Forums of the Megaverse®

Posted: **Fri Mar 10, 2017 4:11 pm**

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

Just curious why you routinely draw denigrating conclusions from the things she says without a shred of decency to explain why?

Let's see if we can find any other stance that doesn't make her out to be a dumbass.

There are hand to hand rules for characters with no skill and, as far as she knows, applying them is not prohibited is not the same thing as ignore the racial abilities and go with the basic rules. How might we apply the rules for characters with no hand to hand skill to amorphs? I'd say it's pretty clear the racial attacks per melee supersedes the HtH attacks at level one, but the dodge bonus would apply at level 3.

Posted: **Fri Mar 10, 2017 6:42 pm**

lather wrote:Just curious why you routinely draw denigrating conclusions from the things she says without a shred of decency to explain why?

Greetings and Salutations. Have you read the rules about lack of Hand to Hand? I mean, seriously, have you? 99% of it is all about Attacks per Melee. The "+1 to dodge" is the only part of page 347 that has anything other than Attacks per Melee. Now, if what she had meant was "ignore 99% of the no hand to hand rules, but you'd still get the combat bonuses" then she should have said that, instead of saying to use the rules which predominantly discuss Attacks per Melee.

lather wrote:Let's see if we can find any other stance that doesn't make her out to be a dumbass.

There are hand to hand rules for characters with no skill and, as far as she knows, applying them is not prohibited is not the same thing as ignore the racial abilities and go with the basic rules. How might we apply the rules for characters with no hand to hand skill to amorphs? I'd say it's pretty clear the racial attacks per melee supersedes the HtH attacks at level one, but the dodge bonus would apply at level 3.

I'd disagree interpretation with that as well. At best, I'd say it might be RAW (though even that would be debatable), but not RAI. The problem is people are addressing what she's saying, not what she means, probably because what she says is so different than what you're claiming she means.

Following the rules and ignoring 90% of the rules are not the same stance. She's also made claims that a character's Attacks per Melee are determined by their Hand to Hand, or lack thereof, and we have to refer to the Hand to Hand section to know that information. This is kind of the point of showing those examples. For her to say the examples are meaningless and we still just refer to the no hand to hand rules (which is predominantly about Attacks per Melee), tied to her earlier statements about needing the hand to hand section determining your Attacks per Melee (even if you have no Hand to Hand), would make her stance, as you put it, "dumbass."

I'm willing to start fresh if she's willing to try and re-state her point from the beginning in a clear way. And when I say "from the beginning" I mean attempting to ignore everything she said up until now. Also, it would help if this really is just her interpretation she states it as such, instead of claiming it is what's in the book, because that won't see nearly as much resistance. State an opinion or interpretation, and people might disagree and discuss a few of the points. Try to pass that interpretation off as fact, and the burden of proof and conflict becomes increasing more difficult. Farewell and safe journeys.

Posted: **Fri Mar 10, 2017 7:19 pm**

Killer Cyborg wrote:
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?

Maybe answering the second question will also answer the first; rather than try to go through what was said, I'll just try to start fresh. But I don't know how it's going to go. Let me try this.

For simplicity let's say there's hand to hand and modern combat; I'm not leaving W.P. out, but on this point I think it's obvious how they fit.

All characters are either unskilled or skilled hand to hand combat. And all characters are either unskilled or skilled in modern combat. There are four separate scenarios which are governed by four sets of rules. Let's call them A = hth unskilled, B = hth skilled, C = no W.P., D = one or more W.P.

A is described as a collection of "pitiful fighting skills". B is described as "hand to hand combat training". I'm fine with calling them skills. Much like I'm fine with calling gymnastics a skill.

By the rules, in order for a character to engage in combat, the character must be either A or B, but may be any C or D.

I think that with this you know immediately the full nature and full extent of your character's combat training. I also think any specific case, using equivalence, is easily fitted into this.

Posted: **Fri Mar 10, 2017 7:22 pm**

Prysus wrote:
lather wrote:Just curious why you routinely draw denigrating conclusions from the things she says without a shred of decency to explain why?

Greetings and Salutations. Have you read the rules about lack of Hand to Hand? I mean, seriously, have you? 99% of it is all about Attacks per Melee. The "+1 to dodge" is the only part of page 347 that has anything other than Attacks per Melee. Now, if what she had meant was "ignore 99% of the no hand to hand rules, but you'd still get the combat bonuses" then she should have said that, instead of saying to use the rules which predominantly discuss Attacks per Melee.

So you're blaming her for you treating her like crap.

Note the word "routinely". Look it up if you have to.

Posted: **Fri Mar 10, 2017 9:12 pm**

Natasha wrote:Maybe answering the second question will also answer the first; rather than try to go through what was said, I'll just try to start fresh. But I don't know how it's going to go. Let me try this.

For simplicity let's say there's hand to hand and modern combat; I'm not leaving W.P. out, but on this point I think it's obvious how they fit.

All characters are either unskilled or skilled hand to hand combat. And all characters are either unskilled or skilled in modern combat. There are four separate scenarios which are governed by four sets of rules. Let's call them A = hth unskilled, B = hth skilled, C = no W.P., D = one or more W.P.

A is described as a collection of "pitiful fighting skills". B is described as "hand to hand combat training". I'm fine with calling them skills. Much like I'm fine with calling gymnastics a skill.

By the rules, in order for a character to engage in combat, the character must be either A or B, but may be any C or D.

I think that with this you know immediately the full nature and full extent of your character's combat training. I also think any specific case, using equivalence, is easily fitted into this.

Greetings and Salutations. This wasn't addressed to me specifically, but I'll respond anyways (since I've responded to the others). I may have missed something, but I can agree with this from a strictly game mechanics standpoint. In fact, I think most will.

I don't know if this will help resolve the thread though, primarily because the topic extends to some non-game mechanic elements (such as voice volume). If you can find a way to get that resolved, then you're a better person than I (or most of us here). Thank you for your time and patience, please have a nice day. Farewell and safe journeys.

Posted: **Fri Mar 10, 2017 9:12 pm**

lather wrote:So you're blaming her for you treating her like crap.

Greetings and Salutations. I hold people accountable for their actions, myself included. If someone says something stupid, I will treat what they said as stupid. When I say something stupid, then people can (and have) treated what I said as stupid, especially if I tell others how careful they need to be with their words. If you think that means everyone is crap, so be it. But wait ... you're criticizing what I've said, so I guess that means you're treating me like crap now. Whose fault will that be? If you blame me, then I'll point to your comment above.

For the record, we're moving off topic and addressing each other though. I'm okay with that, especially if we can address the issues to prevent bad feelings in the future. From your responses, you seem to know Natasha beyond these boards. If she's been genuinely hurt by anything said in this topic, for that I will apologize. However, I will not apologize for responding to a "dumbass" statement as such.

lather wrote:Note the word "routinely". Look it up if you have to.

Sure. While I know what the word means, let's make sure we're on the same page. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/routinely I figure you're using definition the first one:

1. a customary or regular course of procedure.

If not, you might want to clarify. Furthermore, I take it by "regular" you mean "only in this thread," because I honestly can't recall interacting with Natasha much outside of this topic. Truthfully, unless I'm mixing her up with someone else, I don't think I usually have a problem with her posts. Though if you think I'm randomly treating her like crap in her posts, feel free to provide a link to some other threads (in PM if necessary). I'm interested to see all these negative interactions with her, as if somehow I'm targeting her posts to the extent of it becoming a routine.

As for this thread, you posted a specific example which I addressed when requested. As for the rest, well, she was posting for a while before I responded to anything she said, and my first post wasn't just to her. With that said, some of the things she's said have been highly inaccurate (whether she meant them or not). We can address each one specifically if you'd really like (though this thread probably isn't the place for that), but the same way I addressed the last example is a result of what she's actually said/claimed. If she didn't mean the things she said, well, I can't say because I'm not a mind reader. If she responds and doesn't say that her previous statement was wrong or badly worded, and instead just defends that claim, I'm going to believe she actually means what she said. I've treated her like an adult, capable of saying what she means, which includes defending her statement, adding clarification, or admitting it's wrong. If you think treating her like an adult is treating her like crap, well, I'm sorry you feel that way.

Once upon a time I'd have spent an extra half an hour (and double or tripling the post size) trying to add in so many disclaimers to avoid hurting anyone's feelings. That's nice and all, but it takes way too much time and people who want to be offended will be offended anyways. Also, it causes people to just start ignoring the posts all together because they're so long winded. That didn't really help situations, and I have better things to do than waste everyone's time so we can have this same debate anyways. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

Posted: **Fri Mar 10, 2017 10:33 pm**

Natasha wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:
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?

Maybe answering the second question will also answer the first; rather than try to go through what was said, I'll just try to start fresh. But I don't know how it's going to go. Let me try this.

For simplicity let's say there's hand to hand and modern combat; I'm not leaving W.P. out, but on this point I think it's obvious how they fit.

All characters are either unskilled or skilled hand to hand combat. And all characters are either unskilled or skilled in modern combat. There are four separate scenarios which are governed by four sets of rules. Let's call them A = hth unskilled, B = hth skilled, C = no W.P., D = one or more W.P.

A is described as a collection of "pitiful fighting skills". B is described as "hand to hand combat training". I'm fine with calling them skills. Much like I'm fine with calling gymnastics a skill.

By the rules, in order for a character to engage in combat, the character must be either A or B, but may be any C or D.

I think that with this you know immediately the full nature and full extent of your character's combat training. I also think any specific case, using equivalence, is easily fitted into this.

Sounds like a long way of saying "if you look at your character sheet, you can know how well trained your character is when it comes to combat."

Posted: **Sat Mar 11, 2017 12:16 am**

Some trouble flowing this but if we.are.diaccusing APM from races or combat tables the conversion book treatment of a.number or as per hand to hand seemed simplest. In some cases that added a bonus and in others it didn't.

Posted: **Sat Mar 11, 2017 3:32 pm**

I have to say there are a number of aspects involved.

when it comes down to it for all practical purposes:
if you have a hand to hand combat form (as long as its not hand to hand: none) , you pretty much ARE combat trained according to palladium, having at least 1 weapon proficiency significantly increases your effectiveness (when using an applicable weapon)

what the whole argument really boils down to is a more philosophical question IE what constitutes being "combat trained" and why is it that mages by definition "just aren't"

Posted: **Sat Mar 11, 2017 5:10 pm**

guardiandashi wrote:I have to say there are a number of aspects involved.

when it comes down to it for all practical purposes:
if you have a hand to hand combat form (as long as its not hand to hand: none) , you pretty much ARE combat trained according to palladium, having at least 1 weapon proficiency significantly increases your effectiveness (when using an applicable weapon)

what the whole argument really boils down to is a more philosophical question IE what constitutes being "combat trained" and why is it that mages by definition "just aren't"

Its probably also worth considering that there could be aspects to the various CC categorizations that aren't reflected in terms of described/listed skills/abilities. It's that or there are a lot of mages out there that don't use the OCCs available.

Posted: **Sat Mar 11, 2017 8:32 pm**

ShadowLogan wrote:
guardiandashi wrote:I have to say there are a number of aspects involved.

when it comes down to it for all practical purposes:
if you have a hand to hand combat form (as long as its not hand to hand: none) , you pretty much ARE combat trained according to palladium, having at least 1 weapon proficiency significantly increases your effectiveness (when using an applicable weapon)

what the whole argument really boils down to is a more philosophical question IE what constitutes being "combat trained" and why is it that mages by definition "just aren't"

Its probably also worth considering that there could be aspects to the various CC categorizations that aren't reflected in terms of described/listed skills/abilities. It's that or there are a lot of mages out there that don't use the OCCs available.

I've always been annoyed that there isn't a hedge wizard OCC suitable for NPCs or even PCs that have some spell casting ability, but aren't the highly specialized OCCs we see in the books. Even the super spy is more capable than what I have in mind.

--flatline

Posted: **Sat Mar 11, 2017 8:42 pm**

Prysus wrote:
Natasha wrote:Maybe answering the second question will also answer the first; rather than try to go through what was said, I'll just try to start fresh. But I don't know how it's going to go. Let me try this.

For simplicity let's say there's hand to hand and modern combat; I'm not leaving W.P. out, but on this point I think it's obvious how they fit.

All characters are either unskilled or skilled hand to hand combat. And all characters are either unskilled or skilled in modern combat. There are four separate scenarios which are governed by four sets of rules. Let's call them A = hth unskilled, B = hth skilled, C = no W.P., D = one or more W.P.

A is described as a collection of "pitiful fighting skills". B is described as "hand to hand combat training". I'm fine with calling them skills. Much like I'm fine with calling gymnastics a skill.

By the rules, in order for a character to engage in combat, the character must be either A or B, but may be any C or D.

I think that with this you know immediately the full nature and full extent of your character's combat training. I also think any specific case, using equivalence, is easily fitted into this.

Greetings and Salutations. This wasn't addressed to me specifically, but I'll respond anyways (since I've responded to the others). I may have missed something, but I can agree with this from a strictly game mechanics standpoint. In fact, I think most will.

I don't know if this will help resolve the thread though, primarily because the topic extends to some non-game mechanic elements (such as voice volume). If you can find a way to get that resolved, then you're a better person than I (or most of us here). Thank you for your time and patience, please have a nice day. Farewell and safe journeys.

The PFRPG adventure Arms of Nargash Tor has players roll under their attributes on 1D20 for certain things like using Mental Endurance to avoid throwing up when smelling somebody who's eaten skunk cabbage faerie food. I think that this could be used.

Posted: **Sun Mar 12, 2017 12:26 pm**

Prysus wrote:
lather wrote:So you're blaming her for you treating her like crap.

Greetings and Salutations. I hold people accountable for their actions, myself included. If someone says something stupid, I will treat what they said as stupid. When I say something stupid, then people can (and have) treated what I said as stupid, especially if I tell others how careful they need to be with their words. If you think that means everyone is crap, so be it. But wait ... you're criticizing what I've said, so I guess that means you're treating me like crap now. Whose fault will that be? If you blame me, then I'll point to your comment above.

I missed this until just now.

Sticking with the example of racial attacks per melee. You drew a conclusion from the facts that she stated. This conclusion was that the racial abilities are superseded by non hand to hand skill. I agree with you that's a stupid thing to say. She didn't say it. In fact, she didn't say anything. It was a conclusion you drew and portrayed it as hers. I'll just point out that it does not require ignoring 99% of the skill; only the number of attacks per melee at level one is superseded by the racial aspects. Anyway, when I called you out for portraying this absurd conclusion as something she said, your response was that if she didn't want you doing that to her, then she should have done things differently. No, that's not correct at all.

Fortunately, it seems that behavior has already been adjusted, so happy day.

Posted: **Sun Mar 12, 2017 1:13 pm**

Was checking CB about this APM thing, just noticed that centaur get 3 APM in addition to hand to hand skill so they can start with 7. Pretty impressive.

This is in respect to other races who got no extra attacks at all, or wolfen who only got 1. Would be in addition to the defunct 2 for living not replaced with higher starts for HTH skills.

Although if you compare to actually riding a horse where the horse gets its own separate APM it's not that huge.

Posted: **Sun Mar 12, 2017 5:02 pm**

lather wrote:Anyway, when I called you out for portraying this absurd conclusion as something she said, your response was that if she didn't want you doing that to her, then she should have done things differently. No, that's not correct at all.

Greetings and Salutations. Actually, what I said, is that she's responsible for what she says, I'm responsible for what I say, and you're responsible for what you say. Not sure which part of that you're trying to argue over.

As for what she said, she said more than you claim. However, I agreed to let that go if she wanted to start fresh. She made that attempt. So I'm going to do my best to uphold my word and respect her wishes of starting over (even though you yourself did not). Farewell and safe journeys.

Posted: **Sun Mar 12, 2017 5:23 pm**

Prysus wrote:
lather wrote:Anyway, when I called you out for portraying this absurd conclusion as something she said, your response was that if she didn't want you doing that to her, then she should have done things differently. No, that's not correct at all.

Greetings and Salutations. Actually, what I said, is that she's responsible for what she says, I'm responsible for what I say, and you're responsible for what you say. Not sure which part of that you're trying to argue over.

As for what she said, she said more than you claim. However, I agreed to let that go if she wanted to start fresh. She made that attempt. So I'm going to do my best to uphold my word and respect her wishes of starting over (even though you yourself did not). Farewell and safe journeys.

Not really how it went down.

All that she said was it's not written they don't apply.

Prysus wrote:
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).

To which I said:

lather wrote:There are hand to hand rules for characters with no skill and, as far as she knows, applying them is not prohibited is not the same thing as ignore the racial abilities and go with the basic rules. How might we apply the rules for characters with no hand to hand skill to amorphs?

To which you said:

Prysus wrote:Now, if what she had meant was "ignore 99% of the no hand to hand rules, but you'd still get the combat bonuses" then she should have said that, instead of saying to use the rules which predominantly discuss Attacks per Melee.

She used the verb "apply". Do you have a reason believe she didn't mean precisely what she said?
You invent something she didn't say, call it stupid, and then say "she should have said" something different if she didn't want to have her ideas (that weren't even hers) called stupid. Do you see that's your problem, not hers?

Posted: **Sun Mar 12, 2017 6:26 pm**

lather wrote:
Prysus wrote:
lather wrote:So you're blaming her for you treating her like crap.

Greetings and Salutations. I hold people accountable for their actions, myself included. If someone says something stupid, I will treat what they said as stupid. When I say something stupid, then people can (and have) treated what I said as stupid, especially if I tell others how careful they need to be with their words. If you think that means everyone is crap, so be it. But wait ... you're criticizing what I've said, so I guess that means you're treating me like crap now. Whose fault will that be? If you blame me, then I'll point to your comment above.

I missed this until just now.

Sticking with the example of racial attacks per melee. You drew a conclusion from the facts that she stated. This conclusion was that the racial abilities are superseded by non hand to hand skill. I agree with you that's a stupid thing to say. She didn't say it. In fact, she didn't say anything.

I think the bolded may be part of the problem.
A clear thesis statement prevents miscommunication and misunderstanding, and many of Natasha's posts completely lack a thesis statement.
They tend to just leave people to guess at what her overall point it, then you and Natasha get upset if people guess "wrong."

But here we all are "discussing the poster, not the post," and that's the kind of thing that gets threads locked.
Maybe we should quit it?

Posted: **Sun Mar 12, 2017 6:28 pm**

Prysus wrote:
lather wrote:Anyway, when I called you out for portraying this absurd conclusion as something she said, your response was that if she didn't want you doing that to her, then she should have done things differently. No, that's not correct at all.

Greetings and Salutations. Actually, what I said, is that she's responsible for what she says, I'm responsible for what I say, and you're responsible for what you say. Not sure which part of that you're trying to argue over.

The bolded portion, I believe.

As for what she said, she said more than you claim. However, I agreed to let that go if she wanted to start fresh. She made that attempt. So I'm going to do my best to uphold my word and respect her wishes of starting over (even though you yourself did not). Farewell and safe journeys.

Posted: **Sun Mar 12, 2017 6:36 pm**

lather wrote:Not really how it went down.

All that she said was it's not written they don't apply.

Greetings and Salutations. While that's all she said in that one post, try going back and reading the various pages where she said more things. She didn't just have one post. Much more was said regarding the lack of Hand to Hand, specifically regarding Attacks per Melee. But seriously, why try to defend her, but when she tries to start over you don't want to let that happen?

lather wrote:To which I said:
lather wrote:There are hand to hand rules for characters with no skill and, as far as she knows, applying them is not prohibited is not the same thing as ignore the racial abilities and go with the basic rules. How might we apply the rules for characters with no hand to hand skill to amorphs?

Now, I already said I disagree with this interpretation. And I don't just mean your interpretation of what she said, but this interpretation of the rules. But, setting that, you also said ...

lather wrote:I'd say it's pretty clear the racial attacks per melee supersedes the HtH attacks at level one, but the dodge bonus would apply at level 3.

Now you mention ignoring the Attacks per Melee at level one. I think we can at least agree on that much. You then mention the level 3 dodge bonus still applying. Now, I disagree with that using that bonus, but I disagree with it less than also adding in the attacks per melee that you're now mentioning you intended. While I suppose that could still be RAW, I think it's even more removed from RAI and, honestly, I find it even more ridiculous than just the dodge bonus.

lather wrote:She used ...

I'll continue to try avoiding discussing her older posts even though you keep trying to bring them up (which is odd, because you act like you want us to stop discussing how inaccurate some of those things were, but since you keep bringing up specifically what she said you would thereby cause continued discussion over that matter). However, I will repeat, go back and read all of her posts. For me, the situation is a bit more ...

I'm seeing 1+2+3+4=10, then you coming along and saying that 4 doesn't equal 10, and I'm picking on her for reaching that conclusion. Now, I'll go so far as to add this ...

It's also possible I missed something and/or maybe she retracted something I didn't see (there's a lot of posts in this thread, so definitely possible). Maybe I misread something she said (for the example above, maybe I saw a plus sign instead of a division symbol). I also figure it's possible maybe she didn't think how earlier statements combined with later ones, and/or didn't expect anyone to put them together (as a result, unintentional). However, as things stand now, I still see 1+2+3+4=10, and simply shaking your fist and criticizing me for equaling 10 after she said 4 isn't going to convince me otherwise.

Now, for this example, she clarified she means 7. I'm okay with her meaning 7, and willing to let the rest go. I don't see how focusing on the 1, 2, 3, and 4 of earlier helps either her or I. Whether she was wrong or I was wrong, do your attempts to argue over 4 aid us in the stance of 7? Will digging into 1, 2, 3, and 4 benefit her in any way? We can continue to argue, but I don't think it'll benefit this topic or anyone involved therein. Farewell and safe journeys.

Posted: **Sun Mar 12, 2017 6:55 pm**

I'm all for a fresh start. And that could happen if we agree to not make up things and use them against another. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a fresh start.. it'd just be sweeping crap under the rug and people get to keep on doing the same thing. That's why there's old stuff to bring up. Hanging on until the mods come along and resolve nothing is an option but it's not advocating for a fresh start.

Prysus, what I am criticizing you for is making up something denigrating starting with the basic math stuff and ending with the amorphs, and then saying if she didn't want that to happen she should have done things differently. I'm not discussing her older posts. I'm discussing your behavior. Although I am curious if you can point to anything she's said to indicate she meant 'replace' when she said 'apply'. What does it mean for something to apply? That it's applicable. Does that need an explanation to stop you from saying it means 'replace'? Of course it doesn't.

Posted: **Sun Mar 12, 2017 7:20 pm**

I apologise if I made anybody guess. That certainly wasn't my intention. I am neither upset nor do I dislike playful sparring. Maybe that causes too much noise and the message gets lost. But for me it was never anything more complicated than all characters have a hand to hand basis and if that is removed from the character then at least part of the picture is necessarily missing and not only that it makes the character unplayable. I never saw what there was to guess at. If there was, then there was and next time it happens just remind me of this post.

Posted: **Sun Mar 12, 2017 7:36 pm**

Meh. There's playful and then there's inappropriate.

Posted: **Sun Mar 12, 2017 7:50 pm**

Natasha wrote:I apologise if I made anybody guess. That certainly wasn't my intention.

I believe you.

I am neither upset nor do I dislike playful sparring. Maybe that causes too much noise and the message gets lost. But for me it was never anything more complicated than all characters have a hand to hand basis and if that is removed from the character then at least part of the picture is necessarily missing and not only that it makes the character unplayable. I never saw what there was to guess at. If there was, then there was and next time it happens just remind me of this post.

For me, when you say "all character have a Hand to Hand basis, and if that is removed from the character then at least part of the picture is necessarily missing, and not only that but it makes the character unplayable," I'm left guessing why you feel the need to make that statement.
I'm left guessing how you believe this interacts with the topic of the thread, which is whether or not mages are "combat trained."
I'm left guessing at what your train of thought exactly is, what station it left from, and what station it's supposed to arrive at.

Things would be much more easy to follow if you started with a clear thesis statement, such as:
"All mages that start with HTH training are 'combat trained,' because HTH training is the sole logical standard for 'combat training.'"
or
"All mages that start with any HTH or WP skill are 'combat trained,' because each of those skills are defined as being or providing 'combat training' by the books."
or
"There is no meaningful distinction between 'combat training' and 'no combat training,' because people belonging to either set still use the same HTH combat rules"
or something else that more closely fits your overall view.
Then follow up that thesis with supporting evidence, and a trail of logic that leads to back to the thesis statement from that evidence.

Right now, devoid of the context of everything preceding the fresh start, I feel akin to somebody participating in a "Do you prefer cats or dogs?" thread, where somebody pops in and states "both cats and dogs are small mammals."
They're not necessarily wrong, but it doesn't seem to address the question, or to directly touch on it, without the poster filling in some other key information.

Posted: **Sun Mar 12, 2017 7:54 pm**

Natasha wrote:I apologise if I made anybody guess. That certainly wasn't my intention. I am neither upset nor do I dislike playful sparring. Maybe that causes too much noise and the message gets lost. But for me it was never anything more complicated than all characters have a hand to hand basis and if that is removed from the character then at least part of the picture is necessarily missing and not only that it makes the character unplayable. I never saw what there was to guess at. If there was, then there was and next time it happens just remind me of this post.

Greetings and Salutations. I don't think an apology was necessary, as we all have moments when we're not as clear as we like.I know there are times I say something I think is clear (and those who know me well might think is clear), but others clearly had difficulty. And I thank you for your post, because lather almost got me to break my word about starting fresh and leaving the old posts behind. That's something I would've probably regretted. So truly, thank you for that.

I mentioned it above in a post to another, but I'll say it again here to you directly: If anything I said offended you, then my apologies. That definitely was not my intent. Any issues I had were with the (apparent) content of the posts, and not you. I will say that guesswork definitely seemed to be going on, as what you felt you were saying and others (such as myself) were reading you saying appears to be two different things. Perhaps I wasn't as clear either, and perhaps instead of us one argument we were having two separate ones. And, if in the future, you feel I'm misrepresenting your quotes, feel free to let me know. Maybe then we can try to figure out where our signals are getting crossed. Farewell and safe journeys.

Posted: **Sun Mar 12, 2017 9:20 pm**

guardiandashi wrote:what the whole argument really boils down to is a more philosophical question IE what constitutes being "combat trained" and why is it that mages by definition "just aren't"

Greetings and Salutations. Well, that'll at least partly depend on whether you're referring to Palladium's stance of mages not being warriors, or the context of the original comment that started this thread. I think Killer Cyborg has addressed his original context enough that I don't feel the need to readdress that.

To the former, why Palladium made such statements, I'd guess (but can't necessarily prove) by the context of the passages that basically they're not as good in a stand up fight as Men at Arms. Mechanically, there may be little difference in combat capabilities (put a Practitioner of Magic and a Men at Arms in a fist fight, both have HtH: Basic and the same P.P., they'll probably be rather evenly matched, barring additional factors such as level or only one of them having Boxing, etc.). Conceptually though, I think most (though I'm sure some will argue against it) will agree that a trained soldier should be able to defeat a magic user in a straight fist fight, because a soldier is supposed to be the fighter or warrior. Make sense so far?

Now, mechanically a Practitioner of Magic (considering equivalent skills) won't be much worse off in that fight. However, Palladium likes to say that a magic user will use magic, even for combat. Now, a magic user using a Fireball that's inferior in every way to a laser rifle is probably silly for most, but that doesn't mean that the mage can't still use magic to control the battle such as summoning monsters to fight, Carpet of Adhesion to limit enemy movements, creating a magic wall to serve as cover or block a retreat, etc. However, magic is ill-suited for direct confrontation. So Palladium is figuring magic users will use magic, which we see in RBoM and even in RUE under the Magic Combat section. On page 190 (last paragraph of Step 7), they tell us how a "smart" mage will fight (and it's not toe to toe). In this section, they even compare a magic user to a sniper. So, for a moment, let's replace mages with snipers for the description.

A sniper can fire from the hip (effectively) and it'll take one action (equivalent to a low level spell). The sniper can fire an Aimed Shot and/or Called Shot in two or three actions (equivalent of a mid- to high level spell). The act of parrying, dodging, or striking back will break the sniper's aim. Likewise, getting popped in the mouth or stomach, or getting knocked down or blinded, or anything that breaks his concentration and makes him stop in the middle of his aim, will prevent him from finishing his attack. Most snipers can handle themselves in a fight, but they aren't warriors, they just aren't.

Again, back to my earlier point, put a sniper and a marine in an unarmed cage match, and which will probably win? While there might be exceptions, and regardless of what some may argue is reality, most people would probably put their money on the marine. If in the midst of a battle, a sniper stops, crouches down on the ground, adjusts his scope, and starts taking aim, do you think he'd be making himself a target and people might start thinking: "Hey, sniper! Take him out before he starts getting head shots!" I think that's the concept Palladium is going for with their Practitioners of Magic. They can handle themselves in a fight if need be, but denying your strengths while fighting to another's isn't generally a good idea. And if you stand in clear sight of the enemy, you're making yourself a target to be interrupted.

Anyways, that would just be my take on why Palladium said it the way they did. Take that for what you will. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

Posted: **Sun Mar 12, 2017 9:45 pm**

Prysus wrote:
guardiandashi wrote:what the whole argument really boils down to is a more philosophical question IE what constitutes being "combat trained" and why is it that mages by definition "just aren't"

Greetings and Salutations. Well, that'll at least partly depend on whether you're referring to Palladium's stance of mages not being warriors, or the context of the original comment that started this thread. I think Killer Cyborg has addressed his original context enough that I don't feel the need to readdress that.

Agreed.
Although if anybody has questions about my reasoning, I am willing to answer.

To the former, why Palladium made such statements, I'd guess (but can't necessarily prove) by the context of the passages that basically they're not as good in a stand up fight as Men at Arms. Mechanically, there may be little difference in combat capabilities (put a Practitioner of Magic and a Men at Arms in a fist fight, both have HtH: Basic and the same P.P., they'll probably be rather evenly matched, barring additional factors such as level or only one of them having Boxing, etc.). Conceptually though, I think most (though I'm sure some will argue against it) will agree that a trained soldier should be able to defeat a magic user in a straight fist fight, because a soldier is supposed to be the fighter or warrior. Make sense so far?

Now, mechanically a Practitioner of Magic (considering equivalent skills) won't be much worse off in that fight. However, Palladium likes to say that a magic user will use magic, even for combat. Now, a magic user using a Fireball that's inferior in every way to a laser rifle is probably silly for most, but that doesn't mean that the mage can't still use magic to control the battle such as summoning monsters to fight, Carpet of Adhesion to limit enemy movements, creating a magic wall to serve as cover or block a retreat, etc. However, magic is ill-suited for direct confrontation. So Palladium is figuring magic users will use magic, which we see in RBoM and even in RUE under the Magic Combat section. On page 190 (last paragraph of Step 7), they tell us how a "smart" mage will fight (and it's not toe to toe). In this section, they even compare a magic user to a sniper. So, for a moment, let's replace mages with snipers for the description.

A sniper can fire from the hip (effectively) and it'll take one action (equivalent to a low level spell). The sniper can fire an Aimed Shot and/or Called Shot in two or three actions (equivalent of a mid- to high level spell). The act of parrying, dodging, or striking back will break the sniper's aim. Likewise, getting popped in the mouth or stomach, or getting knocked down or blinded, or anything that breaks his concentration and makes him stop in the middle of his aim, will prevent him from finishing his attack. Most snipers can handle themselves in a fight, but they aren't warriors, they just aren't.

Again, back to my earlier point, put a sniper and a marine in an unarmed cage match, and which will probably win? While there might be exceptions, and regardless of what some may argue is reality, most people would probably put their money on the marine. If in the midst of a battle, a sniper stops, crouches down on the ground, adjusts his scope, and starts taking aim, do you think he'd be making himself a target and people might start thinking: "Hey, sniper! Take him out before he starts getting head shots!" I think that's the concept Palladium is going for with their Practitioners of Magic. They can handle themselves in a fight if need be, but denying your strengths while fighting to another's isn't generally a good idea. And if you stand in clear sight of the enemy, you're making yourself a target to be interrupted.

Anyways, that would just be my take on why Palladium said it the way they did. Take that for what you will. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

Posted: **Mon Mar 13, 2017 1:37 am**

Prysus wrote:Greetings and Salutations. Well, that'll at least partly depend on whether you're referring to Palladium's stance of mages not being warriors, or the context of the original comment that started this thread. I think Killer Cyborg has addressed his original context enough that I don't feel the need to readdress that.

No offense to KC.. but uh... Didn't I start this thread?

Admittedly, real life reared it's ugly head and i never made it back (though it appears to have sparked a decent conversation, so, there's that, i guess).

To the former, why Palladium made such statements, I'd guess (but can't necessarily prove) by the context of the passages that basically they're not as good in a stand up fight as Men at Arms. Mechanically, there may be little difference in combat capabilities (put a Practitioner of Magic and a Men at Arms in a fist fight, both have HtH: Basic and the same P.P., they'll probably be rather evenly matched, barring additional factors such as level or only one of them having Boxing, etc.). Conceptually though, I think most (though I'm sure some will argue against it) will agree that a trained soldier should be able to defeat a magic user in a straight fist fight, because a soldier is supposed to be the fighter or warrior. Make sense so far?

I follow your train of thought, at least, yes. Mechanics need to support the fluff, though, and they dont. Now, like i said, i follow your train of thought and would say its probably very similar to Kevin's train of thought, where he just cant seem to get past the D&D/Palladium-fantasy/typical fantasy trope of Wizards being dress-wearing sissies that can (if you let them) blow away bad guys in job lots.

It even WORKS in Fantasy, because you dont have guys armed with laser rifles that are 3x the range of any spell ruining your day. So, while i disagree that soldiers are "supposed to be the fighter or the warrior" (because the crunch simply does NOT support that assertion), i certainly agree that your train of thought is similar to Palladium's (Kevins), and is what leads to the statements in the book that Mages are supposed to be weak combatants, even though they arent and there so not even a lot of back-up for it in their own fluff. (For a bunch of dress wearing non-combat trained sissies, Tolkeen sure put a pretty hard fight with an army that was 50+% magic users, for instance.)

Now, mechanically a Practitioner of Magic (considering equivalent skills) won't be much worse off in that fight.

Agreed. That's sorta why i started the thread - the disconnect between the poorly conceived fluff and the crunch that doesn't support it at all (or really even make it possible. You'd have to deliberately remove skills from your own character to sheet to make the fluff match up to your character).

However, Palladium likes to say that a magic user will use magic, even for combat.

And i don't disagree, particularly if itll give you an advantage over that mundane guy. But that doesn't mean youll be stupid about it.

Now, a magic user using a Fireball that's inferior in every way to a laser rifle is probably silly for most,

It certainly is for me. I dont think that any mage character is going to be so deluded as to thinking his Fireball is the best tool for every situation. Palladium's fluff sometimes tries to say they will ALWAYS want to use magic, but that's just... nonsensical. Magic Users arent mentally handicapped. Why have to risk sneaking into range to use magic when i have a perfectly good laser rifle right here?

but that doesn't mean that the mage can't still use magic to control the battle such as summoning monsters to fight, Carpet of Adhesion to limit enemy movements, creating a magic wall to serve as cover or block a retreat, etc.

100% agree. This is where Magic Users are brokenly strong, really.

However, magic is ill-suited for direct confrontation.

Disagree. It is ill-suited as a replacement for damage-dealing for tech, but it is WONDERFULLY suited to direct confrontation. Impervious to Energy + Armor of Ithan/Armor Bizzare/Invincible Armor (take your pick) + Power Weapon + TW Flaming Sword = hell on two feet. One mage can handle 3-4 tech using (edit: infantry-scale, when you start adding PA and Robots and stuff, things change) opponents in that situation, no problem. Add in any combat boosters (Superhuman Speed, for instance, and there are a few different spells that give you extra attacks, some available at quite reasonable levels), and you're supremely suited to direct confrontation. Now, this isn't a universal truth (you might run into a pack of Juicers who can handle you in melee, or a squad of guys atypically armed with solid slug weapons (APRJ, Rail Guns, whatever), but there are ways to plan for that too.

And before someone brings the range thing up - Mages can turn invisible. Getting into range isn't a problem except against the MOST alert enemies. (Most things that can see the invisible cant se that far - a few hundred feet AT BEST).

So Palladium is figuring magic users will use magic, which we see in RBoM and even in RUE under the Magic Combat section. On page 190 (last paragraph of Step 7), they tell us how a "smart" mage will fight (and it's not toe to toe).

And this is where Palladium's writing falls down. Game mechanics have to support the fluff, or the fluff is pointless and often doesn't even make sense. If they want mages to be bad combatants, they need to alter the mechanics to support that. Period.

A "Smart" mage will fight in whatever way gives him the upper hand. If that means popping a flaming sword and jumping into that squad of dog boys armed with C-12s and energy pistols to carve them up, sure. Now, some mages will have preferences - not everyone wants to go melee - but "toe to toe" means a lot of different things. Maybe i dont like melee as the character im playing (im a frail elf); but ill happily pop Impervious to Energy, Armor up, and sit back at 1200 feet and trade shots with guys who cant hurt me all day long, until they are dead, or run away.

In this section, they even compare a magic user to a sniper. So, for a moment, let's replace mages with snipers for the description.

A sniper can fire from the hip (effectively) and it'll take one action (equivalent to a low level spell). The sniper can fire an Aimed Shot and/or Called Shot in two or three actions (equivalent of a mid- to high level spell). The act of parrying, dodging, or striking back will break the sniper's aim. Likewise, getting popped in the mouth or stomach, or getting knocked down or blinded, or anything that breaks his concentration and makes him stop in the middle of his aim, will prevent him from finishing his attack. Most snipers can handle themselves in a fight, but they aren't warriors, they just aren't.

Bad analogy. At least in modern first world armed forces, Snipers are definitely warriors. All Snipers in the US armed forces receive better-than-basic-infantry training. A LARGE portion (and certainly the best trained) are special forces operators - Marine Scout Snipers and Army Rangers.

Again, back to my earlier point, put a sniper and a marine in an unarmed cage match, and which will probably win?

Since there's a pretty good chance (especially if we're talking the "best" sniper) that the sniper is ALSO a Marine... a Marine. Probably the one that took more extensive elective hand to hand training, which is a pretty common hobby among marines (and Rangers, and SEALs).

While there might be exceptions, and regardless of what some may argue is reality, most people would probably put their money on the marine. If in the midst of a battle, a sniper stops, crouches down on the ground, adjusts his scope, and starts taking aim, do you think he'd be making himself a target and people might start thinking: "Hey, sniper! Take him out before he starts getting head shots!" I think that's the concept Palladium is going for with their Practitioners of Magic. They can handle themselves in a fight if need be, but denying your strengths while fighting to another's isn't generally a good idea. And if you stand in clear sight of the enemy, you're making yourself a target to be interrupted.

I agree, however, in most cases, you dont need to stand in plain sight... and if you do, there are steps you can take to mitigate the possibility of being interrupted. (Turning Invisible, Impervious to Energy, illusiory or natural cover).

Anyways, that would just be my take on why Palladium said it the way they did. Take that for what you will. Farewell and safe journeys for now.[/justify]

[/quote][/quote]

Like i said, i agree with your assessment of why Palladium (Kevin) says it the way he does.

I just think it's bunk that isnt even well supported by the setting material. Its supported in a few general spots (Book of Magic, a few spots in the RMB and later RUE, some in FoM) and then contradicted in a LOT more (sometimes just a page or two after it is stated that they are bad combatants, the entire SoT series, numerous other places with societies of warlike mages), and isn't supported by the crunch, either.

I think Kevin had a vision for Rifts as Palladium-Fantasy with Tech. So he imported all his preconceptions of fantasy into Rifts, including "mages are bad at combat", but with little to nothing to back it up in the actual setting material and NOTHING in the mechanics. (In fact, a well played mage is far and away better than a lot of the basic men-at-arms style classes, particularly in RMB before the RUE overhaul). Other things that point to this "vision" of Rifts as fantasy+tech is how he expects North America to be some vast wilderness (which, geographically, sure) that, like the PF World, takes weeks and weeks to get anywhere (because even on horses, 20-25 miles a day, when you have to set up camp, take down camp, cook food, etc, is pretty damn good).... but it just doesn't work.

Even going "reasonable" speeds on hover-vehicles you can be literally anywhere on the continent that isnt impassible due to other reasons (extreme terrain like high mountains with no passes, weird magical stuff (like why nothing ever comes back from the other side of the Rockies despite Archie 3 literally sending thousands of bots to investigate) in about three days.

Kev's "vision" for Rifts isn't entirely workable, either on the "its a big empty world that takes forever to get anywhere" front or the "magic users suck at combat" front.

I've been (very slowly) kicking around a revamp of Palladium's combat system (to be clear - as a game designer myself (though not often tabletop, mostly live action, but im good at mechanical systems - i could easily write a more mechanically balanced/"better" system - but what im trying to do is preserve the active-defenses/opposed rolls/action-bound nature of Palladium, and just make it less slow and broken) and part and parcel of it is going to be a ... very major "Minor" retcon of the setting to better fit Kev's original vision.... by careful utilization of a few McGuffins and re-writing some mechanics to just favor certain flavors.

Non-mecha scale Men at arms need some love.

Posted: **Mon Mar 13, 2017 4:36 am**

Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:snip

I've been (very slowly) kicking around a revamp of Palladium's combat system (to be clear - as a game designer myself (though not often tabletop, mostly live action, but im good at mechanical systems - i could easily write a more mechanically balanced/"better" system - but what im trying to do is preserve the active-defenses/opposed rolls/action-bound nature of Palladium, and just make it less slow and broken) and part and parcel of it is going to be a ... very major "Minor" retcon of the setting to better fit Kev's original vision.... by careful utilization of a few McGuffins and re-writing some mechanics to just favor certain flavors.

Non-mecha scale Men at arms need some love.

you know I usually don't think about it directly but the problem with north America /the world being this huge place that takes forever to get anywhere is actually a HUGE issue.

I mean lets explore that thought for a minute.

medieval /fantasy world. people at a walking pace say 3-5 miles per hour ish, traveling from say Chicago (chi town) to Portland Oregon even if you can travel ~8 hours per day, https://www.google.com/#q=chicago+il+to ... +walking&* suggests ~3mph average so it would take you about a month to walk that. change it to 30 mph average and it would take 68.1 hours or about 2.8 days, change it to 300 mph, and it becomes about 6.8 hours

now lets take a look at common speeds of a number of units in game.
glitter boy, SAMAS (running on the ground) etc. 60mph speed
shemarrian warrior (dismounted) 90mph
monst rex 190mph maximum in the open, 95 in woods and other difficult terrain.
samas flying 300mph (maximum) 150mph typical duration 10hrs at 300mph, 20hrs at 150 for ... effectively the same distance per "flight" or about 3000 miles

so with the SAMAS flying ~100-200 feet above the ground, it should theoretically (assuming no complications such as combat) be able to fly from Chicago, to Portland, and 1/2 way back, before having to make a rest stop to cool the jet rockets, and its actually a pretty slow unit.

Granted the SAMAS has an altitude Ceiling of about 500ft, but is that 500ft above the ground or 500ft above sea level?

but when you look at it from a "practical" point of view where its possible to have maps even if you have to effectively reconstruct them as you go, the world just isn't "that big"
lets look at a theoretical coalition "Louis and Clark expedition" to explore the wild reaches of the west.
you send out expedition 1 with 100 SAMAS, and instructions to turn back, if they loose 1/2 of the SAMAS units.
the Expedition takes off flying to the west. they go some arbitrary distance say 150 miles mapping what they see, the first hour, with "patrols" of 4 samas, and if they run into anything 1 heads back to ensure the data isn't lost. rinse and repeat. you are going to map the continent pretty fast, including "whoever goes here dies" spots.

Posted: **Mon Mar 13, 2017 8:10 am**

Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:No offense to KC.. but uh... Didn't I start this thread?

Greetings and Salutations. Who made the first post is irrelevant to the question asked and the question answered. The first post quoted, and addressed, a comment made by Killer Cyborg. As such, his stance on his comment is more important to the question of why he made it than the person who quoted him.

As for the sniper issue, there's a reason I added: "While there might be exceptions, and regardless of what some may argue is reality, most people would probably put their money on the marine."

The example addresses people's general perceptions, not reality or specific individuals. Palladium, for example, tends to base stuff more off of action movies than reality. So the perception is important to explaining the why.

As for magic being ill-suited, this depends on if you have time to have all your spells up and active before battle starts, or you need to cast them during the battle. The former is nice. The latter is easily interrupted, and what I was addressing. You don't even need to take damage to get interrupted by the rules.

In the end, my post answered the "why," and not personal opinion (beyond my opinion of why they would say it). Farewell and safe journeys.

Posted: **Thu Mar 16, 2017 10:32 pm**

Prysus wrote:
guardiandashi wrote:what the whole argument really boils down to is a more philosophical question IE what constitutes being "combat trained" and why is it that mages by definition "just aren't"

Greetings and Salutations. Well, that'll at least partly depend on whether you're referring to Palladium's stance of mages not being warriors, or the context of the original comment that started this thread. I think Killer Cyborg has addressed his original context enough that I don't feel the need to readdress that.

To the former, why Palladium made such statements, I'd guess (but can't necessarily prove) by the context of the passages that basically they're not as good in a stand up fight as Men at Arms. Mechanically, there may be little difference in combat capabilities (put a Practitioner of Magic and a Men at Arms in a fist fight, both have HtH: Basic and the same P.P., they'll probably be rather evenly matched, barring additional factors such as level or only one of them having Boxing, etc.). Conceptually though, I think most (though I'm sure some will argue against it) will agree that a trained soldier should be able to defeat a magic user in a straight fist fight, because a soldier is supposed to be the fighter or warrior. Make sense so far?

Now, mechanically a Practitioner of Magic (considering equivalent skills) won't be much worse off in that fight. However, Palladium likes to say that a magic user will use magic, even for combat. Now, a magic user using a Fireball that's inferior in every way to a laser rifle is probably silly for most, but that doesn't mean that the mage can't still use magic to control the battle such as summoning monsters to fight, Carpet of Adhesion to limit enemy movements, creating a magic wall to serve as cover or block a retreat, etc. However, magic is ill-suited for direct confrontation. So Palladium is figuring magic users will use magic, which we see in RBoM and even in RUE under the Magic Combat section. On page 190 (last paragraph of Step 7), they tell us how a "smart" mage will fight (and it's not toe to toe). In this section, they even compare a magic user to a sniper. So, for a moment, let's replace mages with snipers for the description.

A sniper can fire from the hip (effectively) and it'll take one action (equivalent to a low level spell). The sniper can fire an Aimed Shot and/or Called Shot in two or three actions (equivalent of a mid- to high level spell). The act of parrying, dodging, or striking back will break the sniper's aim. Likewise, getting popped in the mouth or stomach, or getting knocked down or blinded, or anything that breaks his concentration and makes him stop in the middle of his aim, will prevent him from finishing his attack. Most snipers can handle themselves in a fight, but they aren't warriors, they just aren't.

Again, back to my earlier point, put a sniper and a marine in an unarmed cage match, and which will probably win? While there might be exceptions, and regardless of what some may argue is reality, most people would probably put their money on the marine. If in the midst of a battle, a sniper stops, crouches down on the ground, adjusts his scope, and starts taking aim, do you think he'd be making himself a target and people might start thinking: "Hey, sniper! Take him out before he starts getting head shots!" I think that's the concept Palladium is going for with their Practitioners of Magic. They can handle themselves in a fight if need be, but denying your strengths while fighting to another's isn't generally a good idea. And if you stand in clear sight of the enemy, you're making yourself a target to be interrupted.

Anyways, that would just be my take on why Palladium said it the way they did. Take that for what you will. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

Depends on what the sniper is and what the marine is.
If the sniper is from sayeret Matkal(Iserael SF) and the Marine was say 3521(mechanic) I would bet on the sniper.

The statement that a sniper is not a warrior is insulting and shows a lack of knowledge. Sniper is a skill set typically limited in the US military to combat arms MOS such as infantry, Rangers, SF and calv scout you know the guys who job it is to fight. The marines are a sub branch of the service and includes both combat arms and combat support MOS. (Marine recon includes snipers if I recall right.)

Sniper is a skill for use in combat and many warriors are trained snipers.

(Sorry I just can't drink the coolaid and say the "branch" known for being stubborn and not intelligent are all that and a bag of chips. Playing OPFOR wiping out marine units is easier than other combat arms they keep charging the same kill zone and are often using outdated equipment. I will tell you this if you have to capture a place with limited approach the Marines are who you should send if you have to out think your enemy send in a SF team.)

Posted: **Sun Apr 09, 2017 2:57 pm**

This is what happens when you mature too fast intellectually and too slow emotionally.

You guys are NOT helping kill the stereotype about angry nerds.

Warning: And you are not helping to kill trolling. But that's okay, I'll take care of that.

Posted: **Mon Apr 10, 2017 10:10 am**

So have we even agreed what Combat trained means in Rift terms yet, so we actual have a metric to base the statement on?

Posted: **Mon Apr 10, 2017 7:07 pm**

Saitou Hajime wrote:So have we even agreed what Combat trained means in Rift terms yet, so we actual have a metric to base the statement on?

I don't think so, no.

Posted: **Mon Apr 10, 2017 7:20 pm**

Combat Trained in Rifts means...
...what the poster wants it to mean to best advocate their position.

Beyond meaning "trained for combat" there is no consensus at all. Either on what the word 'trained' means or 'combat' means or how they get combined.

Posted: **Mon Apr 10, 2017 10:09 pm**

Maybe we should argue something like what's more common for mages, Running or an ancient WP.

Posted: **Fri Apr 14, 2017 2:23 pm**

I can't re-call if anyone already cited this, but according to Juicer Uprising, p. 105, Kingsdale's "Magical Militia" consists entirely of magic users who have received basic combat training, which is defined as WP Energy Pistol, WP Energy Rifle, and Hand to Hand: Basic. This gives an in-world definition of what a basic level of being trained for combat means.

Posted: **Fri Apr 14, 2017 7:13 pm**

dreicunan wrote:I can't re-call if anyone already cited this, but according to Juicer Uprising, p. 105, Kingsdale's "Magical Militia" consists entirely of magic users who have received basic combat training, which is defined as WP Energy Pistol, WP Energy Rifle, and Hand to Hand: Basic. This gives an in-world definition of what a basic level of being trained for combat means.

RUE calls hand to hand combat training.(hand to hand basic was called basic combat training if I recall)
RUE calls WP combat training.

So I stop posting when it became overly clear people did not want how the game defined it but something subjective and different for each person.

If we were going off what the book called combat training the debate would have ended over 10 pages ago.

Posted: **Fri Apr 14, 2017 7:22 pm**

Blue_Lion wrote:RUE calls hand to hand combat training.(hand to hand basic was called basic combat training if I recall)

IIRC, it's called "hand to hand combat training," which is not the same as "combat training."

RUE calls WP combat training.

IIRC, RUE states that WPs "provide combat training," which is not the same as being combat training.

So I stop posting when it became overly clear people did not want how the game defined it but something subjective and different for each person.

I have still not seen any official definition of the term.
What I've seen so far is examples of things that may provide or count as a form of combat training, but neither of those things is a definition.

Posted: **Fri Apr 14, 2017 7:34 pm**

If something provides combat training that means if you have it you have combat training.

Hand to hand combat training is combat training for fighting without a weapon.(all combat training is for a special part of combat, a modern US marine would likely do poorly in a sword fight against a knight because his combat training does not cover it so even thogh he has combat training he has no combat training for a sword fight with a medieval knight. There is no such thing as a general combat training.)

As you pointed out KS rarely wrights in absolute but calling something combat training or saying it provides it means that mechanically the skill is combat training. Your denial of using what the books refers to as combat training is why I see this debate as pointless. Because you do not want it about what the book calls combat training but something subjective based off standards that do not exist and create a case of for the evidence of X to be false you must prove X false but you can't prove X false because the evidence of X.

Posted: **Fri Apr 14, 2017 7:51 pm**

Blue_Lion wrote:If something provides combat training that means if you have it you have combat training.

Correct.
If, for example, a magical talking dog provided you with combat training, then you would have combat training.
But that dog would not BE combat training, and "a magical talking dog" would not be a definition of "combat training."

Hand to hand combat training is combat training for fighting without a weapon.

Yes. It is one kind of combat training that applies in a limited context.
"Hand to Hand combat training" and "combat training" are not the same thing, and neither one is a definition for the other.
HTH combat training would be a subset of "combat training."

Because you do not want it about what the book calls combat training but something subjective based off standards that do not exist and create a case of for the evidence of X to be false you must prove X false but you can't prove X false because the evidence of X.

The next time you--or somebody else--tries to tell me what I think or what my motives are, I'm reporting that post for Addressing the Poster, Not The Post.
Such claims are not only inaccurate, they're insulting.
If it's not outright trolling, it's a form of flaming.

Posted: **Fri Apr 14, 2017 8:24 pm**

Killer Cyborg wrote:
Blue_Lion wrote:If something provides combat training that means if you have it you have combat training.

Correct.
If, for example, a magical talking dog provided you with combat training, then you would have combat training.
But that dog would not BE combat training, and "a magical talking dog" would not be a definition of "combat training."

Hand to hand combat training is combat training for fighting without a weapon.

Yes. It is one kind of combat training that applies in a limited context.
"Hand to Hand combat training" and "combat training" are not the same thing, and neither one is a definition for the other.
HTH combat training would be a subset of "combat training."

Because you do not want it about what the book calls combat training but something subjective based off standards that do not exist and create a case of for the evidence of X to be false you must prove X false but you can't prove X false because the evidence of X.

The next time you--or somebody else--tries to tell me what I think or what my motives are, I'm reporting that post for Addressing the Poster, Not The Post.
Such claims are not only inaccurate, they're insulting.
If it's not outright trolling, it's a form of flaming.

Hand to hand is a type of combat training, there is no such thing as general combat training even in real life. All combat training covers combat in certain conditions or type of combat. In fact if you read the note on page 347
"-Basic comabat training enables-"Wait hand to hand combat basic was just called basic combat training not hand to hand combat but basic hand combat training. (Seams to be a slight hole in your the book does not call it basic combat training but hand to hand combat training.)

I am trying to understand your logic here, If something provides combat training and you have it you are combat trained but you do not want people with the the skill that provides combat training to be called trained for combat. (The talking talk is straw man as the dog is not a skill or type of training, but basically some one or something that teaches is. The training for a WP would be what is called combat training as once you have the WP you have combat training.)

So if you have a WP it provided you with combat training so you have combat training, but you do not want to call a WP combat training. Sorry that seams more like a petty word game than a logic debate.

Logically any one that has anything that provides any form of combat training can be said to have combat training. If you have combat training you are then said to be trained for combat.

Would threat to some one not be addressing the poster not the post, as the threat is an attack directed at the person?

So tell me how have you tried to find what the book refers to as combat training, you seam more to me in your post about attacking any attempt to use the books to establish a base line. I am actually addressing the logic I see you using, but am talking in a personal way. The logic you displayed in the course of this thread is to attack any attempt to establish a book base line, make it subjective so it can not undermine your logic in another thread.

If I recall right you want the standard to be a level of training for a mage to have total voice control, when your original post was using them not having voice control because as a rule they are not as a rule trained for combat. (That is circular when you start with a debate about them having voice control and use not being combat trained as a reason they do not have voice control. Basically we start with a debate one side saying Y is untrue another saying Y is true, then one side saying Y is true because of X. Then you want the standard for X to be untrue is to disprove Y. As I started with Y is untrue I and if i recall you used X as a justification having found the book quote that can make X untrue. But your logic seams to me more about making it subjective so your point in another thread is not dis-proven. Than using the book to prove or disprove X.)

So as I have seen no effort from you to use the books to establish the standard and you basically want the standard to be a level of trainng for voice control.

Posted: **Fri Apr 14, 2017 8:42 pm**

Blue_Lion wrote:Hand to hand is a type of combat training,

Yes, a type of.
A subset of the overall category of "combat training."

there is no such thing as general combat training even in real life. All combat training covers combat in certain conditions.

General combat training would be training in multiple contexts, not just a single context such as Hand to Hand.
Dreicunan's post, if accurate, would demonstrate this.

I am trying to understand your logic here, If something provides combat training and you have it you are combat training but you can not call what provides the combat training as combat training.

If something provides combat training, and you have that something, you are combat trained.
You are not combat training.
The thing that provided you with that combat training is not necessarily combat training.
A bullet can provide one with a wound, but it itself is NOT a wound.
Most things that provide things are not the things that they provide.

So if you have a WP it provided you with combat training so you have combat training, but you do not want to call a WP combat training. Sorry that seams more like a petty word game than logic.

It's not a petty word game--it is simple accuracy.
Providing combat training is not the same as being combat training.

Logically any one that has anything that provides any form of combat training can be said to have combat training. If you have combat training you are then said to be trained for combat.

At least within certain contexts, yes.

Would threat to some one not be addressing the poster not the post, as the threat is an attack directed at the person?

Ask the mods.
They do sometimes consider "I will report you if you keep breaking the rules" posts to be trolling or otherwise illegal, but I'm willing to take the hit in order to make my position clear.
But if you like, if you are offended by my letting you know in advance what my actions will be, then I can forgo any future warnings and simply go straight to reporting your (or whoever's) posts.
It seems a bit unfair to me, but if that's the way you prefer things, I can oblige.

So tell me how have you tried to find what the book refers to as combat training, you seam more to me in your post about attacking any attempt to use the books to establish a base line.

I dislike false claims.
Unless a person can provide a citation of the books providing a definition to a term, then that person should not claim that the books DO provide a definition.
I don't care either way if the books do or do not provide a definition of the term, outside of the context of the accuracy of people's claims.

I am actually addressing the logic I see you using, but am talking in a personal way.

Stop it.

The logic you displayed in the course of this thread is to attack any attempt to establish a book base line, make it subjective so it can not undermine your logic in another thread.

If you recall, I spent quite a bit of time arguing against Natasha, by actively supporting the idea that somebody with a WP does indeed have combat training.
IIRC, you switched positions and sided with her, against your own previous position.
Although I could be wrong--this is one time that I don't feel like going back and verifying things.

I have no problem with establishing a baseline. I do have a problem with people claiming that examples are definitions, because they're not. I likewise have a problem with people confusing "something that provides combat training" with "combat training," for the same reason that I would object if somebody called an orange tree an orange--they're not the same thing.

If I recall right you want the standard to be a level of training for a mage to have total voice control, when your original post was using them not having voice control because as a rule they are not as a rule trained for combat.

I believe we stopped talking about the context of the original quote a while back, but the context of that quote was indeed referring to the kind of military training that gives one the ability to remain somewhat cool when under fire.
I wasn't claiming that they "don't have voice control," but that I see no reason to assume that they would always have complete voice control when in a fire fight, as they do not as a rule have "basic combat training," referring to the kind of training that soldiers do have as a rule.

(That is circular when you start with a debate about them having voice control and use not being combat trained as a reason they do not have voice control. Basically we start with a debate one side saying Y is untrue another saying Y is true, then one side saying Y is true because of X. Then you want the standard for X to be untrue is to disprove Y. As I started with Y is untrue I and if i recall you used X as a justification having found the book quote that can make X untrue. But your logic seams to me more about making it subjective so your point in another thread is not dis-proven. Than using the book to prove or disprove X.)

So as I have seen no effort from you to use the books to establish the standard and you basically want the standard to be a level of trainng for voice control.

You lost me somewhere in that parenthetical section, but I will once again point out that I believe we left the original context of the quote a while back, and have been talking about whether or not the books provide any general definition for the term "combat training."

Posted: **Fri Apr 14, 2017 8:56 pm**

A citation of the book calling something combat training. You mean like the note in hand to hands.
PG-347 RUE-"Note-Basic combat training enables the charter to use any basic/common attacks,...."
PG-358 RUE "Note-Expert combat training...."
PG-358 "Note-martial arts combat training...."
PG-358 "Note-Assassin combat training...."
Pg-358 "Note-Commando combat training...."

It is like PB is calling the hand to hand combat, combat training.
The name may be basic hand to hand, but they are calling it combat training. (We know in PB all combat actions are based mechanically off hand to hand training in rue, they do seam to be using hand to hand as combat training. It determines how many actions you get in a fight.)

So we know the book says WP provide combat training, and they refer to hand to hand as combat training. Seams like a basis of what PB calls combat training.

I never said the books provide a definition but the books do call things combat training and say some skills give a person combat training. That is not a false claim. We know KS does not use a technical definition writing style so we have to use what they call combat training or skills that give it as what the books are calling combat training baseline. Asking for a definition of something that is not a mechanical move seams about creating a impossible standard based of Kevin S writing style.

Posted: **Fri Apr 14, 2017 9:05 pm**

Blue_Lion wrote:A citation of the book calling something combat training.

No.
A citation of the book providing a definition for the term "combat training."
That is NOT the same as "calling something 'combat training.'"
Do you understand the difference?

It is like PB is calling the hand to hand combat, combat training. It seams like they are saying hand to hand is the basis of combat training in PB.

No, it is like PB got lazy, and left out the "Hand to hand" part while discussing parts of it under that skill, as if they believed that by titling the skill "Hand to Hand Combat," that it would already be clear that the training is hand to hand.

Posted: **Fri Apr 14, 2017 9:08 pm**

If HTH combat skills were the basis for "combat training," then the only way that WPs could provide combat training would be if they provided HTH skills.
So that idea doesn't fit the books, as far as I can see.

Posted: **Fri Apr 14, 2017 9:41 pm**

You guys are never going to reach an agreement, because you're arguing over an undefined term. "Trained for combat" can mean different things.

Most mages are going to have some form of HTH skill, and some WPs. In that sense, they are certainly "trained for combat".

Most mages are not going to have been taught anything related to standard military strategy or tactics. They haven't trained in maneuver warfare, when to use suppression fire to pin down an enemy, room-sweeping techniques, or other things like that. In that sense, most are certainly not "trained for combat".

That's not to say that no mage has that sort of training. I'm sure some do. But your average line walker is going to rely on his magic to do what he needs to do. He's been taught to shoot a gun, and he practices kung fu (or whatever), but he's never been through basic training or anything of that nature. Individually he's quite powerful, but he doesn't have any knowledge of small unit tactics other than what he can think up himself.

So, trained for combat? Depends what you mean by that term.

Posted: **Fri Apr 14, 2017 9:43 pm**

Killer Cyborg wrote:If HTH combat skills were the basis for "combat training," then the only way that WPs could provide combat training would be if they provided HTH skills.
So that idea doesn't fit the books, as far as I can see.

That is like saying there is only one form of combat training. Combat training is a rather broad term not something that is easy to define. There are also different types of combat training and levels of training. So basic hand to hand is basic combat training and WP provide combat training with a weapon. Basically hand to hand combat would be combat training that mechanically always applies while WP is combat training that only applies when using a weapon. (WP is more limited mechanically than hand to hand but both can be called combat training. The basis is what always applies and WP is conditional source.)
The basis of something is not always the only source of something.

So talking not about what the books calls or says is combat training but how they define a non mechanical thing, that seams out side of Kevin S normal writing style and about creating an impossible standard. We need to work with what we have not create a standard that can not be met.

We may not have a definition of combat training but we know certain things are combat training or provide it. You can determine if some one has something without a definition if you know what counts as it or provides it.

Example-You may not know what a wouldbe is but if I tell you every US army infantry man has a woullde and Billy Bob K Smith is a infantry man in the US Army. Now then does Billy Bob K Smith have a wouldbe?(Most people with a military background know what a wouldbe is because you would be cold without it.) Given the standards I provided you can say he has one even if you do not know what it is. You may not be able to tell outside the standards I provided but it gives you a way to tell within the standards.

If you know the source of or what counts as combat training you can tell if some one who has one of those has combat training. The ones without it would require a definition to make say one way or another.

Basically we can use what the book calls combat training or says provides it to determine if as a rule mages are trained for combat.

Example of using this to game classes.
The ley line walker has basic hand to hand. The ley line walker is the most common mage. So as the books call hand to hand combat training we know the ley line walker has something called combat training. So the ley line walker has combat trained.

The mystic does not have either hand to hand or WP, so lacking definition a judgment call would be needed. I would say lacking a definition any one without a something called combat training or provides it, should be treated as not combat trained.

Classes like the TW that have no hand to hand but a WP are more straddling the line and i can see augments going either way.

That is using basic logic and the tools provided to set a reasonable standard instead of creating an impossible standard.

Posted: **Fri Apr 14, 2017 9:45 pm**

Blue_Lion wrote:A citation of the book calling something combat training. You mean like the note in hand to hands.
PG-347 RUE-"Note-Basic combat training enables the charter to use any basic/common attacks,...."
PG-358 RUE "Note-Expert combat training...."
PG-358 "Note-martial arts combat training...."
PG-358 "Note-Assassin combat training...."
Pg-358 "Note-Commando combat training...."

It is like PB is calling the hand to hand combat, combat training.
The name may be basic hand to hand, but they are calling it combat training. (We know in PB all combat actions are based mechanically off hand to hand training in rue, they do seam to be using hand to hand as combat training. It determines how many actions you get in a fight.)

So we know the book says WP provide combat training, and they refer to hand to hand as combat training. Seams like a basis of what PB calls combat training.

I never said the books provide a definition but the books do call things combat training and say some skills give a person combat training. That is not a false claim. We know KS does not use a technical definition writing style so we have to use what they call combat training or skills that give it as what the books are calling combat training baseline. Asking for a definition of something that is not a mechanical move seams about creating a impossible standard based of Kevin S writing style.

I think that is the point there.
If you can't win the argument, then revert to claiming that the standard is really impossible so no one can argue it.
No one is going to concede their ground here, but in the face of evidence they will simply move the goal post in such a way as to make it impossible to define.

Posted: **Fri Apr 14, 2017 9:49 pm**

eliakon wrote:
Blue_Lion wrote:A citation of the book calling something combat training. You mean like the note in hand to hands.
PG-347 RUE-"Note-Basic combat training enables the charter to use any basic/common attacks,...."
PG-358 RUE "Note-Expert combat training...."
PG-358 "Note-martial arts combat training...."
PG-358 "Note-Assassin combat training...."
Pg-358 "Note-Commando combat training...."

It is like PB is calling the hand to hand combat, combat training.
The name may be basic hand to hand, but they are calling it combat training. (We know in PB all combat actions are based mechanically off hand to hand training in rue, they do seam to be using hand to hand as combat training. It determines how many actions you get in a fight.)

So we know the book says WP provide combat training, and they refer to hand to hand as combat training. Seams like a basis of what PB calls combat training.

I never said the books provide a definition but the books do call things combat training and say some skills give a person combat training. That is not a false claim. We know KS does not use a technical definition writing style so we have to use what they call combat training or skills that give it as what the books are calling combat training baseline. Asking for a definition of something that is not a mechanical move seams about creating a impossible standard based of Kevin S writing style.

I think that is the point there.
If you can't win the argument, then revert to claiming that the standard is really impossible so no one can argue it.
No one is going to concede their ground here, but in the face of evidence they will simply move the goal post in such a way as to make it impossible to define.

What argument is trying to be won?
If the argument is "Mages are by some standards 'combat trained," then that argument was won a LONG time ago, barring holdouts like Natasha (and those who sided with her).

If the argument is "Palladium has provided a definition for the term 'combat trained," then that argument has not been won, because nobody has yet provided any official definition of the term.
Except perhaps dreicunan, although I haven't researched his claim yet.
Anybody wanting to claim that Palladium HAS provided a definition should look into what he said.

Posted: **Fri Apr 14, 2017 10:01 pm**

Blue_Lion wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:If HTH combat skills were the basis for "combat training," then the only way that WPs could provide combat training would be if they provided HTH skills.
So that idea doesn't fit the books, as far as I can see.

That is like saying there is only one form of combat training.

Yes, saying that "HTH combat skills are the basis for "combat training" is like saying that there is only one form of combat training.
I would say that obviously there are more than one kind, and that HTH training is simply one kind. WPs are another. Combat piloting skills are yet another.

Combat training is a rather broad term not something that is easy to define. There are also different types of combat training and levels of training. So basic hand to hand is basic combat training and WP provide combat training with a weapon.

No. Basic hand to hand is combat training in hand to hand combat.
WPs provide combat training.
There are different kinds of training.
We agree on all of this.

Basically hand to hand combat would be combat training that mechanically always applies while WP is combat training that only applies when using a weapon.

No.
Because if you have a WP, you have combat training by definition, whether or not you have a HTH skill.
Which means that you have combat training, even though HTH combat training is not applicable to you.

(WP is more limited mechanically than hand to hand but both can be called combat training. The basis is what always applies and WP is conditional source.)
The basis of something is not always the only source of something.

Interesting semantic claim.
Care to elaborate?

So talking not about what the books calls or says is combat training but how they define a non mechanical thing, that seams out side of Kevin S normal writing style and about creating an impossible standard. We need to work with what we have not create a standard that can not be met.

The books have quite a few definitions.
"Combat Training" is not among them.
If you want to work with what we have, that's cool. But "a definition of 'combat training'" is NOT one of the things that we have so far, not unless dreicunan's claim pans out.

We may not have a definition of combat training but we know certain things are combat training or provide it. You can determine if some one has something without a definition if you know what counts as it or provides it.

I don't care about any of that, except for the issue of whether or not we have a definition, and only then because people have claimed that we DO have a definition, but as of yet have not been able to provide one.

Basically we can use what the book calls combat training or says provides it to determine if as a rule mages are trained for combat.

Once we leave behind the context of my original quote, I think that it's pretty clear that mages as a rule "have combat training" in that they have a WP as part of their starting skills.
I also think that it's pretty clear that we do NOT have a definition of the term "combat training."

Therefore, if somebody claims that mages "have combat training," outside of the context of my original quote, I won't argue about it. I agree with them.
But if somebody claims that we have an official definition to the term "combat training," then I will argue with them, because we (so far) do NOT.

Example of using this to game classes.
The ley line walker has basic hand to hand. The ley line walker is the most common mage. So as the books call hand to hand combat training we know the ley line walker has something called combat training. So the ley line walker has combat trained.

The mystic does not have either hand to hand or WP, so lacking definition a judgment call would be needed. I would say lacking a definition any one without a something called combat training or provides it, should be treated as not combat trained.

Classes like the TW that have no hand to hand but a WP are more straddling the line and i can see augments going either way.

That is using basic logic and the tools provided to set a reasonable standard instead of creating an impossible standard.

I'm with you until you get to Techno-Wizards, in which case I'd say that because they have a WP, they are necessarily combat trained.
Once the context of my original quote is removed, you and I are mostly on the same page.
Until Natasha came in with, in which case (IIRC), you changed your stance.

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