Mages Aren't Trained for Combat

[eliakon]

Maybe some people figure that mages just say "Oh well, I can't use my magic here so I guess if I ever get attacked I'll just curl up and die"

What makes you think that?

If the argument is that because you can't use magic in combat (because of the laws of physics, not because of lack of training)...
...that you will not seek out any training in combat, at all, ever and instead you will just go along with out any training OR your spells.
That seems... specious to me.

[Killer Cyborg]

Maybe some people figure that mages just say "Oh well, I can't use my magic here so I guess if I ever get attacked I'll just curl up and die"

What makes you think that?

If the argument is that because you can't use magic in combat (because of the laws of physics, not because of lack of training)...
...that you will not seek out any training in combat, at all, ever and instead you will just go along with out any training OR your spells.
That seems... specious to me.

I haven't noticed anybody making that argument, but I do need to catch up about on recent posts.

[Shark_Force]

WOW
where to begins
1) "not a warrior" =/= not trained for combat
2) not being an expert =/= not trained for combat
3) the mechanics of what is required to cast a spell has zero to do with if a person is trained in combat or not.

The idea that to be trained in combat you must be an expert warrior is ludicrous on its face.
That would rule out the vast majority of military classes (I am sorry a grunt is NOT an 'expert warrior', its just not)
And how a specific skill interacts with battle is likewise irrelevant.
No really it is. Do we say that snipers are not combat trained because they have to take time, aim shots, their extended aiming action gets interrupted if they are hit.... No? Wait so why does that standard apply to mages but no one else.

And then of course there is the fact that um YES if you can't use your magic in combat situations...
...and you know it (and it is not something that can be 'trained' but simply a Law Of Physics because your not showing that most mages are not trained... you are showing how the laws of magic work. Since even a war deity like Rurga would have the same issues with their spell casting...)
then I would think that is a pretty darn good reason to learn how to handle yourself in those situations.

Maybe some people figure that mages just say "Oh well, I can't use my magic here so I guess if I ever get attacked I'll just curl up and die"
But most people I know would say "Hmmm, guess I better learn how to defend myself in the situations I can't use my magic"

(And of course we are totally ignoring the fact that if this is the sum total be all and end all of the discussion then apparently Combat Mages, Battle Magi, Temporal Warriors, Sky Knights, Demon Knights, and all the rest of them are even worse at fighting than Shifters....)

1) but not only are they not warriors, it actually bears immediate repeating to emphasize that point. they're not just "not warriors", they are emphatically not warriors. and yes, pretty much by definition, if you're not a warrior, you're not trained for combat. here's the merriam-webster definition of the word that applies: "a person engaged or experienced in warfare". another definition from the internet "a brave or experienced soldier or fighter."

when you remember the context of the "not trained for combat" statement (it was made regarding someone in full scale mega-damage combat with groups of people trying to kill each other), it doesn't mean "they couldn't take part in a martial arts competition", nor does it even mean "they don't know how to throw a punch", it means that they haven't received training to make them suitable for full-scale combat. which the books repeatedly emphasize.

so... yeah, pretty much, if they are emphatically not warriors, that pretty much does, in fact, mean that they aren't experienced in combat.

2) again, the game is stating these things to emphasize a point. they are *emphatically* not experts (and for the record, presuming a grunt has enough education and experience... they are actually an expert. if someone were to call upon them as a witness in court on the subject of combat, they would be a qualified witness because of the fact that they are an expert. they may not be qualified to testify on the subject of directing a war, like a general would, or in special operations... but they absolutely are an expert in combat, assuming they've been trained competently).

3) well, when you are not trained to use your main focus in combat, and that main focus could very easily be applicable to combat... yeah, it really does heavily suggest that you're not trained for combat. or at the very least, that you are not trained for combat as a mage.

and actually, to interrupt a sniper you're going to need to do something a lot more serious than just hit them for no damage. i mean, if you grabbed them in an arm lock, that would probably prevent them from taking a shot. but you're going to need to actually disrupt them, it's gonna take more than just being a minor nuisance, which can take a spellcaster out of casting a spell (heck, there are plenty of GMs who rule that for stuff like called shots or power punches the effect happens immediately, actions are crossed off, and your next action isn't even delayed).

[RubberBoot]

Ok so you say because magic is difficult to cast in combat and can be interrupted that automatically makes a mage not combat trained?

and if we are talking level 1 no one has combat experience only combat training.

now if we say combat training is a HtoH as well as a WP. (in rifts)

then wouldn't that make sense that a mage would acquire these skills so they can defend themselves when they are not in the position to cast a spell?
We have to say a mage would fight like an ordinary person but if they have a chance to cast a spell like before combat while behind some cover that they could use the magic to gain an advantage.

I step behind cover cast Invisibility simple then while I am invisible cast a more direct spell get away or pick and shot and vaporise someones head.

A mage would still have access to all tech that a merc would grenades, weapons, armour, Tw devices (guns, cloaks, optics) more likely to possess a magic rings/talismans, scrolls all of which do not require the mage to cast a spell.

Using a mages weakness such as sometimes they have difficulty casting does not take away the skills and abilities that the mage has that makes it trained for combat.

Its Rifts people in general are prepared to defend themselves.

[RubberBoot]

WOW
where to begins
1) "not a warrior" =/= not trained for combat
2) not being an expert =/= not trained for combat
3) the mechanics of what is required to cast a spell has zero to do with if a person is trained in combat or not.

The idea that to be trained in combat you must be an expert warrior is ludicrous on its face.
That would rule out the vast majority of military classes (I am sorry a grunt is NOT an 'expert warrior', its just not)
And how a specific skill interacts with battle is likewise irrelevant.
No really it is. Do we say that snipers are not combat trained because they have to take time, aim shots, their extended aiming action gets interrupted if they are hit.... No? Wait so why does that standard apply to mages but no one else.

And then of course there is the fact that um YES if you can't use your magic in combat situations...
...and you know it (and it is not something that can be 'trained' but simply a Law Of Physics because your not showing that most mages are not trained... you are showing how the laws of magic work. Since even a war deity like Rurga would have the same issues with their spell casting...)
then I would think that is a pretty darn good reason to learn how to handle yourself in those situations.

Maybe some people figure that mages just say "Oh well, I can't use my magic here so I guess if I ever get attacked I'll just curl up and die"
But most people I know would say "Hmmm, guess I better learn how to defend myself in the situations I can't use my magic"

(And of course we are totally ignoring the fact that if this is the sum total be all and end all of the discussion then apparently Combat Mages, Battle Magi, Temporal Warriors, Sky Knights, Demon Knights, and all the rest of them are even worse at fighting than Shifters....)

1) but not only are they not warriors, it actually bears immediate repeating to emphasize that point. they're not just "not warriors", they are emphatically not warriors. and yes, pretty much by definition, if you're not a warrior, you're not trained for combat. here's the merriam-webster definition of the word that applies: "a person engaged or experienced in warfare". another definition from the internet "a brave or experienced soldier or fighter."

when you remember the context of the "not trained for combat" statement (it was made regarding someone in full scale mega-damage combat with groups of people trying to kill each other), it doesn't mean "they couldn't take part in a martial arts competition", nor does it even mean "they don't know how to throw a punch", it means that they haven't received training to make them suitable for full-scale combat. which the books repeatedly emphasize.

so... yeah, pretty much, if they are emphatically not warriors, that pretty much does, in fact, mean that they aren't experienced in combat.

2) again, the game is stating these things to emphasize a point. they are *emphatically* not experts (and for the record, presuming a grunt has enough education and experience... they are actually an expert. if someone were to call upon them as a witness in court on the subject of combat, they would be a qualified witness because of the fact that they are an expert. they may not be qualified to testify on the subject of directing a war, like a general would, or in special operations... but they absolutely are an expert in combat, assuming they've been trained competently).

3) well, when you are not trained to use your main focus in combat, and that main focus could very easily be applicable to combat... yeah, it really does heavily suggest that you're not trained for combat. or at the very least, that you are not trained for combat as a mage.

and actually, to interrupt a sniper you're going to need to do something a lot more serious than just hit them for no damage. i mean, if you grabbed them in an arm lock, that would probably prevent them from taking a shot. but you're going to need to actually disrupt them, it's gonna take more than just being a minor nuisance, which can take a spellcaster out of casting a spell (heck, there are plenty of GMs who rule that for stuff like called shots or power punches the effect happens immediately, actions are crossed off, and your next action isn't even delayed).

considering a sniper even holds their breath to take a shot cause the movement of breathing can effect the shot...

[flatline]

The game mechanic that seems closest to describing not-losing-your-cool-under-stress would be horror factor.

How do mage horror factor bonuses stack up against other OCCs?

--flatline

[RubberBoot]

The game mechanic that seems closest to describing not-losing-your-cool-under-stress would be horror factor.

How do mage horror factor bonuses stack up against other OCCs?

--flatline

Thats a good point,

Ley line walker +4 save vs HF
Mystic +4 save vs HF
Techno Wizard +2 save vs HF
Shifter +4 save vs HF


CS Commando none
Coalition Juicer Special Operative +3 save vs HF
CS Special Forces none
CS Grunt none

[Killer Cyborg]

The game mechanic that seems closest to describing not-losing-your-cool-under-stress would be horror factor.

How do mage horror factor bonuses stack up against other OCCs?

--flatline

We went over that earlier.

[Axelmania]

Rubber when the US military says it provides combat training, that doesn't mean it is the sole definition of what combat training is. You do not require wilderness survival to be combat-trained. It's simply a useful skill that helps you survive in many combat zones.

Sort of like how Astral Navigation would not be required, but useful if I'm engaged in an astral war.

You might want to check the books before you make false claims axleman. (not sure why you think warlocks are one of the top mages the most common mages are the ones in the core book.)

I already mentioned this earlier in the thread, this is based on FoMp128. Why are you calling my claims false before inquiring about a source?

The most common mage is a ley line walker-page 116 RUE under OCC skills list "Hand to hand as basic-".

I had only noticed the addition of HTH for the shifter, didn't notice RUE gave it to the Walkers too. My mistake.

While the TW lacks a standard hand to hand he has a standard WP and a WP is also a form of combat training as it covers combat with a weapon(by the book).

I agree with you (good observation, I was only thinking of HTH) but we should probably locate some text association 'combat' with WP to pre-empt the critics.

As above, this must be a new RUE change. Originally (RMBp90) the Techno-Wizard did not start with any WP skills. I will keep this in mind. RUE has made these OCCs more combat-oriented than they were originally.

By the book the only magic user in RUE that lacks combat training are the mystics but I am not convinced they are suppose to be overly common.

They're 4th most common. It goes Walkers>Warlocks>TWs>Mystics per FoM p 128. Not sure if this section was retained in Revised or not.

(Not home with my most my books to check if warlocks have a default level of hand to hand but in the first post they where quoted as having basic so I will say your claim has been proven to be false.)

Huh... you're right. CBp61 they not only start with basic but also 1 ancient and 1 modern WP. Weird... I guess I just didn't remember.

In general most mages have some form of combat training.

I'm still not sure we can conclude that. The statements in the original FoM about the top 4 classes were back when the ley line walker didn't start with HTH basic and the Techno-wizard didn't start with WP.

Even if they maintain their spot, we've never known just how many there are composing the 100% of mages. Without knowing that composition and what other OCCS are major players (there's probably some others which don't start with combat skills) it's hard to verify for sure that over 50% have at least basic or a WP.

I would say that's a very safe estimate, since they are very useful skills to invest in, but in terms of what I can actually prove, I'm not sure.

That's one reason why I bring up the little girl with a HTH skill and a WP; it's something that technically fits some people's definition of "combat training," but that doesn't seem to fit with most people's internal view of the term.
And it illustrates how essentially meaningless some definitions are, since they could apply to pretty much anybody, even a child with no military/militia experience.

Do you have a specific little girl NPC in a book you're talking about?

By 'most people' do you mean most gamers who read Palladium and understand Palladium's use of the term "combat" ?

The definition isn't meaningless. Hand to Hand Combat Skills are a form of combat training. This is a discrete set of benefits which distinguishes those without combat training from those who have it.

Someone who lacks military/militia experience but has trained in combat techniques is not "pretty much anybody", because they have a skill others inherently lack, which they invested in, and which gives them bonuses others lack.

"Most mages have some form of combat training" is something that people could agree to, even if they would not agree with the claim "most mages are combat trained."

People who think this way aren't making any sense. If you have combat training, you are combat-trained. Just like if I have computer training, I am computer-trained.

funny. the other side of the discussions seems to have absolutely no problem whatsoever using whatever definition they feel like when it's convenient for them. why am i limited to only definitions based on rifts again?

What definition was introduced by this 'other side'?

Our usage of words, when describing Palladium games, should be based on how Palladium uses them.

'Magus' for example, can refer to a Zoroastrian priest IRL, but in Palladium, we would obviously use it to refer to the Dweomer OCCs.

- wilderness/survival skills
- HtoH less than 8 weeks of hand to hand training.
- WP
- Rappelling (climbing)


80% of mages start with these specific skills on top of their magic ability

Requesting clarification on where this 80% stat came from.

it is also blindingly obvious that it isn't a copy/paste from RMB, because it discusses a way of handling magic that didn't even exist until RUE.

What didn't exist? The sped-up casting or spells being interruptible?

Rifts has always had a maxium of spell able to cast before RUE, it was two per Melee, hense why in Africa it was a Big Deal that Thoth could cast three.

I never found it that big a deal. Using Talismans was still faster, even for Thoth, who would probably be using them anyway. Or at least based on the general assumption that Talisman-activation took an attack. I don't recall if that was clarified in the FAQ or in one of the books, but it seemed like the established way to speed-cast level 1-8 spells.

pretty much by definition, if you're not a warrior, you're not trained for combat.

What O.C.C.s are we talking about which are described "not a warrior" again? I'd like to understand the context of this disagreement.

I hope it has nothing to do with the 'Men at Arms' category, considering the Bogatyr in Warlords of Russia is clearly a warrior in spite of being in the Scholars and Adventurers category, which simply meant he's more of an Adventurer than an Armsman.

[Killer Cyborg]

That's one reason why I bring up the little girl with a HTH skill and a WP; it's something that technically fits some people's definition of "combat training," but that doesn't seem to fit with most people's internal view of the term.
And it illustrates how essentially meaningless some definitions are, since they could apply to pretty much anybody, even a child with no military/militia experience.

Do you have a specific little girl NPC in a book you're talking about?

Nah. It's just a meme I made. Random little girl in a martial arts outfit with nunchucks.
Quite cute.

The point is that when people say that "having a WP means that you're Combat Trained," I tend to think that they're either not being fully genuine, that they're not fully aware of what they're saying, OR they have a quite different view of what "combat trained" means than I do.

The question does have me wondering what the youngest NPC in the books is, who also has a WP or HTH skill as part of their OCC.

By 'most people' do you mean most gamers who read Palladium and understand Palladium's use of the term "combat" ?

Nope.

RPG definitions are typically much more specific or much more general than most people's impression.
When most people--gamers included--hear the term "combat trained," they do NOT think "well, technically speaking, since Palladium defines a WP as providing combat training, anybody with a WP is Combat Trained."

The definition isn't meaningless. Hand to Hand Combat Skills are a form of combat training. This is a discrete set of benefits which distinguishes those without combat training from those who have it.

Someone who lacks military/militia experience but has trained in combat techniques is not "pretty much anybody", because they have a skill others inherently lack, which they invested in, and which gives them bonuses others lack.

Going RAW, which people are seeming to do, anybody with a WP is technically "combat trained," since a WP by definition provides "combat training" with that weapon.
Same with HTH skills, since they're all HTH combat skills.

Of the character classes in RUE, only the Mystic and possibly the Dragon are not necessarily combat trained by RAW, and even then, many or most members WILL have a HTH or WP skill.
Body Fixers, Vagabonds, Operators? All "combat trained."

"Most mages have some form of combat training" is something that people could agree to, even if they would not agree with the claim "most mages are combat trained."

People who think this way aren't making any sense. If you have combat training, you are combat-trained. Just like if I have computer training, I am computer-trained.

No, it's not a binary phenomenon. It's a spectrum.
If somebody trains you how to turn on a computer, but nothing more, are you "computer trained?"

[Blue_Lion]

So what exactly is your idea of combat trained give me your specific definition based on rifts otherwise your argument means nothing.

funny. the other side of the discussions seems to have absolutely no problem whatsoever using whatever definition they feel like when it's convenient for them. why am i limited to only definitions based on rifts again? looking back at the original source of the statement we're all discussing, does it have *any* clear indication at all that the comment was made intending to refer exclusively to a definition based on rifts? does it even have any vague or implied indication that the comment was intended to refer exclusively to a rifts-based definition?

edit: i *will* say that i wouldn't use a definition where any random skill that might be vaguely related to combat in any form automatically counts as fully combat trained, particularly in the context of the original statement. the original context has almost nothing to do with the ability to use a laser rifle, throw a punch, or minimize damage from an explosion. it has a lot more to do with how much control over your emotions you have in the middle of the chaos of combat situations, and your ability to act in a calm, rational manner in those situations in spite of the environment.

Lets see a comment about mages ability to focus in MD combat in rifts, lets see would that have anything to do with Rifts?
Oh wait it would.

it sure would. but a statement about how someone learns to focus their will in general is not about MD combat in particular. on the other hand, RUE page 189-190 (which i believe killer cyborg already quoted) has an entire section about magic combat.

now, let's see, what can we find there? hmmm...

"... usually lacks initiative and is the last to attack/respond..."
"... is not the best at one on one combat..."
and the use of high level spells is difficult because they "... require more time, concentration and focus..."

it has a bolded sentence that reads "Vulnerable to pressed attack" as a heading for one of the paragraphs, and goes in to immediately state that "With the arguable exception of the shifter, practitioners of magic are not experts in hand to hand combat" (presumably, other explicit combat mages are ignored because they're not found in the RUE... personally i'd assume that actual combat-oriented mages are a cut above shifters, as shifters are mostly used to conflicts between themselves and a single summoned minion). it also says "... they aren't warriors, they just aren't".

then it goes on to say that "magic has the disadvantage of requiring concentration and speaking, two things you can't do while under attack". it describes various things that can disrupt casting... like not stopping to take a break after parrying, dodging, or striking back at an enemy. getting punched or kicked, knocked down, or even just blinded is enough to break a spellcaster's concentration on casting a high level spell. no damage is even required... "... if the mage is hit, it breaks his spellcasting, especially if he or his armor takes any damage..." (note that especially simply means even more so than usual... as in, generally speaking a hit does not deal damage is sufficient to break their concentration).

it literally takes the mage stopping and doing *nothing* for 1-2 attacks after doing any sort of remotely combat-oriented action for a mage to be able to use higher level spells.

now, i don't know about you, but this does not make it sound like the conditions under which a typical mage is trained includes anything to prepare them for combat at all (even non-damaging hits are expected to disrupt a typical spellcaster by default), let alone combat where the majority of the participants are using weapons that can cut down sections of forest almost instantly, destroy small buildings, cause explosions, and leave craters everywhere they hit.

a spellcaster is literally assumed to be completely incapable of casting anything but the most rudimentary of spells in combat situations. that does not sound like someone who has firm control of themselves in a combat situation to me.

Hard to check the accuracy of what you quote or the accuracy of a quote when you are splitting sentences up and not even referring to the section let alone a page. This to me seams like hey lets take a few words with no context and claim they are reason to believe something.

Can not check it is coming from mechanics of how something works, random flavor text or you just plain making it up the way you presented it with no direct reference to check.

Mechanical a typical mage does have set skills that prepare him for forms of combat. Getting hit and not being able interfering with doing something hard requiring allot of concentration does not mean you are not in control of yourself. It means what you are doing is easily countered/dirupted, that does not imply a lack of control but ease of the action to be disrupted.

[Blue_Lion]

That's one reason why I bring up the little girl with a HTH skill and a WP; it's something that technically fits some people's definition of "combat training," but that doesn't seem to fit with most people's internal view of the term.
And it illustrates how essentially meaningless some definitions are, since they could apply to pretty much anybody, even a child with no military/militia experience.

Do you have a specific little girl NPC in a book you're talking about?

Nah. It's just a meme I made. Random little girl in a martial arts outfit with nunchucks.
Quite cute.

The point is that when people say that "having a WP means that you're Combat Trained," I tend to think that they're either not being fully genuine, that they're not fully aware of what they're saying, OR they have a quite different view of what "combat trained" means than I do.

The question does have me wondering what the youngest NPC in the books is, who also has a WP or HTH skill as part of their OCC.

By 'most people' do you mean most gamers who read Palladium and understand Palladium's use of the term "combat" ?

Nope.

RPG definitions are typically much more specific or much more general than most people's impression.
When most people--gamers included--hear the term "combat trained," they do NOT think "well, technically speaking, since Palladium defines a WP as providing combat training, anybody with a WP is Combat Trained."

The definition isn't meaningless. Hand to Hand Combat Skills are a form of combat training. This is a discrete set of benefits which distinguishes those without combat training from those who have it.

Someone who lacks military/militia experience but has trained in combat techniques is not "pretty much anybody", because they have a skill others inherently lack, which they invested in, and which gives them bonuses others lack.

Going RAW, which people are seeming to do, anybody with a WP is technically "combat trained," since a WP by definition provides "combat training" with that weapon.
Same with HTH skills, since they're all HTH combat skills.

Of the character classes in RUE, only the Mystic and possibly the Dragon are not necessarily combat trained by RAW, and even then, many or most members WILL have a HTH or WP skill.
Body Fixers, Vagabonds, Operators? All "combat trained."

"Most mages have some form of combat training" is something that people could agree to, even if they would not agree with the claim "most mages are combat trained."

People who think this way aren't making any sense. If you have combat training, you are combat-trained. Just like if I have computer training, I am computer-trained.

No, it's not a binary phenomenon. It's a spectrum.
If somebody trains you how to turn on a computer, but nothing more, are you "computer trained?"

I said your claim was false because your claim was that ley line walkers, warlocks and TW lack hand to hand that they lacked hand hand to hand.
You listed Ley line walkers as having no hand to hand when they do.
I pointed out while that your statement about warlocks was also likely false and you yourself just admitted it was false claim they lacked it and you remembered it wrong. That proves you made false claims because you did not check a book.
(The stuff like this was more my thought than a counter based on rules but if you have a quote that lists how many mages of what type there are please include a direct book reference so it can be checked.)
You claimed TW had no hand to hand they posed default weapon training.


Rifts is a dangerous place for adventures and those that lack training to deal with the combat they face would not last long. It is not about them being well trained SF but weather they have combat training. In real life you can have an adventure with no armor or weapon and have a good chance of living, but in rifts no weapon or armor means you would likely not survive a adventure and if you lack the training to use that equipment in combat, it may not help you much.

[RubberBoot]

Rubber when the US military says it provides combat training, that doesn't mean it is the sole definition of what combat training is. You do not require wilderness survival to be combat-trained. It's simply a useful skill that helps you survive in many combat zones.

I was simply taking a Basic Combat Training course and converting that course into Rifts skills to try and create a definition of what is combat trained. I later stated that WP and HtoH is what is considered Combat trained, the other parts are just what came with those courses I looked at.

Requesting clarification on where this 80% stat came from.

The original post for this thread gave a number of 84% having HtoH not counting WP out of the 54 listed

[Killer Cyborg]

That's one reason why I bring up the little girl with a HTH skill and a WP; it's something that technically fits some people's definition of "combat training," but that doesn't seem to fit with most people's internal view of the term.
And it illustrates how essentially meaningless some definitions are, since they could apply to pretty much anybody, even a child with no military/militia experience.

Do you have a specific little girl NPC in a book you're talking about?

Nah. It's just a meme I made. Random little girl in a martial arts outfit with nunchucks.
Quite cute.

The point is that when people say that "having a WP means that you're Combat Trained," I tend to think that they're either not being fully genuine, that they're not fully aware of what they're saying, OR they have a quite different view of what "combat trained" means than I do.

The question does have me wondering what the youngest NPC in the books is, who also has a WP or HTH skill as part of their OCC.

By 'most people' do you mean most gamers who read Palladium and understand Palladium's use of the term "combat" ?

Nope.

RPG definitions are typically much more specific or much more general than most people's impression.
When most people--gamers included--hear the term "combat trained," they do NOT think "well, technically speaking, since Palladium defines a WP as providing combat training, anybody with a WP is Combat Trained."

The definition isn't meaningless. Hand to Hand Combat Skills are a form of combat training. This is a discrete set of benefits which distinguishes those without combat training from those who have it.

Someone who lacks military/militia experience but has trained in combat techniques is not "pretty much anybody", because they have a skill others inherently lack, which they invested in, and which gives them bonuses others lack.

Going RAW, which people are seeming to do, anybody with a WP is technically "combat trained," since a WP by definition provides "combat training" with that weapon.
Same with HTH skills, since they're all HTH combat skills.

Of the character classes in RUE, only the Mystic and possibly the Dragon are not necessarily combat trained by RAW, and even then, many or most members WILL have a HTH or WP skill.
Body Fixers, Vagabonds, Operators? All "combat trained."

"Most mages have some form of combat training" is something that people could agree to, even if they would not agree with the claim "most mages are combat trained."

People who think this way aren't making any sense. If you have combat training, you are combat-trained. Just like if I have computer training, I am computer-trained.

No, it's not a binary phenomenon. It's a spectrum.
If somebody trains you how to turn on a computer, but nothing more, are you "computer trained?"

I said your claim was false because your claim was that ley line walkers, warlocks and TW lack hand to hand that they lacked hand hand to hand.
You listed Ley line walkers as having no hand to hand when they do.

Not sure why you're talking about that now, in response to this part of the conversation.
I also don't remember when I said that, although I might have grabbed the RMB, and neglected to check RUE.

I pointed out while that your statement about warlocks was also likely false and you yourself just admitted it was false claim they lacked it and you remembered it wrong. That proves you made false claims because you did not check a book.
(The stuff like this was more my thought than a counter based on rules but if you have a quote that lists how many mages of what type there are please include a direct book reference so it can be checked.)
You claimed TW had no hand to hand they posed default weapon training.

Again, no real idea why you're talking about this stuff now, nor what previous parts of the conversation you're referring to.
But Techno-Wizards start with no HTH skills. They do get a melee weapon.

Rifts is a dangerous place for adventures and those that lack training to deal with the combat they face would not last long. It is not about them being well trained SF but weather they have combat training. In real life you can have an adventure with no armor or weapon and have a good chance of living, but in rifts no weapon or armor means you would likely not survive a adventure and if you lack the training to use that equipment in combat, it may not help you much.

Care to apply the standard to PFRPG, and see how it comes out?

[Blue_Lion]

That's one reason why I bring up the little girl with a HTH skill and a WP; it's something that technically fits some people's definition of "combat training," but that doesn't seem to fit with most people's internal view of the term.
And it illustrates how essentially meaningless some definitions are, since they could apply to pretty much anybody, even a child with no military/militia experience.

Do you have a specific little girl NPC in a book you're talking about?

Nah. It's just a meme I made. Random little girl in a martial arts outfit with nunchucks.
Quite cute.

The point is that when people say that "having a WP means that you're Combat Trained," I tend to think that they're either not being fully genuine, that they're not fully aware of what they're saying, OR they have a quite different view of what "combat trained" means than I do.

The question does have me wondering what the youngest NPC in the books is, who also has a WP or HTH skill as part of their OCC.

By 'most people' do you mean most gamers who read Palladium and understand Palladium's use of the term "combat" ?

Nope.

RPG definitions are typically much more specific or much more general than most people's impression.
When most people--gamers included--hear the term "combat trained," they do NOT think "well, technically speaking, since Palladium defines a WP as providing combat training, anybody with a WP is Combat Trained."

The definition isn't meaningless. Hand to Hand Combat Skills are a form of combat training. This is a discrete set of benefits which distinguishes those without combat training from those who have it.

Someone who lacks military/militia experience but has trained in combat techniques is not "pretty much anybody", because they have a skill others inherently lack, which they invested in, and which gives them bonuses others lack.

Going RAW, which people are seeming to do, anybody with a WP is technically "combat trained," since a WP by definition provides "combat training" with that weapon.
Same with HTH skills, since they're all HTH combat skills.

Of the character classes in RUE, only the Mystic and possibly the Dragon are not necessarily combat trained by RAW, and even then, many or most members WILL have a HTH or WP skill.
Body Fixers, Vagabonds, Operators? All "combat trained."

"Most mages have some form of combat training" is something that people could agree to, even if they would not agree with the claim "most mages are combat trained."

People who think this way aren't making any sense. If you have combat training, you are combat-trained. Just like if I have computer training, I am computer-trained.

No, it's not a binary phenomenon. It's a spectrum.
If somebody trains you how to turn on a computer, but nothing more, are you "computer trained?"

I would not calling showing some one to how to push a power buttion training. This seams more about creating an absurd claim based on a play on words.

What is combat training-training to fight or hit your opponent.
Now then can most mages be said to have that type of training.-Yes.
Are there different levels of that type of training.-Yes.

You want to make it about the level of training instead of weather or not they have training when the quote was they had none.

In PB we have 4 levels of combat training. They are linked to hand to hand for the most part. Basic, advanced(expert), experts(marial arts assassin), and special(Commando and Ninjas and super spies). Now then the reason I said for the most part is there are a few skills that are not a hand to hand that count as combat training such as WP, weapon system and robot combat. I would skills like WP and weapon systems in the basic level, while skills like robot combat would be in advanced or expert level. Classes with no hand to hand or WP like a mystic have a default level of combat training of none.

Using this system we can place ruffly where mages fall in the level of combat skills they have, it places most mages training at basic combat training. At basic level they would be able to fight and defend themselves but would not be what I would call good at combat or experts. They are however trained for combat at the basic level.

The merc soldier(acording flavor text an average soldier) in rifts is also at the basic level, while the CS grunt (from a nation with some of the most well trained soldiers according to flavor text) is at the advanced level.

So to me this does appear to be a fair way to rate the level of skills based on the mechanical information we have. It also would allow us to create a standard way to rate combat training without going into arbitrary discussion on what people think is the level of training needed to be called combat training as every one has a different idea of what that is.

[Blue_Lion]

That's one reason why I bring up the little girl with a HTH skill and a WP; it's something that technically fits some people's definition of "combat training," but that doesn't seem to fit with most people's internal view of the term.
And it illustrates how essentially meaningless some definitions are, since they could apply to pretty much anybody, even a child with no military/militia experience.

Do you have a specific little girl NPC in a book you're talking about?

Nah. It's just a meme I made. Random little girl in a martial arts outfit with nunchucks.
Quite cute.

The point is that when people say that "having a WP means that you're Combat Trained," I tend to think that they're either not being fully genuine, that they're not fully aware of what they're saying, OR they have a quite different view of what "combat trained" means than I do.

The question does have me wondering what the youngest NPC in the books is, who also has a WP or HTH skill as part of their OCC.

By 'most people' do you mean most gamers who read Palladium and understand Palladium's use of the term "combat" ?

Nope.

RPG definitions are typically much more specific or much more general than most people's impression.
When most people--gamers included--hear the term "combat trained," they do NOT think "well, technically speaking, since Palladium defines a WP as providing combat training, anybody with a WP is Combat Trained."

The definition isn't meaningless. Hand to Hand Combat Skills are a form of combat training. This is a discrete set of benefits which distinguishes those without combat training from those who have it.

Someone who lacks military/militia experience but has trained in combat techniques is not "pretty much anybody", because they have a skill others inherently lack, which they invested in, and which gives them bonuses others lack.

Going RAW, which people are seeming to do, anybody with a WP is technically "combat trained," since a WP by definition provides "combat training" with that weapon.
Same with HTH skills, since they're all HTH combat skills.

Of the character classes in RUE, only the Mystic and possibly the Dragon are not necessarily combat trained by RAW, and even then, many or most members WILL have a HTH or WP skill.
Body Fixers, Vagabonds, Operators? All "combat trained."

"Most mages have some form of combat training" is something that people could agree to, even if they would not agree with the claim "most mages are combat trained."

People who think this way aren't making any sense. If you have combat training, you are combat-trained. Just like if I have computer training, I am computer-trained.

No, it's not a binary phenomenon. It's a spectrum.
If somebody trains you how to turn on a computer, but nothing more, are you "computer trained?"

I said your claim was false because your claim was that ley line walkers, warlocks and TW lack hand to hand that they lacked hand hand to hand.
You listed Ley line walkers as having no hand to hand when they do.

Not sure why you're talking about that now, in response to this part of the conversation.
I also don't remember when I said that, although I might have grabbed the RMB, and neglected to check RUE.

I pointed out while that your statement about warlocks was also likely false and you yourself just admitted it was false claim they lacked it and you remembered it wrong. That proves you made false claims because you did not check a book.
(The stuff like this was more my thought than a counter based on rules but if you have a quote that lists how many mages of what type there are please include a direct book reference so it can be checked.)
You claimed TW had no hand to hand they posed default weapon training.

Again, no real idea why you're talking about this stuff now, nor what previous parts of the conversation you're referring to.
But Techno-Wizards start with no HTH skills. They do get a melee weapon.

Rifts is a dangerous place for adventures and those that lack training to deal with the combat they face would not last long. It is not about them being well trained SF but weather they have combat training. In real life you can have an adventure with no armor or weapon and have a good chance of living, but in rifts no weapon or armor means you would likely not survive a adventure and if you lack the training to use that equipment in combat, it may not help you much.

Care to apply the standard to PFRPG, and see how it comes out?

On the previous page axelman made the false claim-I will quote it here.
"The top 4 mage classes (LLW/Warlock/TW/Mystic) do not start with a hand to hand skill, I would say that disqualifies 'nearly every'."

I did not quote it because it was overly long do to him having a split quote style and I dislike editing other peoples quotes. But the parts you are having trouble see why I am talking about are dealing with that quote where he made a false claim, most likly because he did not check the books before he made the claim.(basically I am saying he is wrong and that it is most likely wrong because he did not check the books. I am not trying to call him a as dishonest as I think in this case he simply posted off the top of his head and did not remember correctly.)
So lets take a look at his claim.
Ley line walkers do not have hand to hand skill-untrue.
Warlocks do not have to hand-Untrue
TW do not have hand to hand-while technically true I pointed out they have WP.
Mystics do not have hand to hand-true.
That means he made a false claim about most magic users, because he did not bother to check the books. As LLW are the most common mages them alone proves most mages have hand to hand training.

(Why would I bother apyling a standard to a game I do not play in a rifts forum.)

[Killer Cyborg]

I would not calling showing some one to how to push a power buttion training. This seams more about creating an absurd claim based on a play on words.

Train: "to teach so as to make fit, qualified, or proficient"

It doesn't take long to train somebody how to push a button, but it's still training.

What is combat training-training to fight or hit your opponent.

That's the question: what IS combat training?
Different people have different views.

As well as the question of "does ANY level of combat training mean that one is 'combat trained?'"

You want to make it about the level of training instead of weather or not they have training when the quote was they had none.

Level, sure... but more about the kind of training.
Specifically, due to context of the original conversation, about combat training that would enable one to maintain focus, discipline, and concentration during mega-damage combat.

....So to me this does appear to be a fair way to rate the level of skills based on the mechanical information we have. It also would allow us to create a standard way to rate combat training without going into arbitrary discussion on what people think is the level of training needed to be called combat training as every one has a different idea of what that is.

It's all arbitrary.

[Killer Cyborg]

On the previous page axelman made the false claim-I will quote it here.
"The top 4 mage classes (LLW/Warlock/TW/Mystic) do not start with a hand to hand skill, I would say that disqualifies 'nearly every'."

Okay.
Thought you were talking to me there.

(Why would I bother apyling a standard to a game I do not play in a rifts forum.)

Because you focused on the deadliness of Rifts Earth as an explanation as to why virtually every character would be Combat Trained.
The way to test that hypothesis would be to compare it to other settings.

[Blue_Lion]

On the previous page axelman made the false claim-I will quote it here.
"The top 4 mage classes (LLW/Warlock/TW/Mystic) do not start with a hand to hand skill, I would say that disqualifies 'nearly every'."

Okay.
Thought you were talking to me there.

(Why would I bother apyling a standard to a game I do not play in a rifts forum.)

Because you focused on the deadliness of Rifts Earth as an explanation as to why virtually every character would be Combat Trained.
The way to test that hypothesis would be to compare it to other settings.

Well this is a forum about rifts, and unfortunately I do not have most my books with me, just the ones I brought to work on my project the tech builders guide. So I do not have the ability to check how deadly other settings are. (will be glad when this mission is done.)

I would point out that no combat training is about maintaining focus. There is no special combat training for that there is only general training for that. I also have stated that I see requiring proving a level to maintain focus a circular defense as the lack of being combat training was used to prove a lack of focus. (A is true because B is true, B is true because A is true, is circular to me because I started at A is untrue, then here I proved B is untrue but you now want me to prove A is untrue when you used B to prove to me that A is true to me. So basically to me We started with A in question, you use B to prove A, disproving B as support for A does not mean disproving A as it was in question, I mearly need to disprove B.) Basically it amounts to me saying the ability to concentration and cast spells in combat is part of being a mage then you saying they can not concentration in combat as normal because as a rule they are not trained for combat. As no combat training is made to address concentration in combat a demand to prove a level of combat training to concentrate in combat is absurd.

Training to maintain focus in combat would be A training to ignore distractions, and B deal with mental trauma. This is not combat based training but general training. It is also both something that i would expect a mage would have. Mental trauma mechanically is represented by HF.

[Axelmania]

Blue to clarify some points:

1) warlocks originally didn't start with hand to hand in the Palladium RPG, the Rifts Conversion Book did indeed sneak in Basic, an easily forgettable fact

2) ley line walkers originally had no HTH

3) techno-wizards originally had no WP

So in spirit, my facts are correct in regard to past publications, but new abilities were imparted to these OCCs in subsequent books, so the new versions are more combat-oriented.

The problem was with where you plunked 'false', you made it seem like my claim about Walkers/Technos/Warlocks/Mystics being the top 4 was false.

The question does have me wondering what the youngest NPC in the books is, who also has a WP or HTH skill as part of their OCC.

A place to start would be Magali the Mutant Rat from Machinations of Doom. I think she was only 13 or something when they gave her stats, and probably had WP Knife and a HtH skill (forget which), since Rat Mutants have shorter lifespans than humans and mature faster (her body was pretty adult-looking in the comic)

RPG definitions are typically much more specific or much more general than most people's impression.
When most people--gamers included--hear the term "combat trained," they do NOT think "well, technically speaking, since Palladium defines a WP as providing combat training, anybody with a WP is Combat Trained."

I don't agree with that. I would say that weapon training constitutes a form of combat training, so if you trained with a weapon enough to be proficient with it, that's combat training.

RAW I don't know if WPs were explicitly called 'combat' training or not, but "Hand to Hand Combat" certainly is.

Of the character classes in RUE, only the Mystic and possibly the Dragon are not necessarily combat trained by RAW,

Dragons are a weird situation. RMB100/101 they had combat abilities equal to basic, I got the sense of that being instinctive ability (kind of like the martial arts a Nightbane in morphus has) rather than training though. Not sure if that's the case for the new dragons in RUE.

No, it's not a binary phenomenon. It's a spectrum.
If somebody trains you how to turn on a computer, but nothing more, are you "computer trained?"

Technically yes =/ But RPGs generally divide this into more discrete terms. 'Computer trained' would describe someone with the 'computer operations' skill, while experts would have repair/programming/hacking.

I believe how much you were trained begins to become significant to observe when it reaches the point of imparting a skill to you.

Like in theory anyone can throw a punch, be instructed on how to throw one, but until the training results in improvements beyond what everyone starts with, such training would not be noteable.

I said your claim was false because your claim was that ley line walkers, warlocks and TW lack hand to hand that they lacked hand hand to hand.

You listed Ley line walkers as having no hand to hand when they do.

I think this is directed at me, could be confusing to readers since you quoted KillerCyborg.

My claim actually was correct in the right circumstances. Warlocks didn't originally begin with a combat skill (Palladium RPG) although they could buy the non-man-at-arms skil, but the Rifts Conversion Book did for some reason impart to them Basic by default.

The first incarnation of the Ley Line Walker did not have a HTH skill. The Ultimate incarnation apparently now does. My claim wasn't false, just chronologically tempermental.

I pointed out while that your statement about warlocks was also likely false and you yourself just admitted it was false claim they lacked it and you remembered it wrong. That proves you made false claims because you did not check a book.

People can check books and make false claims, or not check a book and make correct ones.

I've read the Warlock OCC many times, but few people memorize every detail, and whether or not a mage begins with a combat skill isn't a critical detail to memorize, particularly when it is a change in respect to where it was originally published.

Basically when I asked why you used 'false' it was because you did so in relation to the statement about these being the top 4, so I thought you meant about that.

if you have a quote that lists how many mages of what type there are please include a direct book reference so it can be checked

I'll type it out later if you're unable to find it on FoMp128. Unrevised.

The original post for this thread gave a number of 84% having HtoH not counting WP out of the 54 listed

I would say % of OCCS then, not % of mages, because different OCCs make up different fractions of the overall mage community.

[Blue_Lion]

(I will need to check but I am prerty sure TW always had WP. Does not change the fact you did not check the book and made a false claim though.)

The issue was you made a false claim and I felt it was not you being dishonest but as you said people do not always remember every thing correctly. So rather than calling you dishonest I stated a reminder to check the facts of a claim.

You made a claim that earlier posts had already proven false. Your failure to check facts made me restate information I had already proven in an earlier post, rather than advancing the topic you set it back by making a claim before you checked the facts.

In the spirt of currant cannon your claim was false, so I called it a false claim. Just because a red wall was once white does not mean calling a white wall is true.

I find having to read a whole page to check for some random peace of information because you can not provide a proper quote some what waste full defense from you. The page a pears to be talking about types of magic users so you appear to be referencing,
under warlock pg 128 of FOM
"This is probably the third most popular practice of magic, (Ley Line walker/wizardy being the first, TW being the second, and mystics being the fourth)."

Now then it does not say the warlock is the 3rd most common mage, it says it is the 3rd most popular style of magic.
The ley line walkers style of wizardry used by all mages that cast spells like him and includes classes like the shifter and battle magus is the most popular style of magic.

I do not have my book with me but I believe the original flavor text from the TW said he was some what uncommon among mages, his style of combining magic is more popular than warlocks style.(will check when I finally get home if you want but that will not be for some time.)

The intuitive psi-magic style of the Mystic is the 4th most popular style of magic.

Popular does not mean the same as common. In addition it is talking about styles of magic not classes of mages so it does appear you may be misusing the quote here. It also includes the word probably meaning it is not a fact-at best it is some questionable flavor text.

So again do you have a quote that says the warlock is the 3rd most common mage class?

Makes me wonder if it is probably something and if it was kept in the revised to show chance it was still valid or just a wild guess that got thrown out.

[Axelmania]

I did check the book. Just not immediately before typing. Do you recheck everything you say about a game or do you say some things from memory because you have faith in your recollection?

I check so many books so often that occasionally I mix up 2 versions of the same class. This is what happened with the walker rmb/rue and the warlock prpg/cb

The statement wasn't false, just not Ultimate.

White walls painted over with red are still white walls too. You would need to scrape off all the white paint first.

I view popular to mean common in this context. It is clear when you view other parts of this page it is discussing demographics (% necromancers % temporal) , not what people think is hip and trendy. It obviously is intended to mean popular to study.

"Most popular practise" refers to the most popular to choose to study and practise, to be the OCC.

[Blue_Lion]

The statement by currant cannon is false you did not say you where discussing old rules so the claim is false. I do not care how you try to justify making a false claim is still false claim. A white wall painted red can no longer be truthfully called white and any statement that the wall is white is then false, saying well it use to be white does not make the wall white now so saying it "is" white is still false.

The reason I told you to check the books is you made a claim that was not only false but had already been proven false in this topic. When I make a false claim I admit the mistake in this case you are trying to come up with justification for being wrong rather than admitting you made false claims.(Typically when I go from memory instead of checking the book I include statement like if I recall letting you know that that time i did not check the book.) Further more FOM shows you are not using what the books really say. So at this point you have lost any credibility and all claims you make have to be checked for accuracy. (Personally I have fond several cases of you making statements that the books do not support, and see nothing wrong with reminding you to check the books to avoid making false claims.)

I will post no more on this line of thought as it does not add to the discussion.

[Blue_Lion]

For those that want the standard for a mage to be combat trained to be related to spell casting concentration.
What combat type of combat training helps the ability of a mage to cast a spell?

The only training I can think of that helps in spell casting is well the training to become a mage.

[Nightmask]

WOW
where to begins
1) "not a warrior" =/= not trained for combat
2) not being an expert =/= not trained for combat
3) the mechanics of what is required to cast a spell has zero to do with if a person is trained in combat or not.

The idea that to be trained in combat you must be an expert warrior is ludicrous on its face.
That would rule out the vast majority of military classes (I am sorry a grunt is NOT an 'expert warrior', its just not)
And how a specific skill interacts with battle is likewise irrelevant.
No really it is. Do we say that snipers are not combat trained because they have to take time, aim shots, their extended aiming action gets interrupted if they are hit.... No? Wait so why does that standard apply to mages but no one else.

And then of course there is the fact that um YES if you can't use your magic in combat situations...
...and you know it (and it is not something that can be 'trained' but simply a Law Of Physics because your not showing that most mages are not trained... you are showing how the laws of magic work. Since even a war deity like Rurga would have the same issues with their spell casting...)
then I would think that is a pretty darn good reason to learn how to handle yourself in those situations.

Maybe some people figure that mages just say "Oh well, I can't use my magic here so I guess if I ever get attacked I'll just curl up and die"
But most people I know would say "Hmmm, guess I better learn how to defend myself in the situations I can't use my magic"

(And of course we are totally ignoring the fact that if this is the sum total be all and end all of the discussion then apparently Combat Mages, Battle Magi, Temporal Warriors, Sky Knights, Demon Knights, and all the rest of them are even worse at fighting than Shifters....)

1) but not only are they not warriors, it actually bears immediate repeating to emphasize that point. they're not just "not warriors", they are emphatically not warriors. and yes, pretty much by definition, if you're not a warrior, you're not trained for combat. here's the merriam-webster definition of the word that applies: "a person engaged or experienced in warfare". another definition from the internet "a brave or experienced soldier or fighter."

when you remember the context of the "not trained for combat" statement (it was made regarding someone in full scale mega-damage combat with groups of people trying to kill each other), it doesn't mean "they couldn't take part in a martial arts competition", nor does it even mean "they don't know how to throw a punch", it means that they haven't received training to make them suitable for full-scale combat. which the books repeatedly emphasize.

so... yeah, pretty much, if they are emphatically not warriors, that pretty much does, in fact, mean that they aren't experienced in combat.

2) again, the game is stating these things to emphasize a point. they are *emphatically* not experts (and for the record, presuming a grunt has enough education and experience... they are actually an expert. if someone were to call upon them as a witness in court on the subject of combat, they would be a qualified witness because of the fact that they are an expert. they may not be qualified to testify on the subject of directing a war, like a general would, or in special operations... but they absolutely are an expert in combat, assuming they've been trained competently).

3) well, when you are not trained to use your main focus in combat, and that main focus could very easily be applicable to combat... yeah, it really does heavily suggest that you're not trained for combat. or at the very least, that you are not trained for combat as a mage.

and actually, to interrupt a sniper you're going to need to do something a lot more serious than just hit them for no damage. i mean, if you grabbed them in an arm lock, that would probably prevent them from taking a shot. but you're going to need to actually disrupt them, it's gonna take more than just being a minor nuisance, which can take a spellcaster out of casting a spell (heck, there are plenty of GMs who rule that for stuff like called shots or power punches the effect happens immediately, actions are crossed off, and your next action isn't even delayed).

Except going by your own definitions there you can't say mages aren't warriors, let alone emphatically not warriors, since a warrior is simply someone who has experience with warfare. Heck going by those definitions nobody really qualifies as a warrior including the fighting-focused classes until they've experienced warfare and survived it. Considering the nature of Rifts Earth you would expect many mages to be warriors simply because they had no choice, it was fight or die.

[ShadowLogan]

Has anyone noticed that by RAW:
-the description for HTH: None in RUE (pg316) and essentially the equivalent in RMB (pg28) starts off with: "Characters without combat training...", from here the two books differ in format in presenting the bonuses. Wouldn't this essentially mean that any HTH equal/above Basic (or equivalent) would be considered "combat training".
-the description for WP: Ancient in RUE (pg326) and RMB (pg32) both state "Each W.P. provides combat training", this passage is directly connected with Ancient WPs, but not Modern (see next point)
-WP: Modern in RUE (pg328 & 360) and RMB (pg32) do not mention that it is considered combat training, just "training and practiced skill". RUE (pg360) even goes to state "practical experience with it in the field", but neither source ever considers it "combat training" (though we still have to define what is considered "combat training", so it might qualify in some or all cases depending on the specific skill)

So basically anyone with HTH: Basic (or better/equal) or WP: Ancient (maybe even Modern) can be considered "combat trained" for the purposes of the game.

[Prysus]

Has anyone noticed that by RAW:
[snip]
So basically anyone with HTH: Basic (or better/equal) or WP: Ancient (maybe even Modern) can be considered "combat trained" for the purposes of the game.

Greetings and Salutations. This has been addressed pages ago. I'll help catch you up ...

Both sides agree that combat training (devoid of context) is satisfied by having only a HtH or W.P. This is in agreement by both sides (as far as I can tell).

Then the debate continues because one side says the context of the original statement was in regards to maintaining focus and concentration in a M D. firefight. The other side (for the most part) saying the context is irrelevant, and that they must argue to prove what everyone agrees on.

Nothing new has been added for pages. Hope that helps. Farewell and safe journeys.

[Saitou Hajime]

Has anyone noticed that by RAW:
-the description for HTH: None in RUE (pg316) and essentially the equivalent in RMB (pg28) starts off with: "Characters without combat training...", from here the two books differ in format in presenting the bonuses. Wouldn't this essentially mean that any HTH equal/above Basic (or equivalent) would be considered "combat training".
-the description for WP: Ancient in RUE (pg326) and RMB (pg32) both state "Each W.P. provides combat training", this passage is directly connected with Ancient WPs, but not Modern (see next point)
-WP: Modern in RUE (pg328 & 360) and RMB (pg32) do not mention that it is considered combat training, just "training and practiced skill". RUE (pg360) even goes to state "practical experience with it in the field", but neither source ever considers it "combat training" (though we still have to define what is considered "combat training", so it might qualify in some or all cases depending on the specific skill)

So basically anyone with HTH: Basic (or better/equal) or WP: Ancient (maybe even Modern) can be considered "combat trained" for the purposes of the game.

That is one option for sure, but we haven't agreed on a defintion yet, so I fail to see how we can even try and resolve the original question.

[Killer Cyborg]

Has anyone noticed that by RAW:
[snip]
So basically anyone with HTH: Basic (or better/equal) or WP: Ancient (maybe even Modern) can be considered "combat trained" for the purposes of the game.

Greetings and Salutations. This has been addressed pages ago. I'll help catch you up ...

Both sides agree that combat training (devoid of context) is satisfied by having only a HtH or W.P. This is in agreement by both sides (as far as I can tell).

Then the debate continues because one side says the context of the original statement was in regards to maintaining focus and concentration in a M D. firefight. The other side (for the most part) saying the context is irrelevant, and that they must argue to prove what everyone agrees on.

Nothing new has been added for pages. Hope that helps. Farewell and safe journeys.

Pretty much.

Also, there's a bit of whether "combat trained for the purposes of the game" fits with people's real-world view of "combat trained."

[Killer Cyborg]

For those that want the standard for a mage to be combat trained to be related to spell casting concentration.
What combat type of combat training helps the ability of a mage to cast a spell?

Any parts of combat training that would help people generally maintain concentration, focus, and discipline during combat.

[Killer Cyborg]

I would point out that no combat training is about maintaining focus.

There are no parts of combat training that prepares soldiers for avoiding panic when physically struck, being shot at, dealing with hostility from other humans, or dealing with the gunshots/explosions that one deals with in combat?
There are no parts of combat training that help one control emotions and adrenaline during intense situations, and to focus on a specific goal instead of panicking, losing control, or freaking out?

Your basic soldier after boot camp has received zero training that will emotionally prepare him for combat situations, compared to a civilian who's taken Karate at the YMCA, who's done some laid-back rock-climbing with buddies, and who likes to nature hike?

[Killer Cyborg]

RPG definitions are typically much more specific or much more general than most people's impression.
When most people--gamers included--hear the term "combat trained," they do NOT think "well, technically speaking, since Palladium defines a WP as providing combat training, anybody with a WP is Combat Trained."

I don't agree with that. I would say that weapon training constitutes a form of combat training, so if you trained with a weapon enough to be proficient with it, that's combat training.

Yes, that's a form of combat training.
But that does not necessarily make one "combat trained" in general.

RAW I don't know if WPs were explicitly called 'combat' training or not, but "Hand to Hand Combat" certainly is.

They both effectively do.

Of the character classes in RUE, only the Mystic and possibly the Dragon are not necessarily combat trained by RAW,

Dragons are a weird situation. RMB100/101 they had combat abilities equal to basic, I got the sense of that being instinctive ability (kind of like the martial arts a Nightbane in morphus has) rather than training though. Not sure if that's the case for the new dragons in RUE.

We are in agreement on this.

No, it's not a binary phenomenon. It's a spectrum.
If somebody trains you how to turn on a computer, but nothing more, are you "computer trained?"

Technically yes =/ But RPGs generally divide this into more discrete terms. 'Computer trained' would describe someone with the 'computer operations' skill, while experts would have repair/programming/hacking.

Right. "Technically yes...." but no, not really, not in the sense that most people mean when they ask, "Are you computer trained?"

RPGs put computer operation into more discrete terms, but they don't do it with combat training.
They list some thing that are forms of combat training, that are training in specific forms of combat, but they do not provide any standard for what constitutes being "combat trained" in general.

This is why I keep talking about context; it matters.

If you apply for a job where your ONLY required task is to turn on and off a computer, and that's the only thing that you know about that computer, then when somebody asks you "are you trained with this computer," you can honestly say "yes."
But if that's the only thing that you know about that computer, and the job requires you to use the computer in other ways, then such an answer would become dishonest and inaccurate.

Likewise, if you apply for a job where your ONLY task is to stab people with a knife, and your potential employers ask you, "Are you combat trained?"
If you only have WP Knife, you can honestly and accurately say "Yes."
If you apply for a job where your combat tasks include shooting people, driving tanks, throwing grenades, and beating people to death with a rifle butt, then having only WP Knife as your only relevant skill would NOT allow you to honestly or accurately say "yes" when they ask if you are "combat trained."

A little girl with a HTH skill and/or WP Nunchucks?
Well, she's "combat trained" in the context of little kids, and in the context of melee.
But in a Red Dawn situation, when the leader of the resistance shows up in your town and asks, "How many combat trained people do you have in your group?"
It's not honest or accurate to include her, at least not without some heavy qualifications.

I believe how much you were trained begins to become significant to observe when it reaches the point of imparting a skill to you.

Like in theory anyone can throw a punch, be instructed on how to throw one, but until the training results in improvements beyond what everyone starts with, such training would not be noteable.

[Prysus]

So what exactly is your idea of combat trained give me your specific definition based on rifts otherwise your argument means nothing.

funny. the other side of the discussions seems to have absolutely no problem whatsoever using whatever definition they feel like when it's convenient for them. why am i limited to only definitions based on rifts again? looking back at the original source of the statement we're all discussing, does it have *any* clear indication at all that the comment was made intending to refer exclusively to a definition based on rifts? does it even have any vague or implied indication that the comment was intended to refer exclusively to a rifts-based definition?

edit: i *will* say that i wouldn't use a definition where any random skill that might be vaguely related to combat in any form automatically counts as fully combat trained, particularly in the context of the original statement. the original context has almost nothing to do with the ability to use a laser rifle, throw a punch, or minimize damage from an explosion. it has a lot more to do with how much control over your emotions you have in the middle of the chaos of combat situations, and your ability to act in a calm, rational manner in those situations in spite of the environment.

Lets see a comment about mages ability to focus in MD combat in rifts, lets see would that have anything to do with Rifts?
Oh wait it would.

it sure would. but a statement about how someone learns to focus their will in general is not about MD combat in particular. on the other hand, RUE page 189-190 (which i believe killer cyborg already quoted) has an entire section about magic combat.

now, let's see, what can we find there? hmmm...

"... usually lacks initiative and is the last to attack/respond..."
"... is not the best at one on one combat..."
and the use of high level spells is difficult because they "... require more time, concentration and focus..."

it has a bolded sentence that reads "Vulnerable to pressed attack" as a heading for one of the paragraphs, and goes in to immediately state that "With the arguable exception of the shifter, practitioners of magic are not experts in hand to hand combat" (presumably, other explicit combat mages are ignored because they're not found in the RUE... personally i'd assume that actual combat-oriented mages are a cut above shifters, as shifters are mostly used to conflicts between themselves and a single summoned minion). it also says "... they aren't warriors, they just aren't".

then it goes on to say that "magic has the disadvantage of requiring concentration and speaking, two things you can't do while under attack". it describes various things that can disrupt casting... like not stopping to take a break after parrying, dodging, or striking back at an enemy. getting punched or kicked, knocked down, or even just blinded is enough to break a spellcaster's concentration on casting a high level spell. no damage is even required... "... if the mage is hit, it breaks his spellcasting, especially if he or his armor takes any damage..." (note that especially simply means even more so than usual... as in, generally speaking a hit does not deal damage is sufficient to break their concentration).

it literally takes the mage stopping and doing *nothing* for 1-2 attacks after doing any sort of remotely combat-oriented action for a mage to be able to use higher level spells.

now, i don't know about you, but this does not make it sound like the conditions under which a typical mage is trained includes anything to prepare them for combat at all (even non-damaging hits are expected to disrupt a typical spellcaster by default), let alone combat where the majority of the participants are using weapons that can cut down sections of forest almost instantly, destroy small buildings, cause explosions, and leave craters everywhere they hit.

a spellcaster is literally assumed to be completely incapable of casting anything but the most rudimentary of spells in combat situations. that does not sound like someone who has firm control of themselves in a combat situation to me.

Hard to check the accuracy of what you quote or the accuracy of a quote when you are splitting sentences up and not even referring to the section let alone a page. This to me seams like hey lets take a few words with no context and claim they are reason to believe something.

Can not check it is coming from mechanics of how something works, random flavor text or you just plain making it up the way you presented it with no direct reference to check.

Mechanical a typical mage does have set skills that prepare him for forms of combat. Getting hit and not being able interfering with doing something hard requiring allot of concentration does not mean you are not in control of yourself. It means what you are doing is easily countered/dirupted, that does not imply a lack of control but ease of the action to be disrupted.

Greetings and Salutations. He's quoting from RUE, page 189, Step 7: Magic Combat. The section continues onto page 190, though overall is less than one full page. Of course, he mentioned the book and page BEFORE he started quoting (that can be seen in your quote of him, in his third sentence, before the quotes start). I quoted some of this section earlier when discussing (briefly) a few of the differences between MoM and RUE. Basically, this is the section where you'll find the rules for how to interrupt a spell. Note: While reading the section, I just realized that Level 1-5 spells CAN be interrupted. I hadn't realized this before.

While some it looks to be written as fluff text, keep in mind that it refers to spell levels, attacks per melee, the mechanics of what happens when a spell is interrupted, etc. (you know, actual game mechanic stuff and their interaction). This is fluff text like the "fluff" text of the effects of Ley Lines (RUE, page 186) or cancelling magic (page 188) or wearing body armor (page 188) are "fluff" text (you know, providing the actual game mechanics of magic). Attempting to discredit the section as "fluff" text is to take the stance that by the rules spells are incapable of ever being interrupted. I know I won't be taking that stance personally. Farewell and safe journeys.

[42dragon]

To the OP title. "Mages Aren't Trained for Combat" --> false

Per the RAW HTH training (any) and/or WP training = combat training
Per the OP title level basic, expert, advanced is not addressed so it is not relevant.
As has been documented in this thread most mages have at least one or the other if not both HTH and WP. Therefore they are combat trained.

Now for mechanical rules related to keeping your cool in an MD firefight. The closest (but not perfect) we have is WB 11: Coalition War Campaign. Page 58 (Optional) Shell-Shock Rules. These rules boil down to Horror Factor.
As has also been documented in this thread most mages have better saves vs. HF than most "combat/military OCC's".
Therefore mages are more likely to keep their cool on the battlefield (even MD firefight) than most others.

I see no reason to think a mage would raise their voice or overly exaggerate gestures and draw extra attention to themselves when casting in any combat situation unless they chose to for effect.

[Killer Cyborg]

The Shellshock rules are for people with severe PTSD.
Not really applicable.

[42dragon]

Not perfectly applicable true. But it shows that (mechanically in game) even after being afflicted with PTSD and experiencing some pretty horrible stuff mages are still going to handle it better than most others.

So there is no reason to think they would handle it worse than others before the PTSD kicks in.

[ShadowLogan]

Also, there's a bit of whether "combat trained for the purposes of the game" fits with people's real-world view of "combat trained.

But should we be using people's real-world view of "combat trained" instead of the writer/editor of the game world when discussing a passage about said game world?

[Prysus]

Also, there's a bit of whether "combat trained for the purposes of the game" fits with people's real-world view of "combat trained.

But should we be using people's real-world view of "combat trained" instead of the writer/editor of the game world when discussing a passage about said game world?

Greetings and Salutations. That would generally be true, except this entire debate is about what someone said. As posters, the way we say things is based on our real-world view of things. To use an example from earlier in this thread ...

If I say you're dodging the point (this is an example, not an accusation). You could try to argue that you didn't roll a D20, therefore you can't possibly dodge the point. This is a Rifts thread, and therefore we have to use the Rifts definition of dodge.

Except, in reality, we're real people trying to have a conversation. So to have an intelligent conversation it helps to look at the context instead of trying to nitpick on the exact phrasing. Now, I'm not saying Killer Cyborg is correct. However, nitpicking on the way he said something is not going to prove him wrong. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

[Blue_Lion]

Greetings and Salutations. He's quoting from RUE, page 189, Step 7: Magic Combat. The section continues onto page 190, though overall is less than one full page. Of course, he mentioned the book and page BEFORE he started quoting (that can be seen in your quote of him, in his third sentence, before the quotes start). I quoted some of this section earlier when discussing (briefly) a few of the differences between MoM and RUE. Basically, this is the section where you'll find the rules for how to interrupt a spell. Note: While reading the section, I just realized that Level 1-5 spells CAN be interrupted. I hadn't realized this before.

While some it looks to be written as fluff text, keep in mind that it refers to spell levels, attacks per melee, the mechanics of what happens when a spell is interrupted, etc. (you know, actual game mechanic stuff and their interaction). This is fluff text like the "fluff" text of the effects of Ley Lines (RUE, page 186) or cancelling magic (page 188) or wearing body armor (page 188) are "fluff" text (you know, providing the actual game mechanics of magic). Attempting to discredit the section as "fluff" text is to take the stance that by the rules spells are incapable of ever being interrupted. I know I won't be taking that stance personally. Farewell and safe journeys.[/justify]

Sorry i did miss him listing the page but he is cherry picking a few words in a sentence as a quote with little guidence where he is getting it does make it hard to check accuracy quickly.

[Shark_Force]

Ok so you say because magic is difficult to cast in combat and can be interrupted that automatically makes a mage not combat trained?

and if we are talking level 1 no one has combat experience only combat training.

now if we say combat training is a HtoH as well as a WP. (in rifts)

then wouldn't that make sense that a mage would acquire these skills so they can defend themselves when they are not in the position to cast a spell?
We have to say a mage would fight like an ordinary person but if they have a chance to cast a spell like before combat while behind some cover that they could use the magic to gain an advantage.

I step behind cover cast Invisibility simple then while I am invisible cast a more direct spell get away or pick and shot and vaporise someones head.

A mage would still have access to all tech that a merc would grenades, weapons, armour, Tw devices (guns, cloaks, optics) more likely to possess a magic rings/talismans, scrolls all of which do not require the mage to cast a spell.

Using a mages weakness such as sometimes they have difficulty casting does not take away the skills and abilities that the mage has that makes it trained for combat.

Its Rifts people in general are prepared to defend themselves.

they're not combat trained as part of being a mage. they *could* be combat trained in general. i've said repeatedly that a specific mage COULD be combat trained (and indeed, there absolutely are going to be some mages in existence that are combat trained). but we're not talking about one specific mage. we're talking about mages in general.

edit:

Sorry i did miss him listing the page but he is cherry picking a few words in a sentence as a quote with little guidence where he is getting it does make it hard to check accuracy quickly.

of course i'm only quoting parts, because only parts are relevant to the discussion. if i quoted the entire section, that would be a waste of everyone's time to read. not every part of the magic use in combat section talks about how well prepared mages are for combat, and so i don't quote it all, i quote the relevant parts. frankly, giving you a book, page number, and even a heading to look for is about as much as most references are going to give you, so quite frankly, get used to it.

[Killer Cyborg]

Not perfectly applicable true. But it shows that (mechanically in game) even after being afflicted with PTSD and experiencing some pretty horrible stuff mages are still going to handle it better than most others.

So there is no reason to think they would handle it worse than others before the PTSD kicks in.

Do mages have any bonus to save versus Fear in general?

[Killer Cyborg]

Also, there's a bit of whether "combat trained for the purposes of the game" fits with people's real-world view of "combat trained.

But should we be using people's real-world view of "combat trained" instead of the writer/editor of the game world when discussing a passage about said game world?

Perhaps.
Which passage do you wish to discuss?

[Blue_Lion]

I would point out that no combat training is about maintaining focus.

There are no parts of combat training that prepares soldiers for avoiding panic when physically struck, being shot at, dealing with hostility from other humans, or dealing with the gunshots/explosions that one deals with in combat?
There are no parts of combat training that help one control emotions and adrenaline during intense situations, and to focus on a specific goal instead of panicking, losing control, or freaking out?

Your basic soldier after boot camp has received zero training that will emotionally prepare him for combat situations, compared to a civilian who's taken Karate at the YMCA, who's done some laid-back rock-climbing with buddies, and who likes to nature hike?

No part of any combat training helps you prepare for being shot at, and avoid panicking in combat. If combat training could prepare people to deal with the shock of combat we would not have so many vets with PTSD. How some one deals with combat stress comes down to the persons mental fortitude not combat training. The goal of combat training is to put the fight into muscle memory and hope your body remembers when your brain forgets. Combat training is not about focus but repetition doing the same thing over and over until it becomes muscle memory or reflex action.

A soldier right out of basic (boot camp is marines) has had zero training that would lead him to keep his cool in combat, that comes from the individual and experience. I have gotten privates out of basic that I had to remind every day to go shave his face and tuck his pants in. Part of my job as a NCO in combat is to try to get the spazing out private to shoot away from friendlies. We give soldiers in combat to papers remind them how to to basic things that we trained them 100s of times like call for a medivac, because we know they will forget how to do when it hits the fan.


It takes 3 weeks of training to be an army hand hand instructor, how is that any better than a karate instructor at the YMCA. The biggest difference is the martial art the training is based on. You make it sound like you think military hand to hand is some great thing, but it is about equal to taking a MMA class on the civian gym in truth a soldier out of basic has had less than 40 hours of hand to hand training and never really been hit in the face(the stopped using the punch drill do to injuries). Honestly our military hand to had out of basic kind of sucks heck most soldiers are not that good at it that is why we work in teams and shoot from a distance. Hand to hand for the average soldier is a worse case scenario and you hope the other guy has less training than you.

You seam to have the average soldier in some high regard of skill when he comes out of basic. What sort of super training you think they get in 10 weeks?

Be it sports or combat when under pressure and mental stress the only training that helps some one perform is repetition of training.
The key to combat training is repetition of training, sf practices clearing a room 100s of times before they go on a mission to build the repetition into muscle memory.

Now then how does a trained mage learn a spell? would that not also be repition?
Are mages not as good at casting spells as SF is at combat?

[Blue_Lion]

Ok so you say because magic is difficult to cast in combat and can be interrupted that automatically makes a mage not combat trained?

and if we are talking level 1 no one has combat experience only combat training.

now if we say combat training is a HtoH as well as a WP. (in rifts)

then wouldn't that make sense that a mage would acquire these skills so they can defend themselves when they are not in the position to cast a spell?
We have to say a mage would fight like an ordinary person but if they have a chance to cast a spell like before combat while behind some cover that they could use the magic to gain an advantage.

I step behind cover cast Invisibility simple then while I am invisible cast a more direct spell get away or pick and shot and vaporise someones head.

A mage would still have access to all tech that a merc would grenades, weapons, armour, Tw devices (guns, cloaks, optics) more likely to possess a magic rings/talismans, scrolls all of which do not require the mage to cast a spell.

Using a mages weakness such as sometimes they have difficulty casting does not take away the skills and abilities that the mage has that makes it trained for combat.

Its Rifts people in general are prepared to defend themselves.

they're not combat trained as part of being a mage. they *could* be combat trained in general. i've said repeatedly that a specific mage COULD be combat trained (and indeed, there absolutely are going to be some mages in existence that are combat trained). but we're not talking about one specific mage. we're talking about mages in general.

edit:

Sorry i did miss him listing the page but he is cherry picking a few words in a sentence as a quote with little guidence where he is getting it does make it hard to check accuracy quickly.

of course i'm only quoting parts, because only parts are relevant to the discussion. if i quoted the entire section, that would be a waste of everyone's time to read. not every part of the magic use in combat section talks about how well prepared mages are for combat, and so i don't quote it all, i quote the relevant parts. frankly, giving you a book, page number, and even a heading to look for is about as much as most references are going to give you, so quite frankly, get used to it.

The thing is the quotes are cherry picked out of a sentence not even full sentences and by the looks of how you quoted them not the start so it strips any context. It seams like you are just chery picking a few words that can be presented to suport you out of full sentences that could be leaving out relavent context.

[Blue_Lion]

Not perfectly applicable true. But it shows that (mechanically in game) even after being afflicted with PTSD and experiencing some pretty horrible stuff mages are still going to handle it better than most others.

So there is no reason to think they would handle it worse than others before the PTSD kicks in.

Do mages have any bonus to save versus Fear in general?

The only mechanic to save vs any type of fear that I know of is HF.
Other than HF is there any mechanic to represent fear?
Are you claiming that fear in general is some sort of mechanic that affects how things work and has a saving throw?

As a GM if you wanted a player to roll to see if they are scared of something what would you have them roll?

[42dragon]

Do mages have any bonus to save versus Fear in general?

The only save vs. fear specifically that I am familiar with is HF.
Even the spell by the name of Fear, the only save is vs. HF. Spell Charismatic Aura "Fear" is a save vs. HF. Ward of Fear has a save vs. magic, then the effects of the spell Fear so save vs. HF.
Fearless; by RAW definition means no HF scare it.
Perhaps, you are speaking in relation to Insanities, those different fears require a save vs. Insanity which is an ME attribute. Which I haven't checked specifically but I remember somewhere in this thread the basic RUE mages being called out as having higher ME requirements than most Combat/Military classes.
Super Psionic power of Empathic Transmission can cause fear and has a save vs. psionics. Then provides a good base line for the feared condition. But there is no save vs. fear itself.

So I would say yes. Mages have bonuses to save vs. HF and therefore fear.

[Axelmania]

The statement by currant cannon is false you did not say you where discussing old rules so the claim is false.

Ultimate doesn't say anywhere that we're not allowed to use the OCCs as originally presented. Multiple versions of identically named things exist in the Megaverse and intolerance for that is a house rule.

I do not care how you try to justify making a false claim is still false claim. A white wall painted red can no longer be truthfully called white and any statement that the wall is white is then false, saying well it use to be white does not make the wall white now so saying it "is" white is still false.

You are incorrect, colors are not required to only describe surface appearances. I can say "we're all red inside" for example even though red isn't showing.

The reason I told you to check the books is you made a claim that was not only false but had already been proven false in this topic.

If the prior post are you alleging had already proven something false was the original post or Rubber Boot's on Feb 7, I admittedly skimmed past those because I don't like big lists, figuring I had already read this stuff and already knew what was in them (which was a wrong assumption). I wouldn't say either list "proved" me wrong though, but it did highlight the claims of Walkers/Warlocks having Basic which I shouldn't have disagreed with sans disclaimer.

I thought you were the one to bring up the Ultimate Techno-Wizard having WP and the Ultimate Ley Line Walker / Conversion Warlock having Hand to Hand Basic after I made the statement.

Also my statement was about hand to hand skills, so I was correct about the Techno-Wizard, they still lack a hand to hand skill.

The most recent incarnations of the Ley Line Walker and the Warlock now have hand to hand basic. Other versions exist which don't have it, if anyone wants to play a Walker/Warlock without combat skills, it is still legal for them to do so.

When I make a false claim I admit the mistake in this case you are trying to come up with justification for being wrong rather than admitting you made false claims.

I never claimed they lacked HTH in Ultimate, just that they lacked HTH, which is true, they did lack it. New optional "Ultimate" variations exist which come with free HTH which most people will probably opt to play, but RUE doesn't say anywhere it's unlawful to play the old skill sets, that is merely fan speculation which was never stated in the book.

(Typically when I go from memory instead of checking the book I include statement like if I recall letting you know that that time i did not check the book.)

I included a statement like that: "I don't recall any been inning with hand to hand. I think Ultimate gave basic to shifter.".

I surmise I was writing on my tablet at night after taking some sub-lingual melatonin, which is why I misspelled "beginning" and got auto-corrected to "been inning".

Further more FOM shows you are not using what the books really say.

Here's the funny thing about that, I DID use it. Check viewtopic.php?p=2953988#p2953988 "FoM 128 says prpbably LLW is most popular, TW is 2nd, Warlocks 3rd, Mystics 4th".

I did use "popular" the first time, on February 20th. I only said "They're 4th most common." on February 24th in response to your comment "I am not convinced they are suppose to be overly common." from Feb 22.

So it seems you said something false, by wrongfully accusing me of not using what the books say when I did use it.

My paraphrasing it using a similar word (arguably synonymous in this context) is not a falsehood. When Siembieda said these occupations were 1st/2nd/3rd/4th most popular, I believe it's clear that he intended this to mean 'popular to join' and not 'popular on American Idol' or whatever context you're thinking of.

Has anyone noticed that by RAW:
-the description for HTH: None in RUE (pg316) and essentially the equivalent in RMB (pg28) starts off with: "Characters without combat training...", from here the two books differ in format in presenting the bonuses. Wouldn't this essentially mean that any HTH equal/above Basic (or equivalent) would be considered "combat training".

Yup, the argument goes on because some are ignoring how Palladium uses terms like 'combat' and are introducing weird external definitions, saying they're common, that the narrow uses are more popular than the broad ones, even though they don't rank first in dictionaries.

-the description for WP: Ancient in RUE (pg326) and RMB (pg32) both state "Each W.P. provides combat training", this passage is directly connected with Ancient WPs, but not Modern (see next point)

Nice find! This clarifies that Ultimate Techno-Wizards all have combat training now. I expected someone could find something like this, but didn't expect it would be hiding in plain sight.

there's a bit of whether "combat trained for the purposes of the game" fits with people's real-world view of "combat trained."

Which makes us ask "which people".

I mean... I think it does, but then, my idea of what the word 'combat' means could be highly influenced by Palladium.

If we look at popular culture... "Kombat" certainly isn't limited to military engagements (describes 1 on 1 dueling in a tournament).

I get where the military association comes from, for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_(1977_video_game) or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close_Combat_(video_game) or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_Arms_(video_game)

On the other hand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hayate_the_Combat_Butler or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_Combat! or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuyasha:_Feudal_Combat or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_of_Giants or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jak_X:_Combat_Racing I'm not so sure of, they don't seem military, but rather non-militarized fighting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_sport mentions "sport with one-on-one combat" and has stuff like boxing, so I think it clearly has the broader use.

Whenever broad and narrow compete, I generally go with broad and append adjectives for narrow usage.

Yes, that's a form of combat training.
But that does not necessarily make one "combat trained" in general.

If someone trains you in X, you are X trained.

Your "in general" appending could be put into the quotes as a descriptor adjective.

For example "well-rounded combat training" (or maybe 'adaptable' or 'versatile' or 'multi-faceted') is something I say fewer mages have compared to mages who merely have combat training. Ultimate Techno-Wizards do not start with well-rounded training since they have WP but no HTH, I would say you should have both to be well-rounded.

not in the sense that most people mean when they ask, "Are you computer trained?"

Yeah I can't buy into your 'most people mean' declarations, your sampling of vocabulary's probably more diverse than mine but I don't necessarily think any of us grasp it enough to say what most people mean when they use a term.

In the case of combat though, the militarized definitions don't appear to consistently hold a #1 spot in dictionaries, and I would defer to dictionary writers on how to rank definitions in terms of popular modern usage.

They list some thing that are forms of combat training, that are training in specific forms of combat, but they do not provide any standard for what constitutes being "combat trained" in general.

I think you should be saying "combat trained in general" because these 2 words modify the meaning, albeit in a bit of an unclear way, I think. Wouldn't something like "all-around" (ie "I'm all-around strong" vs "I'm strong in general" for someone who has high numbers in all major lifts instead of just biceps curls) be clearer?

Basically you're not talking about combat-trained, but about being extensively/thoroughly combat trained.

Likewise, if you apply for a job where your ONLY task is to stab people with a knife, and your potential employers ask you, "Are you combat trained?"
If you only have WP Knife, you can honestly and accurately say "Yes."

The way Palladium puts it, even a Body Fixer or Cyber-Doc without HTH is Combat Trained for reason for their WP Knife.

I believe potential employers would word it more specifically or ask subsequent questions to clarify it.

If you apply for a job where your combat tasks include shooting people, driving tanks, throwing grenades, and beating people to death with a rifle butt, then having only WP Knife as your only relevant skill would NOT allow you to honestly or accurately say "yes" when they ask if you are "combat trained."

Sure it would, because there's different kinds of combat. The problem is in the question, not the answer.

If someone hiring a wizard wants someone who can Create Bread and Milk but only asks "are you magic trained" then it's their problem if they get someone who can only do Globe of Daylight.

A little girl with a HTH skill and/or WP Nunchucks?
Well, she's "combat trained" in the context of little kids, and in the context of melee.
But in a Red Dawn situation, when the leader of the resistance shows up in your town and asks, "How many combat trained people do you have in your group?"
It's not honest or accurate to include her, at least not without some heavy qualifications.

I think the resistance leader would ask "how many (army-trained / military-trained) people do you have in your group?". It seems like a false dilemma. This could be a regional dialect thing, maybe in your circles people use this type of phrasing more often?

[Killer Cyborg]

Not perfectly applicable true. But it shows that (mechanically in game) even after being afflicted with PTSD and experiencing some pretty horrible stuff mages are still going to handle it better than most others.

So there is no reason to think they would handle it worse than others before the PTSD kicks in.

Do mages have any bonus to save versus Fear in general?

The only mechanic to save vs any type of fear that I know of is HF.
Other than HF is there any mechanic to represent fear?

The only save vs. fear specifically that I am familiar with is HF.

I wasn't sure, which is why I asked.

I was away from books, and mostly away from keys.

There doesn't seem to be any Save Vs. Fear in general.
There IS a Save Vs. Panic (After the Bomb 2nd ed.), Save Vs Insanity, and Save Vs. Anger/Hate.
There's also the MA Intimidation ability.

[Killer Cyborg]

Whenever broad and narrow compete, I generally go with broad and append adjectives for narrow usage.

Hm.
Here, you're going narrow as a default, regarding narrow standards of combat training to be regarded as overall combat training.

Yes, that's a form of combat training.
But that does not necessarily make one "combat trained" in general.

If someone trains you in X, you are X trained.

So if you have training in knife combat, you are "knife combat trained."

not in the sense that most people mean when they ask, "Are you computer trained?"

Yeah I can't buy into your 'most people mean' declarations,

Shame, because I'm correct.
Ask around.

They list some thing that are forms of combat training, that are training in specific forms of combat, but they do not provide any standard for what constitutes being "combat trained" in general.

I think you should be saying "combat trained in general" because these 2 words modify the meaning, albeit in a bit of an unclear way, I think. Wouldn't something like "all-around" (ie "I'm all-around strong" vs "I'm strong in general" for someone who has high numbers in all major lifts instead of just biceps curls) be clearer?

Basically you're not talking about combat-trained, but about being extensively/thoroughly combat trained.

No, I'm talking about general combat training.
You're talking about specific and narrow kinds of training, and making it seem more general than it is.

Likewise, if you apply for a job where your ONLY task is to stab people with a knife, and your potential employers ask you, "Are you combat trained?"
If you only have WP Knife, you can honestly and accurately say "Yes."

The way Palladium puts it, even a Body Fixer or Cyber-Doc without HTH is Combat Trained for reason for their WP Knife.

No. The way Palladium puts it, even a Body Fixer or Cyber-Doc without HTH is combat trained with a knife.

I believe potential employers would word it more specifically or ask subsequent questions to clarify it.

I think that would depend on your answer.
But nice way to dodge the question.

If you apply for a job where your combat tasks include shooting people, driving tanks, throwing grenades, and beating people to death with a rifle butt, then having only WP Knife as your only relevant skill would NOT allow you to honestly or accurately say "yes" when they ask if you are "combat trained."

Sure it would, because there's different kinds of combat. The problem is in the question, not the answer.[/quote]

Nope.
Context provides all the information that you need in order to answer the question accurately.

If someone hiring a wizard wants someone who can Create Bread and Milk but only asks "are you magic trained" then it's their problem if they get someone who can only do Globe of Daylight.

If the mage is applying for a job of Creating Bread & Milk, then the context provides all the information that he/she/it needs in order to answer the question appropriately.

A little girl with a HTH skill and/or WP Nunchucks?
Well, she's "combat trained" in the context of little kids, and in the context of melee.
But in a Red Dawn situation, when the leader of the resistance shows up in your town and asks, "How many combat trained people do you have in your group?"
It's not honest or accurate to include her, at least not without some heavy qualifications.

I think the resistance leader would ask "how many (army-trained / military-trained) people do you have in your group?"

You know more people who speak parenthetically than I do, apparently.

It seems like a false dilemma.

It's a hypothetical question.
You can tell the guy that he's presenting a false dilemma, and present your case... but do you SERIOUSLY not understand what he would mean in context?
Like, would you be honestly stumped on whether or not the girl was what he was looking for?
Or would you be able to tell from context?

[Axelmania]

Here, you're going narrow as a default, regarding narrow standards of combat training to be regarded as overall combat training.

I think you have it mixed up. High standards are exclusive, which narrows the amount of qualifiers. Narrow standards isn't the same as low standards. Low standards are wide standards because they let more people through.

Like, would you be honestly stumped on whether or not the girl was what he was looking for?
Or would you be able to tell from context?

A girl who actually had WP Nunchaku should be able to competently use it to hurt people.

Part of the problem is that damage relies mostly on PS instead, even though some WP occasionally give a damage bonus, even though effective striking would influence damage a lot more.