at the last minute in the "forgot about the links" part.

Prysus wrote:the paragraph is discussing casting the spell, which wouldn't happen until after combat starts and you've already rolled initiative.

If the spell is what happens at the very start of combat (much like you decide to prepare to draw a gun before a fight starts) then the decision to cast the spell could precede initiative.

Shark_Force wrote:actually, i'm pretty sure the reason shifters were listed as being possibly an exception to the statement that mages aren't great at one on one combat is that one of the ways many of the creatures a shifter summons will attempt to resolve who should obey who by combat. winner gets to do what they want with the loser.

now, that certainly isn't how every creature the shifter might summon would work; that probably makes sense for a brodkil or gargoyle, but not for an elemental or tectonic entity. so not every shifter will be used to combat as a result of their summoning activities. but for many shifters they will probably have dealings with the kinds of creatures that will (on occasion) determine who goes where in the pecking order with combat... and for those shifters, it's fair to argue that they're sufficiently accustomed to the scenario that it's pretty normal for them.

That does provide incentive for them to learn combat (free minions that don't count against your level limits if you look weak and seduce them into assaulting you) which might mean they're more likely to buy up their combat skills than a ley line walker (even if ley line walkers have better potential via boxing-accessibility) but it still is strange considering their equivalent starting level. I'm thinking the combat bonuses via their LTTS is why.

Posted: **Fri Mar 10, 2017 12:10 am**

lather wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:Pretty much as I said.
Still irrelevant, imo.
More to the point, still clearly NOT simpler.

Nothing like what you said. In fact, you did not come close to correctly quoting her. You've already admitted you're fine with your ignorance.

No.
What I said was "
Your personal definition conflicts directly with what's in the books, so I really shouldn't bother discussing it any further.
I don't need to understand it in order to know that it's incorrect."

Which means you're trolling.

Trolling is what a person does when they want to continue the conversation.
I said the above quote when I was giving up and attempting to end it.

Her point isn't whether W.P. gives combat training or not.

Then maybe she should quit saying that WPs don't provide combat training?

It's that this is incomplete. "Are you trained for maintaining this equipment?" "Well I'm trained in the use of a screwdriver."

No idea what you're on about there.

For her to actually be wrong, it has to be true that HtH combat training has no bearing on modern combat training.

Untrue. She's said a LOT of stuff, and most of it that I can decypher is wrong.
She's claimed that Palladium has a definition of "Combat Trained," and they don't.
She's claimed that "only Ancient WPs provide combat training," which also is incorrect.
She's claimed "all questions of combat training start with a character's hth skill," and that is also incorrect.
She's claimed that "W.P. alone cannot answer the question is a character is combat trained," and again, incorrect.

I don't know what out of her many posts you're discussing above, but she's clearly wrong about a lot of stuff.

Maybe that's true. I would say it isn't. I would say that things like attacks per melee and initiative are inextricably linked to training and practice if they are not innate.

And?

But it has absolutely no bearing on the fact that the game is played is as she explains. Maybe that isn't as simple as the stuff you say, but it's as simple as it can be and still be RAW.

No, it can't.
Because she claims that having a WP isn't enough to be "combat trained," and RAW says otherwise.

Posted: **Fri Mar 10, 2017 12:23 am**

What she claims is that a weapon proficiency alone doesn't necessarily describe the full extent of a character's combat training. For that, you only need to look at the character sheet.

Posted: **Fri Mar 10, 2017 12:27 am**

lather wrote:What she claims is that a weapon proficiency alone doesn't necessarily describe the full extent of a character's combat training. For that, you only need to look at the character sheet.

What she claims, among other stuff is what I quoted:
She's claimed that Palladium has a definition of "Combat Trained," and they don't.
She's claimed that "only Ancient WPs provide combat training," which also is incorrect.
She's claimed "all questions of combat training start with a character's hth skill," and that is also incorrect.
She's claimed that "W.P. alone cannot answer the question is a character is combat trained," and again, incorrect.

That's all straight from her posts.

What you're saying her claim is?
That's not.

Posted: **Fri Mar 10, 2017 12:47 am**

Natasha wrote:You seem keen on definitions so I think you would prefer precision.

Natasha wrote:The words were about a scenario in which equivalence wasn't necessary to be discussed.

Greetings and Salutations. Okay, I've decided not to go back into the definition thing. All that'll do is descend into further bickering, and I don't think that will be helpful for either one of us. You make comments about how other statements are wrong, because they need to be clear to be understood. You discuss precision in wording. Yet, you then discuss how you didn't bother with precision in your wording because you didn't think it was important. You may have meant something only in relation to a narrow field, but you've made sweeping statements that are incorrect because you didn't include all the specifications you suggest others should include. I do believe this is where our main problem lies.

Natasha wrote:Combat Terms & Moves comes after the enumeration of hand to hand combat rules;

And your point? The City Rat O.C.C. comes after Body Fixer O.C.C. and the Psychic classes come after the Practitioners of Magic, but before the Spells. That doesn't make Psychics magic users and Psionics a type of Invocation.

If you're trying to claim that Combat Terms & Moves is a subsection of Hand to Hand Combat, then you're wrong. Again, you can refer to the Table of Contents, page 6, and see how it's broken down. The "Combat Sequence" is part of the Hand to Hand Combat Section. Combat Terms & Moves is part of Combat Rules (not hand to hand specific), and not part of the Hand to Hand section.

Natasha wrote:furthermore, that section is incomplete; of the examples of this, one is that it defines critical strike but does not say when it occurs.

Actually, it does tell you. This is found in the "Natural Twenty" term on page 346 (this can also be found on page 278, a general term and not even a combat section this time). Beyond that, you don't get a Critical Strike unless something tells you that you have an increase. Hand to Hand skills are one such example. However, W.P. Targeting on page 328 also provides a different Critical Range, not requiring a Hand to Hand skill. I want to say that there may be other weapons and/or weapon modifications that provide an increase to the Critical Range as well, but I can't say for certain. Rifts isn't my setting of choice, and while I'm familiar enough with the rules I don't know enough about the equipment.

Natasha wrote:If you want to bring up specific races, I'll take a look. As it stands, you're making claims that are not supported. Most likely the situation with those races is going to be equivalence much like with dragons. Again, without examples, it is an invalid counter.

RWB30: D-Bees of NA. There's races such as the Amorph, which have multiple attacks per melee but are specifically listed as "Hand to Hand: None." They're an Optional Player Character. And while, in theory, they can select a Hand to Hand, I can definitely run one without having to refer to my hand to hand skill. Darkhound, another playable race and more attacks per melee than any of the hand to hand forms, but no actual hand to hand skills standard. Mentioned by Blue Lion earlier, there's the Dirari Ecto-Man.

As for situations when someone with a W.P. can be superior to someone with Hand to Hand, they can happen. Quantity does not always compensate for lack of quality. While the combat situations where precision is more important than quantity may not come up much in many groups, there are situations when you definitely want someone who can. If the opponents are taking cover (and most competent opponents should), the character with only hand to hand and no W.P. will never hit them with a ranged weapon. Give me a choice between a person who can hit only once every 30 seconds compared to a guy who can fire four times faster but never hits, and I'll take the slow reliable shot to back me up. The guy without the W.P. won't even be good for reloading my weapon (by the rules). Unless the guy with Hand to Hand can run over to our ranged opponents and not get his head blown off, he's relatively useless for the combat. Note: This is considering the character without a W.P. doesn't have Magic, Psionics, or some other talent to compensate for his total lack of skill for the combat situation.

A second, sillier example for fun: One odd situation that comes to mind is with the JA-11 Juicer Assassin's Energy Rifle (RUE, page 270). As odd (and illogical) as it may sound, a character with W.P. Energy Rifle but not hand to hand will have the advantage at long distance compared to a character with Hand to Hand and no W.P. (or any W.P. that doesn't apply to the Energy Rifle). The book tells us that the JA-11 laser feature can only be fired with an Aimed Shot. Only characters with the W.P. can make an Aimed Shot. The next option (a completely S.D.C. option) loses 2,000 feet of range, 2,400 feet if you want to deal M.D. Start both characters a target 4,000 feet away, and even if the character with only hand to hand had a speed of 30, he'd need to spend over a minute to get in S.D.C. range while the character. Meanwhile, the character with only the appropriate W.P. can fire twice. Silly? Yes. But that's Rifts.

All right,, that's all for now. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

Posted: **Fri Mar 10, 2017 1:30 am**

Killer Cyborg wrote:
lather wrote:What she claims is that a weapon proficiency alone doesn't necessarily describe the full extent of a character's combat training. For that, you only need to look at the character sheet.

What she claims, among other stuff is what I quoted:
She's claimed that Palladium has a definition of "Combat Trained," and they don't.
She's claimed that "only Ancient WPs provide combat training," which also is incorrect.
She's claimed "all questions of combat training start with a character's hth skill," and that is also incorrect.
She's claimed that "W.P. alone cannot answer the question is a character is combat trained," and again, incorrect.

That's all straight from her posts.

What you're saying her claim is?
That's not.

Well you've already admitted to not understanding. That still applies.

Posted: **Fri Mar 10, 2017 2:33 am**

@Prysus

The O.C.C.s are alphabetical. The Combat Terms & Moves section does not tell when crit hits occur by, for instance, a level 6 character with hth: basic. It seems to me that it's clearly a supplement to Combat Rules.

Amorphs are characters without hand to hand skill and they are described as not being fighters who engage in combat as but as having instinctual auto dodge. They have some instinctual ability, but not like dragons. There are hand to hand rules for this. As far as I know, it's not written that these rules do not apply.

Darkhounds are literally characters with no hand to hand combat skill. There are hand to hand rules for that.

I've already covered ecto men. It depends whether or not they take hand to hand: basic.

Certainly combat training = hth + wp allows for wp to be > hth.

Posted: **Fri Mar 10, 2017 4:26 am**

Killer Cyborg wrote:She's claimed that Palladium has a definition of "Combat Trained," and they don't.

RUE says "this is hand to hand combat training". That works for me. If you have a different interpretation, that's fine. But it's not really appropriate to insist on discussing mine in terms of yours.

I've explained that I recognise I shouldn't say "only ancient weapon proficiency give combat training". There is no reason for you to bring up something after it's been amended and proceed as if it hasn't been amended. And in any case, weapon proficiency, the way I see them, still count in a character's combat training regardless. Which I have explained but you keep going back to stuff said before the explanation.

You can disagree with the premise and/or the rationale. But there's no reason to change the premise and then disagree with the rationale.

Posted: **Fri Mar 10, 2017 4:52 am**

Clearly, Natasha, looking at your character sheet and thinking that you see your character is one of the lamest ideas around. You should divine the character from a bowl full of chicken guts instead.

Posted: **Fri Mar 10, 2017 10:15 am**

Killer Cyborg wrote:
Nightmask wrote:
Saitou Hajime wrote:I am amazed we are still debating this, have we even agreed on what is Combat Trained yet?

No, no they haven't. I have to agree though with the person who notes that some of the definitions for Combat Trained seem to be arbitrarily designed solely to exclude mages.

The only one so far that excludes typical mages is "has military combat training," and that one excludes most everybody who isn't a Man-At-Arms.
So I don't get the whole "arbitrarily designed solely to exclude mages" viewpoint.
There are even some mages who would qualify.

A while back I post a few possible answers to what combat training could be and still support the concept of agreeing what Combat training is first then applying it to mages, rather than this haphazard arguement that going on here for many pages now.

Posted: **Fri Mar 10, 2017 10:42 am**

Natasha wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:She's claimed that Palladium has a definition of "Combat Trained," and they don't.

RUE says "this is hand to hand combat training". That works for me. If you have a different interpretation, that's fine. But it's not really appropriate to insist on discussing mine in terms of yours.

My interpretation is that (Hand to Hand Combat) \= (Combat).

I've explained that I recognise I shouldn't say "only ancient weapon proficiency give combat training". There is no reason for you to bring up something after it's been amended and proceed as if it hasn't been amended.

It's a meandering conversation with many people, and--as I've said--little of your position makes any sense to me to begin with. So I missed the retraction.
I'll scratch that one off the list.

And in any case, weapon proficiency, the way I see them, still count in a character's combat training regardless. Which I have explained but you keep going back to stuff said before the explanation.

I must have missed that explanation.
What was it?

And what does that leave your overall position as?

You can disagree with the premise and/or the rationale. But there's no reason to change the premise and then disagree with the rationale.

I'm quoting stuff that you have said that I disagree with.
If you want to give a straightforward premise, a thesis statement to your argument, and see if I disagree with that one too, then go for it.

Posted: **Fri Mar 10, 2017 10:43 am**

lather wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:
lather wrote:What she claims is that a weapon proficiency alone doesn't necessarily describe the full extent of a character's combat training. For that, you only need to look at the character sheet.

What she claims, among other stuff is what I quoted:
She's claimed that Palladium has a definition of "Combat Trained," and they don't.
She's claimed that "only Ancient WPs provide combat training," which also is incorrect.
She's claimed "all questions of combat training start with a character's hth skill," and that is also incorrect.
She's claimed that "W.P. alone cannot answer the question is a character is combat trained," and again, incorrect.

That's all straight from her posts.

What you're saying her claim is?
That's not.

Well you've already admitted to not understanding. That still applies.

And?

Posted: **Fri Mar 10, 2017 11:34 am**

Natasha wrote:The O.C.C.s are alphabetical.

Greetings and Salutations. And the Adventurers come after the Men at Arms, that doesn't make Adventurers Men at Arms, nor did the fact Psychics come between Practitioners of Magic and the Spell list make Psychics a type of magic users. Something coming after something else does not make it necessarily a part of that list.

Natasha wrote:The Combat Terms & Moves section does not tell when crit hits occur by, for instance, a level 6 character with hth: basic.

Well, your claim was that it didn't state the Critical Range. That was provably incorrect. But, let's see if we get the new stance correct. Combat Terms & Moves is incomplete because it only states the standard Critical Range (Natural 20), but that's "incomplete" because it does not mention the range specific skills which may modify that Critical Range such as Hand to Hand skills. Okay, but that definition, the entire combat section is incomplete, because it doesn't tell me the Critical Range of a Level 3 character throwing a knife with W.P. Targeting.

Natasha wrote:It seems to me that it's clearly a supplement to Combat Rules.

Agreed, it's a supplement to the Combat Rules (I even stated this in my last post). No argument. Where we disagree is your assertion that this makes them Hand to Hand rules.

I think we can agree you can't run combat without Combat Rules. However, you can run combat without the Hand to Hand rules, though I admit it's not as easy or nearly as common.

Natasha wrote:Amorphs are characters without hand to hand skill ...[snip] There are hand to hand rules for this. As far as I know, it's not written that these rules do not apply.

Darkhounds are literally characters with no hand to hand combat skill. There are hand to hand rules for that.

So your stance is to ignore the racial abilities (such as Attacks Per Melee) and go with the basic rules for no hand to hand combat (which limits them to only one attack at level 1). :rolleyes:

Any value to this conversation has just hit negatives. I think I'm done. Farewell and safe journeys.

Forums of the Megaverse®

Mages Aren't Trained for Combat

Re: Mages Aren't Trained for Combat

Re: Mages Aren't Trained for Combat

Re: Mages Aren't Trained for Combat

Re: Mages Aren't Trained for Combat

Re: Mages Aren't Trained for Combat

Re: Mages Aren't Trained for Combat

Re: Mages Aren't Trained for Combat

Re: Mages Aren't Trained for Combat

Re: Mages Aren't Trained for Combat

Re: Mages Aren't Trained for Combat

Re: Mages Aren't Trained for Combat

Re: Mages Aren't Trained for Combat

Re: Mages Aren't Trained for Combat

Re: Mages Aren't Trained for Combat

Re: Mages Aren't Trained for Combat

Re: Mages Aren't Trained for Combat

Re: Mages Aren't Trained for Combat

Re: Mages Aren't Trained for Combat

Re: Mages Aren't Trained for Combat

Re: Mages Aren't Trained for Combat

Re: Mages Aren't Trained for Combat

Re: Mages Aren't Trained for Combat

Re: Mages Aren't Trained for Combat

Re: Mages Aren't Trained for Combat

Re: Mages Aren't Trained for Combat

Re: Mages Aren't Trained for Combat

Re: Mages Aren't Trained for Combat

Re: Mages Aren't Trained for Combat

Re: Mages Aren't Trained for Combat

Re: Mages Aren't Trained for Combat

Re: Mages Aren't Trained for Combat

Re: Mages Aren't Trained for Combat

Re: Mages Aren't Trained for Combat

Re: Mages Aren't Trained for Combat

Re: Mages Aren't Trained for Combat

Re: Mages Aren't Trained for Combat

Re: Mages Aren't Trained for Combat

Re: Mages Aren't Trained for Combat

Re: Mages Aren't Trained for Combat

Re: Mages Aren't Trained for Combat

Re: Mages Aren't Trained for Combat

Re: Mages Aren't Trained for Combat

Re: Mages Aren't Trained for Combat

Re: Mages Aren't Trained for Combat

Re: Mages Aren't Trained for Combat

Re: Mages Aren't Trained for Combat

Re: Mages Aren't Trained for Combat

Re: Mages Aren't Trained for Combat

Re: Mages Aren't Trained for Combat

Re: Mages Aren't Trained for Combat