Ridiculous things in the books

[zaccheus]

Parta being a mage. Soldiers have to keep track of Ammo. They have to make sure their armor is viable. Mages, if they choose to go against type, have to keep track of the penalties that come from doing so. It's a choice you make.

I just want to point out that I think you are making a huge assumption/misconception regarding "mages" and their "type", at least in regards to rifts. A common theme in the game is that mages are hunted, at least by the coalition, Free Quebec and the NGR, arguably the largest bastions of human civilization, and most likely factions that are going to come up in just about every game. If I lived in a world where the major goverments hunted down mages with a vengence and I was a mage, I absolutely would go against my "type". I'd have to be an idiot to dress the part and conform to "type"(ie wear armor that is stereotypically worn by mages), it would be paramount to suicide. In fact, it would make far more sense for almost every mage, except the most cocky or powerful to pretty much always were heavy armor and carry around a laser rifle and try their hardest to look like every other mercenary under the sun. Otherwise, wearing light "natural" armor or the LLW armor would provide the same protection that wearing a sandwich board that says I AM A MAGE PLEASE KILL ME would provide.

By this logic it's just stupid to be a mage at all, pick up the rifle and put on the armor and be a trooper.

I gget what you're saying. I'm pointing out that IN RIFTS EARTH, that's how Mages roll. If you wanna go different you can, but there's penalties for it.

Say What?! So all the mages in the Burbs run around in LLW armor, just waiting to get blasted by patrols? Why even bother with dog boys, you can kill the majority of mages, including the Vangaurd I suppose just by shooting all the dudes in LLW armor or "natural" body armor...easy peasy no more wizards.

Also I don't get how my logic makes it stupid to play a mage. So because the character is dressed like a soldier he no longer benefits from knowing magic? I just don't follow your point at all.

[Dr. Doom III]

And at what point is it not playing in character to go 'gee I want to survive I better wear something better than a T-shirt and jeans'? Or is it against the spirit of the game to again to want your character to survive to have to operate under a crushing handicap that everyone else doesn't have to that makes you far easier to kill?

I don't see wearing lighter armor and using defensive spells as a crushing handicap. If you do I suggest playing a character more conducive to your style.

[flatline]

Parta being a mage. Soldiers have to keep track of Ammo. They have to make sure their armor is viable. Mages, if they choose to go against type, have to keep track of the penalties that come from doing so. It's a choice you make.

I just want to point out that I think you are making a huge assumption/misconception regarding "mages" and their "type", at least in regards to rifts. A common theme in the game is that mages are hunted, at least by the coalition, Free Quebec and the NGR, arguably the largest bastions of human civilization, and most likely factions that are going to come up in just about every game. If I lived in a world where the major goverments hunted down mages with a vengence and I was a mage, I absolutely would go against my "type". I'd have to be an idiot to dress the part and conform to "type"(ie wear armor that is stereotypically worn by mages), it would be paramount to suicide. In fact, it would make far more sense for almost every mage, except the most cocky or powerful to pretty much always were heavy armor and carry around a laser rifle and try their hardest to look like every other mercenary under the sun. Otherwise, wearing light "natural" armor or the LLW armor would provide the same protection that wearing a sandwich board that says I AM A MAGE PLEASE KILL ME would provide.

By this logic it's just stupid to be a mage at all, pick up the rifle and put on the armor and be a trooper.

I gget what you're saying. I'm pointing out that IN RIFTS EARTH, that's how Mages roll. If you wanna go different you can, but there's penalties for it.

Every practitioner of magic in RUE starts with MDC body armor and one or more guns yet you seem to be implying that it shouldn't be that way. It sounds to me like you're hung up on some sort of stereotype that probably works fine for NPCs, but is too narrow for player characters.

The magic system in Rifts is pretty much set up such that the vast majority of magic users will rely on weapons rather than spells to deal damage to their enemies. Even now that you can cast low level spells as fast as you can pull a trigger, 3D6MD is 3D6MD whether it came from a lightning bolt or a laser rifle, but your laser rifle isn't going to mend your armor or heal your wounds after combat like your PPE potentially can. It's far better to save your PPE for spells whose effects can't be replicated by something in your pack. Knowing how to throw a fire ball is no substitute for knowing how to use a rifle. Any mage that doesn't learn that lesson early on isn't smart enough to survive as a mage.

If I were to make a Temporal Wizard today, the only damage dealing spell I'd start with would be Sub-particle Acceleration so that I could recharge my E-clips. If I started with a lot of cash, I might, with GM's permission, purchase Mental Blast starting out just to have an attack that doesn't give me away when I'm hiding, but that would be lower priority than Mend the Broken and Telekinesis so I'd have to start out with at least $100k to pull that off (Temporal Wizards can start with as much as $180k worth in cash and valuables, so this is completely within the realm of possibility).

--flatline

[zaccheus]

And at what point is it not playing in character to go 'gee I want to survive I better wear something better than a T-shirt and jeans'? Or is it against the spirit of the game to again to want your character to survive to have to operate under a crushing handicap that everyone else doesn't have to that makes you far easier to kill?

I don't see wearing lighter armor and using defensive spells as a crushing handicap. If you do I suggest playing a character more conducive to your style.

I think this really highlights KC's point. If the armor rule doesn't really handicap mages, then it should be safe to say that wearing heavy armor doesn't really give them much of an advantage. Therefore what the hell is the point of even having the rule. It is an overly complicated solution to something you are arguing doesn't really affect game balance in any major way, so that would make it completely....ridiculous.

[Pepsi Jedi]

Parta being a mage. Soldiers have to keep track of Ammo. They have to make sure their armor is viable. Mages, if they choose to go against type, have to keep track of the penalties that come from doing so. It's a choice you make.

I just want to point out that I think you are making a huge assumption/misconception regarding "mages" and their "type", at least in regards to rifts. A common theme in the game is that mages are hunted, at least by the coalition, Free Quebec and the NGR, arguably the largest bastions of human civilization, and most likely factions that are going to come up in just about every game. If I lived in a world where the major goverments hunted down mages with a vengence and I was a mage, I absolutely would go against my "type". I'd have to be an idiot to dress the part and conform to "type"(ie wear armor that is stereotypically worn by mages), it would be paramount to suicide. In fact, it would make far more sense for almost every mage, except the most cocky or powerful to pretty much always were heavy armor and carry around a laser rifle and try their hardest to look like every other mercenary under the sun. Otherwise, wearing light "natural" armor or the LLW armor would provide the same protection that wearing a sandwich board that says I AM A MAGE PLEASE KILL ME would provide.

By this logic it's just stupid to be a mage at all, pick up the rifle and put on the armor and be a trooper.

I gget what you're saying. I'm pointing out that IN RIFTS EARTH, that's how Mages roll. If you wanna go different you can, but there's penalties for it.

Every practitioner of magic in RUE starts with MDC body armor and one or more guns yet you seem to be implying that it shouldn't be that way. It sounds to me like you're hung up on some sort of stereotype that probably works fine for NPCs, but is too narrow for player characters.

The magic system in Rifts is pretty much set up such that the vast majority of magic users will rely on weapons rather than spells to deal damage to their enemies. Even now that you can cast low level spells as fast as you can pull a trigger, 3D6MD is 3D6MD whether it came from a lightning bolt or a laser rifle, but your laser rifle isn't going to mend your armor or heal your wounds after combat like your PPE potentially can. It's far better to save your PPE for spells whose effects can't be replicated by something in your pack. Knowing how to throw a fire ball is no substitute for knowing how to use a rifle. Any mage that doesn't learn that lesson early on isn't smart enough to survive as a mage.

If I were to make a Temporal Wizard today, the only damage dealing spell I'd start with would be Sub-particle Acceleration so that I could recharge my E-clips. If I started with a lot of cash, I might, with GM's permission, purchase Mental Blast starting out just to have an attack that doesn't give me away when I'm hiding, but that would be lower priority than Mend the Broken and Telekinesis so I'd have to start out with at least $100k to pull that off (Temporal Wizards can start with as much as $180k worth in cash and valuables, so this is completely within the realm of possibility).

--flatline

I'm not hung up at all. The book tells you under the mage armor section that they, the mages, are opposed to the limits that are placed on them, as a consiquence of wearing the armor. That given the choice they'll wear the light stuff, and not stand in the middle of melee combat to get wacked, but instead fight "SMARTER" not harder, to survive. vs putting on the heavy armor, and having retarded magic.

I didn't make the rule. I just see a point to it. It prevents basicly what you're advocating above. That mages are just mercs that can cast spells AS WELL. They're different. Different mindset. Mages use light armor and magic instead of heavy armor and laser rifles, because they're mages. Magic is how they roll. It's what thye use. It's their 'tool of choice'.

CAN they put on heavy armor and pick up a rifle. Yeah, but they don't like to. It feels wrong to them and screws up their magic. So they don't do it. Look in the Mages and armor section. it says the only time you'd catch a mage in heavy armor is if he did it for a disguise.

That mages in the SETTING, ---do--- take that trade off. They choose Magic+Light armor, over Heavyarmor+Retarded magic. (( and I mean that in the actual definition of the word. To hinder or impeed.)).

Does it mean they don't have as much MDC at 1st level? Yeah.... it does. Because they have MAGIC. lol The merc doesn't, so he can strap on heavier weapons and/or bionics.

That magic is supposed to be your big 'thing' of playing a mage. If you want to play a soldier, that just so happens to cast fireballs on the side.... again.. you 'can' but it goes against what the ---setting--- defines as a mage.

They're supposed to be different.

[zaccheus]

Parta being a mage. Soldiers have to keep track of Ammo. They have to make sure their armor is viable. Mages, if they choose to go against type, have to keep track of the penalties that come from doing so. It's a choice you make.

I just want to point out that I think you are making a huge assumption/misconception regarding "mages" and their "type", at least in regards to rifts. A common theme in the game is that mages are hunted, at least by the coalition, Free Quebec and the NGR, arguably the largest bastions of human civilization, and most likely factions that are going to come up in just about every game. If I lived in a world where the major goverments hunted down mages with a vengence and I was a mage, I absolutely would go against my "type". I'd have to be an idiot to dress the part and conform to "type"(ie wear armor that is stereotypically worn by mages), it would be paramount to suicide. In fact, it would make far more sense for almost every mage, except the most cocky or powerful to pretty much always were heavy armor and carry around a laser rifle and try their hardest to look like every other mercenary under the sun. Otherwise, wearing light "natural" armor or the LLW armor would provide the same protection that wearing a sandwich board that says I AM A MAGE PLEASE KILL ME would provide.

By this logic it's just stupid to be a mage at all, pick up the rifle and put on the armor and be a trooper.

I gget what you're saying. I'm pointing out that IN RIFTS EARTH, that's how Mages roll. If you wanna go different you can, but there's penalties for it.

Every practitioner of magic in RUE starts with MDC body armor and one or more guns yet you seem to be implying that it shouldn't be that way. It sounds to me like you're hung up on some sort of stereotype that probably works fine for NPCs, but is too narrow for player characters.

The magic system in Rifts is pretty much set up such that the vast majority of magic users will rely on weapons rather than spells to deal damage to their enemies. Even now that you can cast low level spells as fast as you can pull a trigger, 3D6MD is 3D6MD whether it came from a lightning bolt or a laser rifle, but your laser rifle isn't going to mend your armor or heal your wounds after combat like your PPE potentially can. It's far better to save your PPE for spells whose effects can't be replicated by something in your pack. Knowing how to throw a fire ball is no substitute for knowing how to use a rifle. Any mage that doesn't learn that lesson early on isn't smart enough to survive as a mage.

If I were to make a Temporal Wizard today, the only damage dealing spell I'd start with would be Sub-particle Acceleration so that I could recharge my E-clips. If I started with a lot of cash, I might, with GM's permission, purchase Mental Blast starting out just to have an attack that doesn't give me away when I'm hiding, but that would be lower priority than Mend the Broken and Telekinesis so I'd have to start out with at least $100k to pull that off (Temporal Wizards can start with as much as $180k worth in cash and valuables, so this is completely within the realm of possibility).

--flatline

I'm not hung up at all. The book tells you under the mage armor section that they, the mages, are opposed to the limits that are placed on them, as a consiquence of wearing the armor. That given the choice they'll wear the light stuff, and not stand in the middle of melee combat to get wacked, but instead fight "SMARTER" not harder, to survive. vs putting on the heavy armor, and having retarded magic.

I didn't make the rule. I just see a point to it. It prevents basicly what you're advocating above. That mages are just mercs that can cast spells AS WELL. They're different. Different mindset. Mages use light armor and magic instead of heavy armor and laser rifles, because they're mages. Magic is how they roll. It's what thye use. It's their 'tool of choice'.

CAN they put on heavy armor and pick up a rifle. Yeah, but they don't like to. It feels wrong to them and screws up their magic. So they don't do it. Look in the Mages and armor section. it says the only time you'd catch a mage in heavy armor is if he did it for a disguise.

That mages in the SETTING, ---do--- take that trade off. They choose Magic+Light armor, over Heavyarmor+Retarded magic. (( and I mean that in the actual definition of the word. To hinder or impeed.)).

Does it mean they don't have as much MDC at 1st level? Yeah.... it does. Because they have MAGIC. lol The merc doesn't, so he can strap on heavier weapons and/or bionics.

That magic is supposed to be your big 'thing' of playing a mage. If you want to play a soldier, that just so happens to cast fireballs on the side.... again.. you 'can' but it goes against what the ---setting--- defines as a mage.

They're supposed to be different.

This is what I mean by misconception. Wearing armor and looking like a merc doesn't make you "just" a soldier who casts spells. It also doesn't mean that because I'm wearing a common EBA that I'm sitting on the frontline, and it especially doesn't mean that I look at my spell casting abilities as a secondary aspect of my character. However, my character is a person, and people are very reactive to their enviroment. If guys in LLW get blasted on sight, which they should since no one else wears that stuff, LLW are actually going to stop wearing that. Yeah, my spells are bad ass, but even if it means my spells are very mildly hampered (for no good reason, it makes no sense body armor screws up a spell caster if it's made of metal, but any caster can pick up a TW 6 shooter, also made of metal and use it with ease, it's contradictory) I'm going to do what it takes not to stand out because I can't use my bad ass spells if I'm a fine pink mist if I come within 100 miles of the CS. Let me see if I can give an analogy. Combat pilots rely on their planes. Their planes are bad ass. This doesn't mean they'll never drive a car, because cars just aren't how combat piolts roll. It is rediculous.

[flatline]

Parta being a mage. Soldiers have to keep track of Ammo. They have to make sure their armor is viable. Mages, if they choose to go against type, have to keep track of the penalties that come from doing so. It's a choice you make.

I just want to point out that I think you are making a huge assumption/misconception regarding "mages" and their "type", at least in regards to rifts. A common theme in the game is that mages are hunted, at least by the coalition, Free Quebec and the NGR, arguably the largest bastions of human civilization, and most likely factions that are going to come up in just about every game. If I lived in a world where the major goverments hunted down mages with a vengence and I was a mage, I absolutely would go against my "type". I'd have to be an idiot to dress the part and conform to "type"(ie wear armor that is stereotypically worn by mages), it would be paramount to suicide. In fact, it would make far more sense for almost every mage, except the most cocky or powerful to pretty much always were heavy armor and carry around a laser rifle and try their hardest to look like every other mercenary under the sun. Otherwise, wearing light "natural" armor or the LLW armor would provide the same protection that wearing a sandwich board that says I AM A MAGE PLEASE KILL ME would provide.

By this logic it's just stupid to be a mage at all, pick up the rifle and put on the armor and be a trooper.

I gget what you're saying. I'm pointing out that IN RIFTS EARTH, that's how Mages roll. If you wanna go different you can, but there's penalties for it.

Every practitioner of magic in RUE starts with MDC body armor and one or more guns yet you seem to be implying that it shouldn't be that way. It sounds to me like you're hung up on some sort of stereotype that probably works fine for NPCs, but is too narrow for player characters.

The magic system in Rifts is pretty much set up such that the vast majority of magic users will rely on weapons rather than spells to deal damage to their enemies. Even now that you can cast low level spells as fast as you can pull a trigger, 3D6MD is 3D6MD whether it came from a lightning bolt or a laser rifle, but your laser rifle isn't going to mend your armor or heal your wounds after combat like your PPE potentially can. It's far better to save your PPE for spells whose effects can't be replicated by something in your pack. Knowing how to throw a fire ball is no substitute for knowing how to use a rifle. Any mage that doesn't learn that lesson early on isn't smart enough to survive as a mage.

If I were to make a Temporal Wizard today, the only damage dealing spell I'd start with would be Sub-particle Acceleration so that I could recharge my E-clips. If I started with a lot of cash, I might, with GM's permission, purchase Mental Blast starting out just to have an attack that doesn't give me away when I'm hiding, but that would be lower priority than Mend the Broken and Telekinesis so I'd have to start out with at least $100k to pull that off (Temporal Wizards can start with as much as $180k worth in cash and valuables, so this is completely within the realm of possibility).

--flatline

I'm not hung up at all. The book tells you under the mage armor section that they, the mages, are opposed to the limits that are placed on them, as a consiquence of wearing the armor. That given the choice they'll wear the light stuff, and not stand in the middle of melee combat to get wacked, but instead fight "SMARTER" not harder, to survive. vs putting on the heavy armor, and having retarded magic.

I didn't make the rule. I just see a point to it. It prevents basicly what you're advocating above. That mages are just mercs that can cast spells AS WELL. They're different. Different mindset. Mages use light armor and magic instead of heavy armor and laser rifles, because they're mages. Magic is how they roll. It's what thye use. It's their 'tool of choice'.

CAN they put on heavy armor and pick up a rifle. Yeah, but they don't like to. It feels wrong to them and screws up their magic. So they don't do it. Look in the Mages and armor section. it says the only time you'd catch a mage in heavy armor is if he did it for a disguise.

That mages in the SETTING, ---do--- take that trade off. They choose Magic+Light armor, over Heavyarmor+Retarded magic. (( and I mean that in the actual definition of the word. To hinder or impeed.)).

Does it mean they don't have as much MDC at 1st level? Yeah.... it does. Because they have MAGIC. lol The merc doesn't, so he can strap on heavier weapons and/or bionics.

That magic is supposed to be your big 'thing' of playing a mage. If you want to play a soldier, that just so happens to cast fireballs on the side.... again.. you 'can' but it goes against what the ---setting--- defines as a mage.

They're supposed to be different.

Excellent! Promise me the next campaign you play you'll play a magic user exactly the way you've just described and then come back and tell us what you've learned

--flatline

[zaccheus]

That magic is supposed to be your big 'thing' of playing a mage. If you want to play a soldier, that just so happens to cast fireballs on the side.... again.. you 'can' but it goes against what the ---setting--- defines as a mage.

They're supposed to be different.

Oh a quick question. Do you think a mage in heavy armor who isn't using his spells would be as effective in combat as a head hunter? or a glitterboy? or a CS Grunt? or a Juicer? Maybe to clarify, do you think a mage would go toe to toe with a "man at arms" OCC if he had the same equipment and couldn't cast spells? If that's the case, I could see restricting a mage wearing armor, but if it isn't the case, if the armor isn't some great advantage a man of arms OCC gets, then I don't see harm in mages wearing it also. I guess that kinda get's to the crux of my point. If it allowing mages to wear heavy armor renders man at arms OCC"s relatively ineffective,then it should be restricted; but if you are simply restricting it because it doesn't "feel" right to you, or doesn't convey your vision of a mages "type", I couls see that being a good house rule in your games but I don't think it makes sense otherwise because the way you envision mages in Rifts may not be universal and a rule that tries to cram an OCC into a certain mold seems silly to me. It restricts one's imagination and kinda goes against the entire spirit of Rifts, IMO at least

[Pepsi Jedi]

This is what I mean by misconception. Wearing armor and looking like a merc doesn't make you "just" a soldier who casts spells. It also doesn't mean that because I'm wearing a common EBA that I'm sitting on the frontline, and it especially doesn't mean that I look at my spell casting abilities as a secondary aspect of my character. However, my character is a person, and people are very reactive to their enviroment. If guys in LLW get blasted on sight, which they should since no one else wears that stuff, LLW are actually going to stop wearing that. Yeah, my spells are bad ass, but even if it means my spells are very mildly hampered (for no good reason, it makes no sense body armor screws up a spell caster if it's made of metal, but any caster can pick up a TW 6 shooter, also made of metal and use it with ease, it's contradictory) I'm going to do what it takes not to stand out because I can't use my bad ass spells if I'm a fine pink mist if I come within 100 miles of the CS. Let me see if I can give an analogy. Combat pilots rely on their planes. Their planes are bad ass. This doesn't mean they'll never drive a car, because cars just aren't how combat piolts roll. It is rediculous.

But your combat pilot will choose his jet 100 times out of 100 if he has the option. On the ground in a car he's vastly out of his element and of less use than a normal infantry soldier.

There in, is the problem. Mages are MAGES. They're not soldiers, that can cast crappy magic. Mages choose to be mages and suck up the penalties, for the return they get.

[Pepsi Jedi]

I'm not hung up at all. The book tells you under the mage armor section that they, the mages, are opposed to the limits that are placed on them, as a consiquence of wearing the armor. That given the choice they'll wear the light stuff, and not stand in the middle of melee combat to get wacked, but instead fight "SMARTER" not harder, to survive. vs putting on the heavy armor, and having retarded magic.

I didn't make the rule. I just see a point to it. It prevents basicly what you're advocating above. That mages are just mercs that can cast spells AS WELL. They're different. Different mindset. Mages use light armor and magic instead of heavy armor and laser rifles, because they're mages. Magic is how they roll. It's what thye use. It's their 'tool of choice'.

CAN they put on heavy armor and pick up a rifle. Yeah, but they don't like to. It feels wrong to them and screws up their magic. So they don't do it. Look in the Mages and armor section. it says the only time you'd catch a mage in heavy armor is if he did it for a disguise.

That mages in the SETTING, ---do--- take that trade off. They choose Magic+Light armor, over Heavyarmor+Retarded magic. (( and I mean that in the actual definition of the word. To hinder or impeed.)).

Does it mean they don't have as much MDC at 1st level? Yeah.... it does. Because they have MAGIC. lol The merc doesn't, so he can strap on heavier weapons and/or bionics.

That magic is supposed to be your big 'thing' of playing a mage. If you want to play a soldier, that just so happens to cast fireballs on the side.... again.. you 'can' but it goes against what the ---setting--- defines as a mage.

They're supposed to be different.

Excellent! Promise me the next campaign you play you'll play a magic user exactly the way you've just described and then come back and tell us what you've learned

--flatline

I already don't choose magic users. lol but just for you. I'll get a game together this weekend and play one. I'll let cha know. I DO enjoy challenges.

[Dr. Doom III]

I think this really highlights KC's point. If the armor rule doesn't really handicap mages, then it should be safe to say that wearing heavy armor doesn't really give them much of an advantage. Therefore what the hell is the point of even having the rule. It is an overly complicated solution to something you are arguing doesn't really affect game balance in any major way, so that would make it completely....ridiculous.

I do consider wearing heavy armor and getting to use defensive spells an advantage.

[Pepsi Jedi]

That magic is supposed to be your big 'thing' of playing a mage. If you want to play a soldier, that just so happens to cast fireballs on the side.... again.. you 'can' but it goes against what the ---setting--- defines as a mage.

They're supposed to be different.

Oh a quick question. Do you think a mage in heavy armor who isn't using his spells would be as effective in combat as a head hunter? or a glitterboy? or a CS Grunt? or a Juicer? Maybe to clarify, do you think a mage would go toe to toe with a "man at arms" OCC if he had the same equipment and couldn't cast spells? If that's the case, I could see restricting a mage wearing armor, but if it isn't the case, if the armor isn't some great advantage a man of arms OCC gets, then I don't see harm in mages wearing it also. I guess that kinda get's to the crux of my point. If it allowing mages to wear heavy armor renders man at arms OCC"s relatively ineffective,then it should be restricted; but if you are simply restricting it because it doesn't "feel" right to you, or doesn't convey your vision of a mages "type", I couls see that being a good house rule in your games but I don't think it makes sense otherwise because the way you envision mages in Rifts may not be universal and a rule that tries to cram an OCC into a certain mold seems silly to me. It restricts one's imagination and kinda goes against the entire spirit of Rifts, IMO at least

Whoooooa there. You're mistaking "ME" and "THE GAME AS IT STANDS"

Im just agreeing with it. I didn't dream it up. It's not a house rule of mine. This, is how the game ---is--- as written. Period. It's in the book. The creators of the game invison mages this way. It's they that typed it up and published it. I'm mearly advocating playing by the rules as they are, because I think they fit.

They made the rules. It's not "my vision" it's PALLADIUM'S VISION.

[zaccheus]

I think this really highlights KC's point. If the armor rule doesn't really handicap mages, then it should be safe to say that wearing heavy armor doesn't really give them much of an advantage. Therefore what the hell is the point of even having the rule. It is an overly complicated solution to something you are arguing doesn't really affect game balance in any major way, so that would make it completely....ridiculous.

I do consider wearing heavy armor and getting to use defensive spells an advantage.

So a mage with heavy armor and defensive spells does have an advantage ove a mage in lighter armor and defensive spells. This is obviously true. But does a mage in heavier armor and defensive spells unbalance the game? Does the penalty fix this unbalance? And/or does a mage in lighter armor with defensive spells equal an average Man at Arms OCC but one in heavier armor simply trounces him breaking the game? In other words, is this rule for balance? If it is, does it accomplish the goal? Is the mage now balanced? And if he is, he's balanced in comparaison to what? I would say this rule doesn't fix anything, it limits one's options in playing a mage in style, in spirit, and in function which like I said earlier robs rifts a little of it's magic. Plus as KC summed up, the rule really provides almost no benefit but does potentially slow down actual game play just to do the math when trying to recalculate what your spells cost in the armor, if there is an additional penalty, etc etc. I don't think I can illustrate it better than KC did, the rule is just rediculous, it's effectively a rule just for rule's sake.

[Giant2005]

Letting a Mage wear heavy armor would be like letting a Headhunter wear Power Armor.
Palladium should really look into giving non PA orientated Men-At-Arm classes penalties when using PAs...

[Killer Cyborg]

I think this really highlights KC's point. If the armor rule doesn't really handicap mages, then it should be safe to say that wearing heavy armor doesn't really give them much of an advantage. Therefore what the hell is the point of even having the rule. It is an overly complicated solution to something you are arguing doesn't really affect game balance in any major way, so that would make it completely....ridiculous.

I do consider wearing heavy armor and getting to use defensive spells an advantage.

Sure, but...
1. Mages can still wear heavy armor and get to use defensive spells under the current rules.
2. Mages were always described as preferring light armor, and always received penalties for wearing heavy armor.

So what's the advantage in the current rules over the old rules?

[Killer Cyborg]

That magic is supposed to be your big 'thing' of playing a mage. If you want to play a soldier, that just so happens to cast fireballs on the side.... again.. you 'can' but it goes against what the ---setting--- defines as a mage.

They're supposed to be different.

Oh a quick question. Do you think a mage in heavy armor who isn't using his spells would be as effective in combat as a head hunter? or a glitterboy? or a CS Grunt? or a Juicer? Maybe to clarify, do you think a mage would go toe to toe with a "man at arms" OCC if he had the same equipment and couldn't cast spells? If that's the case, I could see restricting a mage wearing armor, but if it isn't the case, if the armor isn't some great advantage a man of arms OCC gets, then I don't see harm in mages wearing it also. I guess that kinda get's to the crux of my point. If it allowing mages to wear heavy armor renders man at arms OCC"s relatively ineffective,then it should be restricted; but if you are simply restricting it because it doesn't "feel" right to you, or doesn't convey your vision of a mages "type", I couls see that being a good house rule in your games but I don't think it makes sense otherwise because the way you envision mages in Rifts may not be universal and a rule that tries to cram an OCC into a certain mold seems silly to me. It restricts one's imagination and kinda goes against the entire spirit of Rifts, IMO at least

Whoooooa there. You're mistaking "ME" and "THE GAME AS IT STANDS"

Im just agreeing with it. I didn't dream it up. It's not a house rule of mine. This, is how the game ---is--- as written. Period. It's in the book. The creators of the game invison mages this way. It's they that typed it up and published it. I'm mearly advocating playing by the rules as they are, because I think they fit.

They made the rules. It's not "my vision" it's PALLADIUM'S VISION.

Not so much.
Palladium doesn't have one vision of mages, it has several, at least.
But the most consistent image is that mages start off the game with MDC body armor and MD weapons, both of which are intended to be used.

[Nightmask]

And at what point is it not playing in character to go 'gee I want to survive I better wear something better than a T-shirt and jeans'? Or is it against the spirit of the game to again to want your character to survive to have to operate under a crushing handicap that everyone else doesn't have to that makes you far easier to kill?

Light Mage armor has around 35 MDC. Armor of Ithan spell has 10 MDC minimum. Telekinetic Force Feild has 25 MDC minimum. A Nurauni Force Feild has 60 MDC minimum. All of these are availibler to mages without penalty, and every single one of them could stop a tank round. Not exactly T-shirt and jeans.

TK Force Fields aren't available to mages (except maybe the Mystic, since they're a combined magic user/psionic class), and the Naruni Force Field is an alien technology that's not going to be a given available item to a mage either. Everything you've listed is quite limited in protection (and unless I misread what someone else said the mage armor requires leaving body parts exposed for easy killing), anything firing MD attacks is launching 4-6 of them in a single melee, and everyone else including the Vagabond can choose to make use of far heavier protections.

Still not the same as a t-shirt and jeans. Everything I described is not only available, it could stop at least 2 to 4 MDC attacks made aganst it. Unless you have a killer GM who sends impossile threats against your character on a regular basis, or unless you are crazy enough to put yourself on the front lines, you'll be fine. Most body armor IRL can stop ONE bullet. After that it's pretty worthless. I think mages have plenty of protection by any standard. Just do a little reasearch man. It's all in the books.

Relative to what you could wear yes it is like wearing a t-shirt and jeans, particularly since from what was said it leaves you with exposed limbs for the available armor so you can be one-shot killed on a decent roll (and the game makes those pretty easy). Most of those couldn't stop more than one MD attack either, particularly given how many 1d6x10 or better weapons are floating around. Also as I noted just because the stuff exists doesn't make it available (particularly the extra-dimensional gear from Naruni Enterprises), and the TK Force Field would likely prevent a mage casting spells through it.

So contrary to your opinion mages don't have plenty of protection by any standard other than compared to someone with no protection at all so perhaps you're the one lacking in proper research on the topic.

[ZorValachan]

I think this really highlights KC's point. If the armor rule doesn't really handicap mages, then it should be safe to say that wearing heavy armor doesn't really give them much of an advantage. Therefore what the hell is the point of even having the rule. It is an overly complicated solution to something you are arguing doesn't really affect game balance in any major way, so that would make it completely....ridiculous.

I do consider wearing heavy armor and getting to use defensive spells an advantage.

Sure, but...
1. Mages can still wear heavy armor and get to use defensive spells under the current rules.
2. Mages were always described as preferring light armor, and always received penalties for wearing heavy armor.

So what's the advantage in the current rules over the old rules?

KC is absolutely correct.

PFRPG 1st-Mages could always wear any armor and had penalties to movement from not being trained in its use. But there were NO rules, hints, explanations that heavy armor in any way inhibited the mystical energies in spell casting.

Next was HU- Mages could always wear any armor and had penalties to movement from not being trained in its use. But there were NO rules, hints, explanations that heavy armor in any way inhibited the mystical energies in spell casting.

Next was BtS- PPE was introduced. Mages could always wear any armor. There were NO rules, hints, explanations that armor in any way inhibited the mystical energies in spell casting.

Rifts- Mages could always wear any armor and had penalties to movement from not being trained in its use. But there were NO rules, hints, explanations that heavy armor in any way inhibited the mystical energies in spell casting.

RUE- Out of nowhere, with no foreshadowing, mystical energies are disrupted by non natural heavy armor. The explanation is created for RUE, it was never there before. Before it was always armor is heavy and cumbersome, if mages wear it, it restricts physical things and THAT is why they 'prefered' it. All of the sudden in RUE it messes with its magic casting is messed up by heavy armor.

For about 20 years we played PB games (completely based on D&D game mechanics), without the D&D 'mages can't wear armor' stereotype. Suddenly 20 years later it is put into RUE.

Mages didn't wear heavy armor before, because AoI was AR 18 and like 200 SDC. Better than heavy armor. In Rifts, AoI was 10MDC per lvl. So moreplayers decided the movement restrictions were worth the extra armor MDC. As some in the past did as well. But it is a new rule. Maybe because before mages got 2 spells a round, and with low level spells being 1 attacks, they can now cast AoI more times. I don't know. I can't read KS's mind. but for those who played many PB games for 20+years, it did come out of left feild and changed one of PB's 'anti-D&D' systems to be "pro-D&D". it did not make sense and irked us. RUE changed so many things like this (Cyber-knights, mages, etc.) when we started Rifts again, we just considered RUE a different world and I had to tell everyone to forget what they remembered from all PB games we had played before.

[Colt47]

I think this really highlights KC's point. If the armor rule doesn't really handicap mages, then it should be safe to say that wearing heavy armor doesn't really give them much of an advantage. Therefore what the hell is the point of even having the rule. It is an overly complicated solution to something you are arguing doesn't really affect game balance in any major way, so that would make it completely....ridiculous.

I do consider wearing heavy armor and getting to use defensive spells an advantage.

Sure, but...
1. Mages can still wear heavy armor and get to use defensive spells under the current rules.
2. Mages were always described as preferring light armor, and always received penalties for wearing heavy armor.

So what's the advantage in the current rules over the old rules?

KC is absolutely correct.

PFRPG 1st-Mages could always wear any armor and had penalties to movement from not being trained in its use. But there were NO rules, hints, explanations that heavy armor in any way inhibited the mystical energies in spell casting.

Next was HU- Mages could always wear any armor and had penalties to movement from not being trained in its use. But there were NO rules, hints, explanations that heavy armor in any way inhibited the mystical energies in spell casting.

Next was BtS- PPE was introduced. Mages could always wear any armor. There were NO rules, hints, explanations that armor in any way inhibited the mystical energies in spell casting.

Rifts- Mages could always wear any armor and had penalties to movement from not being trained in its use. But there were NO rules, hints, explanations that heavy armor in any way inhibited the mystical energies in spell casting.

RUE- Out of nowhere, with no foreshadowing, mystical energies are disrupted by non natural heavy armor. The explanation is created for RUE, it was never there before. Before it was always armor is heavy and cumbersome, if mages wear it, it restricts physical things and THAT is why they 'prefered' it. All of the sudden in RUE it messes with its magic casting is messed up by heavy armor.

For about 20 years we played PB games (completely based on D&D game mechanics), without the D&D 'mages can't wear armor' stereotype. Suddenly 20 years later it is put into RUE.

Mages didn't wear heavy armor before, because AoI was AR 18 and like 200 SDC. Better than heavy armor. In Rifts, AoI was 10MDC per lvl. So moreplayers decided the movement restrictions were worth the extra armor MDC. As some in the past did as well. But it is a new rule. Maybe because before mages got 2 spells a round, and with low level spells being 1 attacks, they can now cast AoI more times. I don't know. I can't read KS's mind. but for those who played many PB games for 20+years, it did come out of left feild and changed one of PB's 'anti-D&D' systems to be "pro-D&D". it did not make sense and irked us. RUE changed so many things like this (Cyber-knights, mages, etc.) when we started Rifts again, we just considered RUE a different world and I had to tell everyone to forget what they remembered from all PB games we had played before.

It doesn't help that I was introduced to this game via the RUE and was left wondering why everyone was going crazy over the 20% penalty to magic from heavy armor, since the last game system I had major experience with was 3rd edition.

Actually, the one thing I do find very ridiculous in books is how Palladium doesn't seem to have any method other than eyeballing existing material to balance new material that comes out. The end result is the GMG nerf to C.J.'s creations and a whole "losing the power of chi" entry in Rifts China 2. Also, what is with the Rifts franchise and it's absolute paranoia of using Chi as it's own statistic?

[flatline]

It doesn't help that I was introduced to this game via the RUE and was left wondering why everyone was going crazy over the 20% penalty to magic from heavy armor, since the last game system I had major experience with was 3rd edition.

Actually, the one thing I do find very ridiculous in books is how Palladium doesn't seem to have any method other than eyeballing existing material to balance new material that comes out. The end result is the GMG nerf to C.J.'s creations and a whole "losing the power of chi" entry in Rifts China 2. Also, what is with the Rifts franchise and it's absolute paranoia of using Chi as it's own statistic?

So some more context:

From the beginning, mages were already at a combat disadvantage since it took half a melee to cast a spell. This was painful when everyone else had 4 attacks per melee which means without armor, you were toast before you could even get your first spell cast. Then things got worse when the "2 attacks for living" rule gave everyone else 2 additional attacks, but spell casting was still limited to 2 spells per melee.

Most of us saw this as the rules making an unfair situation more unfair.

But the most frustrating bit about magic is that the rules are completely arbitrary about what spells are blocked by environmental armor, power armor, and vehicles/robotic vehicles.

So at this point, players who like to play magic users are perhaps a little hypersensitive to anything that makes our life more difficult. We'll take one for the team if the rule makes the game a better game overall, but in the case of mages wearing armor, it does nothing to improve the game yet it penalizes us. Naturally, we don't like the rule.

But ignoring all that, the current rule is just a bad mechanic. If you want to penalize mages for wearing heavy armor, create a mechanic that doesn't require additional rolls and table lookups EVERY SINGLE TIME WE CAST A SPELL! Design the penalty such that it can noted on the character sheet once and be done with it. Something like "Heavy armor reduces PPE regeneration by 20%". There, now combat doesn't involved a bunch of extra rolls and mages still have serious incentive to not wear heavy armor.

Don't make rules that bog down gameplay.

--flatline

[The Beast]

I'm reading through RUE, and I found something in the Crazy OCC description that was, well, crazy. As in dumb. So I thought I'd start a thread where I and anyone else who finds something worth ranting about in the books can post.

Universal credits, but not until PB started going more in depth as to how they worked.

[Pepsi Jedi]

It doesn't help that I was introduced to this game via the RUE and was left wondering why everyone was going crazy over the 20% penalty to magic from heavy armor, since the last game system I had major experience with was 3rd edition.

Actually, the one thing I do find very ridiculous in books is how Palladium doesn't seem to have any method other than eyeballing existing material to balance new material that comes out. The end result is the GMG nerf to C.J.'s creations and a whole "losing the power of chi" entry in Rifts China 2. Also, what is with the Rifts franchise and it's absolute paranoia of using Chi as it's own statistic?

So some more context:

From the beginning, mages were already at a combat disadvantage since it took half a melee to cast a spell. This was painful when everyone else had 4 attacks per melee which means without armor, you were toast before you could even get your first spell cast. Then things got worse when the "2 attacks for living" rule gave everyone else 2 additional attacks, but spell casting was still limited to 2 spells per melee.

Most of us saw this as the rules making an unfair situation more unfair.

But the most frustrating bit about magic is that the rules are completely arbitrary about what spells are blocked by environmental armor, power armor, and vehicles/robotic vehicles.

So at this point, players who like to play magic users are perhaps a little hypersensitive to anything that makes our life more difficult. We'll take one for the team if the rule makes the game a better game overall, but in the case of mages wearing armor, it does nothing to improve the game yet it penalizes us. Naturally, we don't like the rule.

But ignoring all that, the current rule is just a bad mechanic. If you want to penalize mages for wearing heavy armor, create a mechanic that doesn't require additional rolls and table lookups EVERY SINGLE TIME WE CAST A SPELL! Design the penalty such that it can noted on the character sheet once and be done with it. Something like "Heavy armor reduces PPE regeneration by 20%". There, now combat doesn't involved a bunch of extra rolls and mages still have serious incentive to not wear heavy armor.

Don't make rules that bog down gameplay.

--flatline

I hear what you're saying Flatline, but I maintain that annoyance is on purpose. It's a "Stick" That's in the rules to purposefully be annoying to help prevent PLAYERS from just sucking up a flat 20% penalty and moving on.

I.E. it's annoying because it's designed to be annoying, to purposefully make you not want to mess with it, so you won't put the heavy armor on your character.

I know that's not going to be loved, but I do think it's fully on purpose. Yes. The extra rolls make it a bummer to do. That's the entire point. To penalize and discourage you from doing it. Both "In character" and "As a player".

[SAMASzero]

I hear what you're saying Flatline, but I maintain that annoyance is on purpose. It's a "Stick" That's in the rules to purposefully be annoying to help prevent PLAYERS from just sucking up a flat 20% penalty and moving on.

What's wrong with that? If a player thinks that 20% penalty is worth the extra 20-50 MDC, I say let 'em.

[Pepsi Jedi]

I hear what you're saying Flatline, but I maintain that annoyance is on purpose. It's a "Stick" That's in the rules to purposefully be annoying to help prevent PLAYERS from just sucking up a flat 20% penalty and moving on.

What's wrong with that? If a player thinks that 20% penalty is worth the extra 20-50 MDC, I say let 'em.

The creators clearly envision the mages one way. They upped the penalty and annoyance factor for ignoring it. Again this isn't a house rule I created. It's how the classes are written and how they're 'meant' to be played. To go against it is an option players have, but yes, if you look at the rule, it looks like punishment if you choose to.

"Ok. Wear the heavy armor if you want. You're going to get penalized 20% cost, and up to 40% reduction..... AND.. .the player is penalized by the annoyance of having to roll this crap"

So they penalize you in game and out for going against their vision of mages.

[flatline]

I hear what you're saying Flatline, but I maintain that annoyance is on purpose. It's a "Stick" That's in the rules to purposefully be annoying to help prevent PLAYERS from just sucking up a flat 20% penalty and moving on.

What's wrong with that? If a player thinks that 20% penalty is worth the extra 20-50 MDC, I say let 'em.

The creators clearly envision the mages one way. They upped the penalty and annoyance factor for ignoring it. Again this isn't a house rule I created. It's how the classes are written and how they're 'meant' to be played. To go against it is an option players have, but yes, if you look at the rule, it looks like punishment if you choose to.

"Ok. Wear the heavy armor if you want. You're going to get penalized 20% cost, and up to 40% reduction..... AND.. .the player is penalized by the annoyance of having to roll this crap"

So they penalize you in game and out for going against their vision of mages.

In that case, the rule is self-defeating because they've increased the odds that it'll be ignored or house-ruled.

--flatline

[Pepsi Jedi]

I hear what you're saying Flatline, but I maintain that annoyance is on purpose. It's a "Stick" That's in the rules to purposefully be annoying to help prevent PLAYERS from just sucking up a flat 20% penalty and moving on.

What's wrong with that? If a player thinks that 20% penalty is worth the extra 20-50 MDC, I say let 'em.

The creators clearly envision the mages one way. They upped the penalty and annoyance factor for ignoring it. Again this isn't a house rule I created. It's how the classes are written and how they're 'meant' to be played. To go against it is an option players have, but yes, if you look at the rule, it looks like punishment if you choose to.

"Ok. Wear the heavy armor if you want. You're going to get penalized 20% cost, and up to 40% reduction..... AND.. .the player is penalized by the annoyance of having to roll this crap"

So they penalize you in game and out for going against their vision of mages.

In that case, the rule is self-defeating because they've increased the odds that it'll be ignored or house-ruled.

--flatline

Eh.... that's akin to saying "Making drugs illegaljust means more people will break the law to do them."

It sounds some what right when you say it, but in reality not really. Drug laws and the fear of getting caught DO stop --alot--of people from doing drugs. Yes there is a small percentage that will risk it and do them anyway, but the laws do prevent most of the population from doing so.

Same here. Yes hard core twinks and what not will ignore the rule, but as some pointed out, they're going to ignore it anyway. This is for the average player/gm that plays by the rules. Before it was a statement of how the class was played. It wasn't enough. Now it's a statement of how the class is to be played and penalty in both increased cost, reduced effectiveness and increased OOC ((out of character)) Annoyance.

Just because some people ignore it, doesn't mean all will. Most people actuallly play games by the rules there. Yes we all house rule something or another in palladium, but we don't all house rule the same things. In my games, this rule is 100% ok.

The creators clearly envision their mages one way. They've re-enforced this vision with the additon of penalties and annoyance factor. That wasn't an accident. They didn't trip and make the penalties more 'For no reason'.

And as I've said many times, it's your game. You (( being anyone not just YOU)) Are free to ignore or change things as you like, but as written and as invisioned it's this way.

Hey, above in this thread I say I house rule the 'airline' out of existance. I'm not above house ruling stuff. (( I don't allow twinky South American gear either, unless you're from south america and have a DAMN good reason for being where ever our group is. That's not so much a house rule as just a simi-restriction.))

[flatline]

In that case, the rule is self-defeating because they've increased the odds that it'll be ignored or house-ruled.

--flatline

Eh.... that's akin to saying "Making drugs illegal just means more people will break the law to do them."

It sounds some what right when you say it, but in reality not really. Drug laws and the fear of getting caught DO stop --alot--of people from doing drugs. Yes there is a small percentage that will risk it and do them anyway, but the laws do prevent most of the population from doing so.

If I break a drug law and get caught, then I suffer the penalty.
If I ignore the game rule, then I don't suffer the penalty. In fact, I only suffer the penalty if I don't ignore the rule.

The rule is its own punishment and it only applies to those who follow the rule.

This is the very definition of a bad rule.

--flatline

[Nightmask]

In that case, the rule is self-defeating because they've increased the odds that it'll be ignored or house-ruled.

--flatline

Eh.... that's akin to saying "Making drugs illegal just means more people will break the law to do them."

It sounds some what right when you say it, but in reality not really. Drug laws and the fear of getting caught DO stop --alot--of people from doing drugs. Yes there is a small percentage that will risk it and do them anyway, but the laws do prevent most of the population from doing so.

If I break a drug law and get caught, then I suffer the penalty.
If I ignore the game rule, then I don't suffer the penalty. In fact, I only suffer the penalty if I don't ignore the rule.

The rule is its own punishment and it only applies to those who follow the rule.

This is the very definition of a bad rule.

--flatline

You'd almost think Palladium doesn't even want to include mages. They're already mediocre on how helpful they are in a fight in most cases, only a few OCC can make anything useful, and then tack on a limitation that makes them even more worthless? Might as well declare mages are an NPC class and not available as a PC and get it over with. Someone's so fixated on 'oh mages are so powerful' when they so totally aren't that they keep tacking on restraints that make them just not worth playing by anyone but a super-hardcore mage fanatic who'll always play one no matter how nerfed and worthless.

[zaccheus]

EDIT - deleted some stuff I realised was irrelevant to the topic being discussed.

The creators clearly envision the mages one way. They upped the penalty and annoyance factor for ignoring it. Again this isn't a house rule I created. It's how the classes are written and how they're 'meant' to be played. To go against it is an option players have, but yes, if you look at the rule, it looks like punishment if you choose to.

"Ok. Wear the heavy armor if you want. You're going to get penalized 20% cost, and up to 40% reduction..... AND.. .the player is penalized by the annoyance of having to roll this crap"

So they penalize you in game and out for going against their vision of mages.

[/quote]
You keep bringing up "it's how mages were invisioned" and I keep disagreeing, but I'm not sure how else to state that so I'm just letting that argument go for now. If the rule's intention, even if just partially is to literally annoy the player, then it's absolutely rediculous and be ignored by everyone. That's just bad game design. If they really envision mages not using Heavy armor, they should just say, "MAGES CAN'T WEAR HEAVY ARMOR" and be done with it. They don't have any good reason for it, it's never explained why metal armor covering your whole body screws up your spells, but for somereason it doesn't screw up TW devices, and it also doesn't seem to have any negative impacts on Rune Weapons if they are man made out of metallic resources. It is, for lack of a better word rediculous. The only argument that could possibly make it so the rule is valid is if it fixes an imbalance in the system in a fair way, but as KC has fully detailed it simply doesn't. The movement penalties were enough for mages to think twice about using heavy armor, but if it's what they wanted to do they could. They didn't have to worry about wearing lame mid-drift armors with their arms flapping about completely unprotected so that they could get killed by one shot from a wilk's in the belly or armpit at a -3 penalty. The only think the rule does, really, is make it less likely for someone to play a caster type character over a man of arms type just because its now even more frustrating than before. In my head at least it comes down to a few options to try and rebalance the game so that mages can hold their own in a party with juicer's, crazies, head-hunters, pa pilotes, ex CS or whatever is by:
1. Not using the new armor penalty rules
2. Increase the penalty for called shots so that no one will make them, otherwise mages are going to drop like flies.
3. Completely rewrite almost all of the invocastions so that mages can actually be the glass cannons they are "invisioned" to be, and possibly even make it so that they get somekind of fast casting option, and probably have to make "saving vs a spell" cost an attack just like dodging costs a mage an attack, and on and on, not sure where this rabbit hole of rule changes go
4. Make TW items super common so that mages pretty much never use spells except for utility outside of combat and are effectively a TW version of a head hunter.

[The Galactus Kid]

If people think that mages are mediocre or BAD even, then they're playing them wrong. Just sayin'

[flatline]

If people think that mages are mediocre or BAD even, then they're playing them wrong. Just sayin'

Mages are awesome!

But they do have some limitations that players need to learn to work around.

I don't think that anyone is arguing that mages shouldn't have limitations, but this particular limitation just reeks of bad game design.

--flatline

[Pepsi Jedi]

In that case, the rule is self-defeating because they've increased the odds that it'll be ignored or house-ruled.

--flatline

Eh.... that's akin to saying "Making drugs illegal just means more people will break the law to do them."

It sounds some what right when you say it, but in reality not really. Drug laws and the fear of getting caught DO stop --alot--of people from doing drugs. Yes there is a small percentage that will risk it and do them anyway, but the laws do prevent most of the population from doing so.

If I break a drug law and get caught, then I suffer the penalty.
If I ignore the game rule, then I don't suffer the penalty. In fact, I only suffer the penalty if I don't ignore the rule.

The rule is its own punishment and it only applies to those who follow the rule.

This is the very definition of a bad rule.

--flatline

And I maintain it's a perfectly fine rule. Your logic is 'If I break the rules I don't get punished! HA! Take that!"

*shrugs* That's fine. You're just not playing mages as they're 'intended' to be played. It's not like Kev is going to kick open your door and steal your books and pelt you with multi sided dice or anything.

[flatline]

*shrugs* That's fine. You're just not playing mages as they're 'intended' to be played. It's not like Kev is going to kick open your door and steal your books and pelt you with multi sided dice or anything.

None of my characters break the rule since I find the previously existing speed penalty to be sufficient to keep me in light armor until I can obtain a decent forcefield, but I certainly won't hold it against other players who want to ignore the rule, whatever their reasons.

--flatline

[Pepsi Jedi]

EDIT - deleted some stuff I realised was irrelevant to the topic being discussed.

The creators clearly envision the mages one way. They upped the penalty and annoyance factor for ignoring it. Again this isn't a house rule I created. It's how the classes are written and how they're 'meant' to be played. To go against it is an option players have, but yes, if you look at the rule, it looks like punishment if you choose to.

"Ok. Wear the heavy armor if you want. You're going to get penalized 20% cost, and up to 40% reduction..... AND.. .the player is penalized by the annoyance of having to roll this crap"

So they penalize you in game and out for going against their vision of mages.

You keep bringing up "it's how mages were invisioned" and I keep disagreeing, but I'm not sure how else to state that so I'm just letting that argument go for now. [/quote]

It IS how they're invisioned. The book tells you, they prefer to wear partial armor and light armors. Then it tells you why. Heavy MD metals and such mess with the channeling of magic. Mages... being --Mages-- don't do that to themselves. It goes on to state that while they 'can' wear heavy armor, that a mage never would, unless it's a disguise for a mission or something.

It messes with their magic. It'd be like you or me purposefully wearing a blind fold when we don't need to. "Cut out our sight? Ugg. NO I'm not going to CHOOSE to do that, even if I can". Same way with mages. They are physically able to put on the heavier stuff but it's alien to them and repugnant due to it messing with their magic.

How do we know it's envisioned like that? The OOC tells you. Then in the rules for magic, it tells you again, it tells you why and it puts in the penalties if you choose to ignore it.

How can it get more clear that the writers do not envision mages in heavy armor?

If the rule's intention, even if just partially is to literally annoy the player, then it's absolutely rediculous and be ignored by everyone.

You do understand the concept of penalties right? They're to discourage someone from breaking the rules.

That's just bad game design. If they really envision mages not using Heavy armor, they should just say, "MAGES CAN'T WEAR HEAVY ARMOR" and be done with it.

Then they'd have to explain to all the people crying why they 'CAN NOT'. vs just 'DO NOT'. Right now they have explained why they don't. It messes with the magic and makes the magic harder. It's against what the mages do. It's not how they act/behave. If they went 'MAGES CAN NOT WEAR HEAVY ARMOR" then there'd be 50 threads going "oh? So what stops them from putting on the clothing? Is some mage god going to appear and smite them if they put oon MD Armor? that's so stupid".

They don't have any good reason for it, it's never explained why metal armor covering your whole body screws up your spells,

There are reasons though. You just don't like them. 1)Game balance. 2) Envisioned design/useage. 3) Setting. as for the "WHY" it's magic. the "Why' is quite simply "Because the writer says magic works like that". It's magic. Unless you're going to go through and try and dictate scientific method to all the magic spells, you just leave it as 'It's magic, it works that way, because that's how magic works in rifts". It seems like a dodge. I know that, but that's how magic is ____ALWAYS____ done. It's magic. It works the way it works in what ever creative lisences you're in, because that's how the writers say so. Argueing that it doesn't work that way is folly. It works how ever the writer says it does. Should there be some sort of logic to it? Sure. Does there have to be? NO. lol In this case, the writers have deemed that, that much MD metal and stuff, that close to the body and skin, disrupts the flow of magic. Poof. Done. Defined.

but for somereason it doesn't screw up TW devices,

People keep saying this as if it's some kinda trump card. It's not. TW Devices are designed to work with magic. 'Nuff said. *Shrugs* They're BUILT to be magical. One aspect of building them, in what ever the techno wizard "Does" (( which isn't explained. Just that he CAN and does it)) is to design it to work with magic. THAT"S why it works with TW devices. As they're magical already by aspect of their creation.

and it also doesn't seem to have any negative impacts on Rune Weapons if they are man made out of metallic resources.

Well you don't wear many rune weapons over 30 ot 50% of your body, but again. "They are magical constructs" of course they're not going to react the same way.

For the record. Normal non rune weapons don't mess them up either. As they're not covering the entire body.

It is, for lack of a better word rediculous. The only argument that could possibly make it so the rule is valid is if it fixes an imbalance in the system in a fair way, but as KC has fully detailed it simply doesn't.

And i disagree. (( For the record I DID have a reply to his last post, but the forums wouldn't let me post it or pm it due to imbedded quotes. Should annyone wish to see it. I saved it and can email it if you wish.))

KC is looking at it through a very narrow 'One spell' type scope. When the penalties are put forth in every spell and are pretty dramatic overall.

The movement penalties were enough for mages to think twice about using heavy armor, but if it's what they wanted to do they could.

Clearly not.

They didn't have to worry about wearing lame mid-drift armors with their arms flapping about completely unprotected so that they could get killed by one shot from a wilk's in the belly or armpit at a -3 penalty.

Well if they're morns flapping about in the front lines and not using their own spells and abilitys creativly... then they could get shot. Just like any other ooc can get shot when they take off their armor. Being stupid and getting killed isn't the soul providence of mages. If any OOC is a moron it can happen. Mages (( for the most part)) aren't meant to be front line combatants. And if you pick your spells you can augment that armor. Or you can make your self hard to see, or hard to shoot. or you can do any of 1000 things. "Stand there and trade fireballs with laser fire, shot for shot." then yeah.. you're probably going to die. lol But any mage that does so, isn't using magic to it's fullest. You gotta be creative and think..and... hide behind the Borg, Cyber knight, and dragon.

The only think the rule does, really, is make it less likely for someone to play a caster type character over a man of arms type just because its now even more frustrating than before.

Only if you go against the intended usage of the character type. If you don't put on the heavy armor, you don't have all the penalties and frustration. If you play mages as they're presented in the book... and not like Commando's or tanks that just so happen to be magical. They work fine.

In my head at least it comes down to a few options to try and rebalance the game so that mages can hold their own in a party with juicer's, crazies, head-hunters, pa pilotes, ex CS or whatever is by:
1. Not using the new armor penalty rules
2. Increase the penalty for called shots so that no one will make them, otherwise mages are going to drop like flies.
3. Completely rewrite almost all of the invocastions so that mages can actually be the glass cannons they are "invisioned" to be, and possibly even make it so that they get somekind of fast casting option, and probably have to make "saving vs a spell" cost an attack just like dodging costs a mage an attack, and on and on, not sure where this rabbit hole of rule changes go
4. Make TW items super common so that mages pretty much never use spells except for utility outside of combat and are effectively a TW version of a head hunter.

That's the thing. Mages already have hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of options. There are spells out the yinyang in the rifts books. Just page after page after page after page after BOOK after page after page of Magic. Be it spells or the TW items or what have you. Half if not more of the game is magic.

Are you able to fist ffight a Juicer? No.
Do you have 4000 spells that you could use to prevent fist fighting a Juicer? Yes.

There is the balance. You have almost unlimited different magic spells/items/crap at your fingertips. And your 'ammo' for it naturallly recharges or can be gathered at laylines.

If you cant figure a way to do your part as a mage in battles, you're just not trying. They have sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo many options it's unreal.

Again, should you fist fight a crazy? or get into a laser pistol battle with one? no, but you're a mage. you've got 1000s of pages worth of spells to pick from to use instead. Use those. THAT is the appeal of the mage. The versitlity and ability to do things others cant. Magic.

People that are trying to play mages as front line battle troops that just so happen to 'also' have magic are missing the point. you "CAN" do that but yeah, they're not going to be as good at it, as they were never meant to be used that way.

Palladium doesn't hate mages. They LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVE Mages. Being a person that typically doesn't play mages, allllll the space in my books given over to mages is a touch annoying to me. lol But it's valid. Mages are every bit as loved and used as non magic classes. You just have to play thhem differently. Tryng to play one like a front line tank, you're going to run into problems.

[The Galactus Kid]

Are you able to fist ffight a Juicer? No.
Do you have 4000 spells that you could use to prevent fist fighting a Juicer? Yes.

ha. Awesome.

[Lenwen]

Do you have 4000 spells that you could use to prevent fist fighting a Juicer? Yes.

Since when has palladium put out another 3800 spells from what they already had ?

There is the balance. You have almost unlimited different magic spells/items/crap at your fingertips. And your 'ammo' for it naturallly recharges or can be gathered at laylines.

There is no real balance. You do not see it due to not wanting to admit the edge is decidedly tech favored ..

Ifyou've got 1000s of pages worth of spells to pick from.

You jumped .. literally dozens of thousands of spells .. yet palladium has no more then 1200 total ..

Where are you coming up with the at least 3800+ .. to the dozens of thousands plus .. you are claiming ?

[Pepsi Jedi]

Do you have 4000 spells that you could use to prevent fist fighting a Juicer? Yes.

Since when has palladium put out another 3800 spells from what they already had ?

lol They've got well more than 200 spells man. I was using the number to make a point, but they've got more than 200.

There is the balance. You have almost unlimited different magic spells/items/crap at your fingertips. And your 'ammo' for it naturallly recharges or can be gathered at laylines.

There is no real balance. You do not see it due to not wanting to admit the edge is decidedly tech favored ..

There's plenty of balance as long as you don't try and fist fight juicers or dragons. Different OOC"s excell at different things.

Ifyou've got 1000s of pages worth of spells to pick from.

You jumped .. literally dozens of thousands of spells .. yet palladium has no more then 1200 total ..

Read closer. I said PAGES worth of spells.

Where are you coming up with the at least 3800+ .. to the dozens of thousands plus .. you are claiming ?

I didn't say dozens of thousands of spells. I said you've got thousands of PAGES worth of spells to pick from. I'm not going to go Through like 50 to 70 books and count every spell on every page. They're there. There's a hell of alot more than 200. I do not know the exact number. I threw out a generality for the point.

You can count them if you like. The book of magic alone starts with discriptions on page 26 and runs over 300 pages. Not every single one is a "Spell" There's magical items in there too but there's a good start if you're going to count. with over 300 pages, and many pages carrying more than one spell, that should break your 200 quite easily. I'll be curious as to the total of ALL the spells from all the rifts books. Source books 1-32, Dimension books 1-14, and the couple dozen worth of sourcebooks and 'other' books. So yeah, 50 to 70 books worth of spells. While you're counting the pages, count the spells too.

[Lenwen]

Do you have 4000 spells that you could use to prevent fist fighting a Juicer? Yes.

Since when has palladium put out another 3800 spells from what they already had ?

lol They've got well more than 200 spells man. I was using the number to make a point, but they've got more than 200.

There is the balance. You have almost unlimited different magic spells/items/crap at your fingertips. And your 'ammo' for it naturallly recharges or can be gathered at laylines.

There is no real balance. You do not see it due to not wanting to admit the edge is decidedly tech favored ..

There's plenty of balance as long as you don't try and fist fight juicers or dragons. Different OOC"s excell at different things.

Ifyou've got 1000s of pages worth of spells to pick from.

You jumped .. literally dozens of thousands of spells .. yet palladium has no more then 1200 total ..

Read closer. I said PAGES worth of spells.

Where are you coming up with the at least 3800+ .. to the dozens of thousands plus .. you are claiming ?

I didn't say dozens of thousands of spells. I said you've got thousands of PAGES worth of spells to pick from. I'm not going to go Through like 50 to 70 books and count every spell on every page. They're there. There's a hell of alot more than 200. I do not know the exact number. I threw out a generality for the point.

You can count them if you like. The book of magic alone starts with discriptions on page 26 and runs over 300 pages. Not every single one is a "Spell" There's magical items in there too but there's a good start if you're going to count. with over 300 pages, and many pages carrying more than one spell, that should break your 200 quite easily. I'll be curious as to the total of ALL the spells from all the rifts books. Source books 1-32, Dimension books 1-14, and the couple dozen worth of sourcebooks and 'other' books. So yeah, 50 to 70 books worth of spells. While you're counting the pages, count the spells too.

Again ..

Palladium has (and for some reason it did not make my last post .. ) 1200 spells for every single magical discipline in the "megaverse" .. (not including rifter material)

How does that equate to 4,000 spells .. and as you pointed out a single page can contain multiple spells so saying there are "thousands" of pages of spells .. CLEARLY .. indicates you are trying to imply there are literally Dozens of thousands of spells ..

If you can not or do not wish to make that leap .. lets follow YOUR .. own conclusion .. and here it is.

many pages carrying more than one spell

That right there alone .. would mean more then 1 spell .. but how many no clue .. but you did in fact state .. thousands of pages of spells ..

I said you've got thousands of PAGES worth of spells

Thousands could mean as low as 2 thousand .. or as high as .. a thousand thousand .. lets start on the low end of the spectrum.

2,000 pages of spells each containing more then 1 spell .. For this 1 we will go with 2 spells per page , 4,000 spells That alone would put palladium at literally multiple times .. the amount of spells they currently have. You have effectively doubled .. (at the lowest spectrum of your statement) the entire magical capacity of the entire megaverse ..

Now if we Do as per the book of magic .. roughly .. 2-7 spells per page. Taking that into account we will now use the 7 spells per page standard.

7 spells .. x 2,000 (your words thousands at the very lowest spectrum) = 14,000 spells ..

Again .. Palladium has a canon book count of no more then 1,200 spells total across the entire book line .. You have effectivly .. hand waviumed into exsistance .. almost 13,000 spells ..

Where did you come up with this ? Or was it a convient way to try to win a debate ?

[Pepsi Jedi]

Do you have 4000 spells that you could use to prevent fist fighting a Juicer? Yes.

Since when has palladium put out another 3800 spells from what they already had ?

lol They've got well more than 200 spells man. I was using the number to make a point, but they've got more than 200.

There is the balance. You have almost unlimited different magic spells/items/crap at your fingertips. And your 'ammo' for it naturallly recharges or can be gathered at laylines.

There is no real balance. You do not see it due to not wanting to admit the edge is decidedly tech favored ..

There's plenty of balance as long as you don't try and fist fight juicers or dragons. Different OOC"s excell at different things.

Ifyou've got 1000s of pages worth of spells to pick from.

You jumped .. literally dozens of thousands of spells .. yet palladium has no more then 1200 total ..

Read closer. I said PAGES worth of spells.

Where are you coming up with the at least 3800+ .. to the dozens of thousands plus .. you are claiming ?

I didn't say dozens of thousands of spells. I said you've got thousands of PAGES worth of spells to pick from. I'm not going to go Through like 50 to 70 books and count every spell on every page. They're there. There's a hell of alot more than 200. I do not know the exact number. I threw out a generality for the point.

You can count them if you like. The book of magic alone starts with discriptions on page 26 and runs over 300 pages. Not every single one is a "Spell" There's magical items in there too but there's a good start if you're going to count. with over 300 pages, and many pages carrying more than one spell, that should break your 200 quite easily. I'll be curious as to the total of ALL the spells from all the rifts books. Source books 1-32, Dimension books 1-14, and the couple dozen worth of sourcebooks and 'other' books. So yeah, 50 to 70 books worth of spells. While you're counting the pages, count the spells too.

Again ..

Palladium has (and for some reason it did not make my last post .. ) 1200 spells for every single magical discipline in the "megaverse" .. (not including rifter material)

Source? Seems light to me.

How does that equate to 4,000 spells

Again, it was a number thrown out for the example. I pointed out I do not know the exact number.

.. and as you pointed out a single page can contain multiple spells so saying there are "thousands" of pages of spells .. CLEARLY .. indicates you are trying to imply there are literally Dozens of thousands of spells ..

No. that's you putting words into my mouth. Did I ever say there was a dozen spells per page and multiply that by thousands to get dozens of thousands? no. That's you trying to sayy something absurd and put it on me. I never said that.

I said there's 1000s of pages worth of spells. The book of magic alone is over 300. It shouldn't be too hard to get on up there with over 50 books printed.

If you can not or do not wish to make that leap .. lets follow YOUR .. own conclusion .. and here it is.

many pages carrying more than one spell

That right there alone .. would mean more then 1 spell .. but how many no clue .. but you did in fact state .. thousands of pages of spells ..

Yeah I did. You're the one that multipled it by "Dozens of thousands"

I said you've got thousands of PAGES worth of spells

Thousands could mean as low as 2 thousand .. or as high as .. a thousand thousand .. lets start on the low end of the spectrum.

2,000 pages of spells each containing more then 1 spell

Spells containing more than one spell?

.. For this 1 we will go with 2 spells per page , 4,000 spells That alone would put palladium at literally multiple times .. the amount of spells they currently have. You have effectively doubled .. (at the lowest spectrum of your statement) the entire magical capacity of the entire megaverse ..

Now if we Do as per the book of magic .. roughly .. 2-7 spells per page. Taking that into account we will now use the 7 spells per page standard.

7 spells .. x 2,000 (your words thousands at the very lowest spectrum) = 14,000 spells ..

Again .. Palladium has a canon book count of no more then 1,200 spells total across the entire book line .. You have effectivly .. hand waviumed into exsistance .. almost 13,000 spells ..

Not quite. Many times spells appear in multiple places. For example... most every spell if not every spell in the book of magic, is found at least one other place. You're also assuming 7 spells per page, when I doubt very seriously that's an average. 2 to 4 is more likely to be an average, but if you self impose an ammount, double it then use it, your math looks more impressive huh?

Where did you come up with this ? Or was it a convient way to try to win a debate ?

I already pointed out I threw out a number as an example to make the point. I stated that two or three posts back. I pointed out quite clearly, I've ---not--- gone through and counted. And invited you to do so. The example stands. be it 1000 pages worth of spells or 500 pages worth of spells. (( though with BoM being 300+, and every spell there is found on at least one other page that gets your page count to a supposed 600 minimum.)) Be it 4000 spells or 2000 spells. And remember, the BoM was written and published in 2001. It's got 11 years worth of more books that's come after. Lemuria added 94 new spells all on it's own. In one book. (( just flipped it open. did a count of the list, if I'm off by 1 or 2 it's not on purpose)

You still have a vast array of spells to choose from for your mage, to make each one unique and of unique usage in battle.

You're trying to attack the exact number (( with out knowing the exact number your self)) My point wasn't an 'exact number' just a "Crap load". The example still holds even if you half it or take it by a quarter. If you have 1,200 spells like you claim, That's probably (( though I'm not SURE)) more spells than there are types of guns in Rifts. It's still more than a thousand different spells out there for the usage of different types of mages. And I suspect it's more than 1,200, if Lemuria alone has 94. That'd be one 12th of all the magic in rifts. That doesn't sound/feel right.

[Lenwen]

Do you have 4000 spells that you could use to prevent fist fighting a Juicer? Yes.

Since when has palladium put out another 3800 spells from what they already had ?

lol They've got well more than 200 spells man. I was using the number to make a point, but they've got more than 200.

There is the balance. You have almost unlimited different magic spells/items/crap at your fingertips. And your 'ammo' for it naturallly recharges or can be gathered at laylines.

There is no real balance. You do not see it due to not wanting to admit the edge is decidedly tech favored ..

There's plenty of balance as long as you don't try and fist fight juicers or dragons. Different OOC"s excell at different things.

Ifyou've got 1000s of pages worth of spells to pick from.

You jumped .. literally dozens of thousands of spells .. yet palladium has no more then 1200 total ..

Read closer. I said PAGES worth of spells.

Where are you coming up with the at least 3800+ .. to the dozens of thousands plus .. you are claiming ?

I didn't say dozens of thousands of spells. I said you've got thousands of PAGES worth of spells to pick from. I'm not going to go Through like 50 to 70 books and count every spell on every page. They're there. There's a hell of alot more than 200. I do not know the exact number. I threw out a generality for the point.

You can count them if you like. The book of magic alone starts with discriptions on page 26 and runs over 300 pages. Not every single one is a "Spell" There's magical items in there too but there's a good start if you're going to count. with over 300 pages, and many pages carrying more than one spell, that should break your 200 quite easily. I'll be curious as to the total of ALL the spells from all the rifts books. Source books 1-32, Dimension books 1-14, and the couple dozen worth of sourcebooks and 'other' books. So yeah, 50 to 70 books worth of spells. While you're counting the pages, count the spells too.

Again ..

Palladium has (and for some reason it did not make my last post .. ) 1200 spells for every single magical discipline in the "megaverse" .. (not including rifter material)

Source? Seems light to me.

How does that equate to 4,000 spells

Again, it was a number thrown out for the example. I pointed out I do not know the exact number.

.. and as you pointed out a single page can contain multiple spells so saying there are "thousands" of pages of spells .. CLEARLY .. indicates you are trying to imply there are literally Dozens of thousands of spells ..

No. that's you putting words into my mouth. Did I ever say there was a dozen spells per page and multiply that by thousands to get dozens of thousands? no. That's you trying to sayy something absurd and put it on me. I never said that.

I said there's 1000s of pages worth of spells. The book of magic alone is over 300. It shouldn't be too hard to get on up there with over 50 books printed.

If you can not or do not wish to make that leap .. lets follow YOUR .. own conclusion .. and here it is.

many pages carrying more than one spell

That right there alone .. would mean more then 1 spell .. but how many no clue .. but you did in fact state .. thousands of pages of spells ..

Yeah I did. You're the one that multipled it by "Dozens of thousands"

I said you've got thousands of PAGES worth of spells

Thousands could mean as low as 2 thousand .. or as high as .. a thousand thousand .. lets start on the low end of the spectrum.

2,000 pages of spells each containing more then 1 spell

Spells containing more than one spell?

.. For this 1 we will go with 2 spells per page , 4,000 spells That alone would put palladium at literally multiple times .. the amount of spells they currently have. You have effectively doubled .. (at the lowest spectrum of your statement) the entire magical capacity of the entire megaverse ..

Now if we Do as per the book of magic .. roughly .. 2-7 spells per page. Taking that into account we will now use the 7 spells per page standard.

7 spells .. x 2,000 (your words thousands at the very lowest spectrum) = 14,000 spells ..

Again .. Palladium has a canon book count of no more then 1,200 spells total across the entire book line .. You have effectivly .. hand waviumed into exsistance .. almost 13,000 spells ..

Not quite. Many times spells appear in multiple places. For example... most every spell if not every spell in the book of magic, is found at least one other place. You're also assuming 7 spells per page, when I doubt very seriously that's an average. 2 to 4 is more likely to be an average, but if you self impose an ammount, double it then use it, your math looks more impressive huh?

Where did you come up with this ? Or was it a convient way to try to win a debate ?

I already pointed out I threw out a number as an example to make the point. I stated that two or three posts back. I pointed out quite clearly, I've ---not--- gone through and counted. And invited you to do so. The example stands. be it 1000 pages worth of spells or 500 pages worth of spells. (( though with BoM being 300+, and every spell there is found on at least one other page that gets your page count to a supposed 600 minimum.)) Be it 4000 spells or 2000 spells. And remember, the BoM was written and published in 2001. It's got 11 years worth of more books that's come after. Lemuria added 94 new spells all on it's own. In one book. (( just flipped it open. did a count of the list, if I'm off by 1 or 2 it's not on purpose)

You still have a vast array of spells to choose from for your mage, to make each one unique and of unique usage in battle.

You're trying to attack the exact number (( with out knowing the exact number your self)) My point wasn't an 'exact number' just a "Crap load". The example still holds even if you half it or take it by a quarter. If you have 1,200 spells like you claim, That's probably (( though I'm not SURE)) more spells than there are types of guns in Rifts. It's still more than a thousand different spells out there for the usage of different types of mages. And I suspect it's more than 1,200, if Lemuria alone has 94. That'd be one 12th of all the magic in rifts. That doesn't sound/feel right.

Fact .. Palladium has 1200 or less total spells for every single magic discipline in its megaverse .. (and thats many that are doubled) I am being very generous ..

You stated they had 4,000 .. then increased that number to thousands of pages of ..

Which is multiple times .. the 4,000 you originally stated ..

So .. my question ..

Why are you attempting to make the magic system seem more powerful then it is ?

[Pepsi Jedi]

Fact .. Palladium has 1200 or less total spells for every single magic discipline in its megaverse .. (and thats many that are doubled) I am being very generous ..

It's not a "FACT" just because you say so Lenwen..... infact, It's usually the oppisite. Where are you getting 1,200 from? I counted 94 in one of the 50+ books. Now don't get me wrong they won't all have 100, but still. 94 in one book and there being over 50 books seems to call your 'fact' into question. From what do you base this 'fact' on?

You stated they had 4,000 .. then increased that number to thousands of pages of ..

I did say 4000, and I've pointed out many times it was just a number thrown out for a point. You seem unwilling to see that though.

Which is multiple times .. the 4,000 you originally stated ..

Perhaps, perhaps not. Count um up.

So .. my question ..

Why are you attempting to make the magic system seem more powerful then it is ?

I was using it as a convienant number. I've said that repeatedly. If you don't read it. that's your fault.

Even using your lowball number of 1,200 (( Again, if Lemuria has 94, I find it hard to beleive that 50+ books only have 11 times that.)) Even if it IS only 1,200, that's still over a thousand different spells Lenwen. That makes my point just as well.


READ THE POST. See the words. Then address them. You're stuck on one number that I've repeatedly said, was thrown out there to make a point. That I've not counted them. Feel free to count yourself. I don't have hours to go through my library.

[The Beast]

Going off my excel spell spreadsheet, the BoM has 985 spells, PFRPG has 182 spells, NB has 103 spells, HU has 10 spells, Rifts has 137 published after the BoM was released, and the various Rifters up until Rifter 57 has 704 spells. AFAIK, this is excluding duplicates (hence why HU only has 10), wards, circles, tattoos, Wormwood magic (I think they had spells specific for Wormwood), and of course any book I'm missing or didn't think to check and see if there were any magic spells in it.

So the correct answer is PB has over 2,121 spells.

EDIT: I didn't include anything from TMNT. I know there's at least one spell in Transdimensional TMNT that needs to be converted to Temporal magic.

[Pepsi Jedi]

Nice! Did that include the 94 from Lemuria?

[SAMASzero]

You'd almost think Palladium doesn't even want to include mages. They're already mediocre on how helpful they are in a fight in most cases, only a few OCC can make anything useful, and then tack on a limitation that makes them even more worthless? Might as well declare mages are an NPC class and not available as a PC and get it over with. Someone's so fixated on 'oh mages are so powerful' when they so totally aren't that they keep tacking on restraints that make them just not worth playing by anyone but a super-hardcore mage fanatic who'll always play one no matter how nerfed and worthless.

Thing is, Mages are not really frontline units. They really haven't been since Dungeons & Dragons. Now, I don't specifically agree with this, but I've been influenced by a lot of shonen manga and anime (Slayers, Negima and Nanoha, to be specific). But as far as the Classic RPG set goes, Spell-slingers tend to be classified as Glass Cannons who need the other party members to hold the line until they can unleash the pain.

When choosing a magic-user, you should always keep this fact in mind. Stuff like Fire Bolt or Electric Arc is good in a pinch, but your real talent is in wide-area spells and stuff that either hampers the enemy, helps your party, or has applications outside of combat.

[The Beast]

Nice! Did that include the 94 from Lemuria?

No, I don't have that one, WB22, WB24, WB25, or DB9.

[zaccheus]

You'd almost think Palladium doesn't even want to include mages. They're already mediocre on how helpful they are in a fight in most cases, only a few OCC can make anything useful, and then tack on a limitation that makes them even more worthless? Might as well declare mages are an NPC class and not available as a PC and get it over with. Someone's so fixated on 'oh mages are so powerful' when they so totally aren't that they keep tacking on restraints that make them just not worth playing by anyone but a super-hardcore mage fanatic who'll always play one no matter how nerfed and worthless.

Thing is, Mages are not really frontline units. They really haven't been since Dungeons & Dragons. Now, I don't specifically agree with this, but I've been influenced by a lot of shonen manga and anime (Slayers, Negima and Nanoha, to be specific). But as far as the Classic RPG set goes, Spell-slingers tend to be classified as Glass Cannons who need the other party members to hold the line until they can unleash the pain.

When choosing a magic-user, you should always keep this fact in mind. Stuff like Fire Bolt or Electric Arc is good in a pinch, but your real talent is in wide-area spells and stuff that either hampers the enemy, helps your party, or has applications outside of combat.

This is were everything breaks down terribly, and it's what PJ keeps saying too. The problem is in the BOM it clearly states that mages should be using spells in combat, and using them creatively, all that I'm fine with. The thing they keep focusing on in BOM is that spell casters CAST spells, it's what they do. Now you are saying they are not front line fighters, those two things contradict each other, they both can't be true. Meaning, Rifts "vision" of mages is internally conflicting, so this needs to be fixed. As I showed earlier with my 4 solutions, removing the armor rule is the easist.

Now before you shoot down my premise, think about it. Mages are supposed to CAST spells to solve their problems. The CS, NGR, Free Quebec, wild Psi-Stalkers, any other PPE vampire and probably other major cultures seek to DESTROY mages at all cost or EAT them, making it very dangerous to be a mage. If a mage is in a party with a couple head hunters, a juicer and lets say even a GB, and they get into a scrap with any of the above stated groups, which in any campaign is very likely. All the above mentioned factions are going to ignore everyone else in the party until the mage is dead as soon as he cast a spell, problem is according to the "Vistion" they are supposed to CAST spells, but they are also not suppposed to be "front line fighters" but as soon as they cast a spell they have to be, either that or they are toast...or they say screw casting, I'm putting on some goddamn armor and shooting a rifle instead. There are other ways of fixing this, like making it so they can cast more spells, have longer range and are ablet o cast several spells before others get a chance to react, making them the glass cannon type class, otherwise they are just broken and unbalanced. Unless the vision of playing a mage is simply hiding behind the GB until the fights over then do some "creative" stuff and never really get into a fight at all. That's not very fun, plus if you look at the art it would seem mages are intended to fight, and to cast spells while doing it...if all this is true they need some protection or they need to somehow get to level 10 before they leave the safety of their bunker in Lazlo.

[SAMASzero]

You'd almost think Palladium doesn't even want to include mages. They're already mediocre on how helpful they are in a fight in most cases, only a few OCC can make anything useful, and then tack on a limitation that makes them even more worthless? Might as well declare mages are an NPC class and not available as a PC and get it over with. Someone's so fixated on 'oh mages are so powerful' when they so totally aren't that they keep tacking on restraints that make them just not worth playing by anyone but a super-hardcore mage fanatic who'll always play one no matter how nerfed and worthless.

Thing is, Mages are not really frontline units. They really haven't been since Dungeons & Dragons. Now, I don't specifically agree with this, but I've been influenced by a lot of shonen manga and anime (Slayers, Negima and Nanoha, to be specific). But as far as the Classic RPG set goes, Spell-slingers tend to be classified as Glass Cannons who need the other party members to hold the line until they can unleash the pain.

When choosing a magic-user, you should always keep this fact in mind. Stuff like Fire Bolt or Electric Arc is good in a pinch, but your real talent is in wide-area spells and stuff that either hampers the enemy, helps your party, or has applications outside of combat.

This is were everything breaks down terribly, and it's what PJ keeps saying too. The problem is in the BOM it clearly states that mages should be using spells in combat, and using them creatively, all that I'm fine with. The thing they keep focusing on in BOM is that spell casters CAST spells, it's what they do. Now you are saying they are not front line fighters, those two things contradict each other, they both can't be true.

Not exactly. Artillery is not a front-line unit, for example, but it certainly gets used in combat, right? Mages are classically the Fantasy equivalent of artillery. They're supposed to cast in combat, but from safely behind their compatriots (and a forcefield and Armor of Ithan).

Meaning, Rifts "vision" of mages is internally conflicting, so this needs to be fixed. As I showed earlier with my 4 solutions, removing the armor rule is the easist.

Now before you shoot down my premise, think about it. Mages are supposed to CAST spells to solve their problems. The CS, NGR, Free Quebec, wild Psi-Stalkers, any other PPE vampire and probably other major cultures seek to DESTROY mages at all cost or EAT them, making it very dangerous to be a mage. If a mage is in a party with a couple head hunters, a juicer and lets say even a GB, and they get into a scrap with any of the above stated groups, which in any campaign is very likely. All the above mentioned factions are going to ignore everyone else in the party until the mage is dead as soon as he cast a spell, problem is according to the "Vistion" they are supposed to CAST spells, but they are also not suppposed to be "front line fighters" but as soon as they cast a spell they have to be, either that or they are toast...or they say screw casting, I'm putting on some goddamn armor and shooting a rifle instead. There are other ways of fixing this, like making it so they can cast more spells, have longer range and are ablet o cast several spells before others get a chance to react, making them the glass cannon type class, otherwise they are just broken and unbalanced. Unless the vision of playing a mage is simply hiding behind the GB until the fights over then do some "creative" stuff and never really get into a fight at all. That's not very fun, plus if you look at the art it would seem mages are intended to fight, and to cast spells while doing it...if all this is true they need some protection or they need to somehow get to level 10 before they leave the safety of their bunker in Lazlo.

I say, yes and no.

I do believe there should be some kind of "Spell Mastery" system that can be used to speed up the casting of spells, especially for combat. And/or maybe something like The Slayers or Negima (or the Dresden Files), where you can cast a spell or make a summoning circle without all the incantations/components, but it takes a lot of skill and/or control to do it.

But also, see my previous point.

[Nightmask]

You'd almost think Palladium doesn't even want to include mages. They're already mediocre on how helpful they are in a fight in most cases, only a few OCC can make anything useful, and then tack on a limitation that makes them even more worthless? Might as well declare mages are an NPC class and not available as a PC and get it over with. Someone's so fixated on 'oh mages are so powerful' when they so totally aren't that they keep tacking on restraints that make them just not worth playing by anyone but a super-hardcore mage fanatic who'll always play one no matter how nerfed and worthless.

Thing is, Mages are not really frontline units. They really haven't been since Dungeons & Dragons. Now, I don't specifically agree with this, but I've been influenced by a lot of shonen manga and anime (Slayers, Negima and Nanoha, to be specific). But as far as the Classic RPG set goes, Spell-slingers tend to be classified as Glass Cannons who need the other party members to hold the line until they can unleash the pain.

When choosing a magic-user, you should always keep this fact in mind. Stuff like Fire Bolt or Electric Arc is good in a pinch, but your real talent is in wide-area spells and stuff that either hampers the enemy, helps your party, or has applications outside of combat.

Thing is mages once they get a few spell levels in when it comes to AD&D are front line units in a huge way. They've a range of spells for nearly every speciality to be able to render themselves more durable than the most maxed out HP Fighter AND deal more damage with a word than the fighter could dream of inflicting even after the nerfing began. They engage in epic battles that lay waste entire kingdoms. Palladium mages? Couldn't lay waste your house unless it sat on a ley line nexus before being picked off. They aren't glass cannons they're glass toy pistols.

Just look at the rules for creating a mercenary group, they're quite clear that those small PC sized parties everyone has to do double duty as a front line fighter including the medics. The only way the mage is going to be useful is if he's in body armor and carrying a heavy laser rifle or plasma cannon because his spells are pitiful and how much use he can get out of them limited given how many he can use compared to how often his allies and opponents can launch attacks.

They aren't cannons, they're worse than glass, they're hardly competitive at all when you look at the technology available to so many. Playing a mage unless it's a heavy healer sort like a fleshsculpter is just going to get you ridiculed as the rest of the party and players complain about how useless you are because you aren't doing anything because your 'hey look at me one good shot and I'm dead!' body armor restriction means the mage isn't going to be doing anything in a fight but hiding and leaving everyone else to get shot because that is the way you play such a character when you leave it that vulnerable. Myself I want everyone being able to contribute and not stack them with restrictions to the point they just give up even trying because the restrictions make what they're playing so difficult to get any enjoyment out of that they just go with something else that isn't being held back like a Glitter Boy.

[Lenwen]

Sweet !!

2,215 spells (of which we have no clue are doubles .. )

Which is again .. Many many many times less then what pepsi was attempting to imply ..

Good work people.

[Dr. Doom III]

Sweet !!

2,215 spells (of which we have no clue are doubles .. )

Which is again .. Many many many times less then what pepsi was attempting to imply ..

Good work people.

Do schools not teach the meaning of the word hyperbole anymore?