Quick note on Mages and Armor

[Mack]

Was pursuing RUE p188 and looking at the Body Armor penalties for mages. I know it's been previously discussed (by Killer Cyborg in particular) that the penalties are really inconsequential, but I thought I'd take a moment and apply a bit of math to them.

Over the long run, if a mage wears full suit of armor here's what he/she can expect to happen:
- All spells costs 120% of normal PPE.
- Damage will be 95% of normal.
- Range will be 91% of normal.
- Duration will be 91% of normal.

Of course, this is just straight math and doesn't include those times when the random penalty doesn't apply to a particular spell (such as the duration of a Fire Ball).

The first one (120% PPE) is the most significant, particularly if the mage is using higher level spells (which have higher PPE costs). In combat this may not be an issue as mages will tend towards single-action spells (levels 1-5) which have lower PPE costs. Out of combat, a mage should be able to take a few moments to remove enough armor and avoid the penalty.

The other three penalties don't seem all that significant, just from a numbers perspective. However, that ignores the descriptive text that says most mages are not physically conditioned to wear medium or heavy armor. I imagine most players will assume that their characters are one of the few that are properly conditioned.

Anyway, the straight math confirms what we've said before: the penalties really aren't all that bad.

[Tor]

Range is already pretty pathetic for a lot of spells so that reduction does kinda suck, particularly if you're on the defensive and at the mercy of someone far away, especially if it were to slow down your movement speed to close the distance. Less of a problem if you're a mage laying an ambush, since mages who lay ambushes can prep magical armor to substitute for a lack of it worn.

One upside worth mentioning for mages who opt to wear metal: protection from microwave guns, which can pass through forcefields and non-metal armor.

[Killer Cyborg]

Thanks for doing the math!

[Shark_Force]

Range is already pretty pathetic for a lot of spells so that reduction does kinda suck, particularly if you're on the defensive and at the mercy of someone far away, especially if it were to slow down your movement speed to close the distance. Less of a problem if you're a mage laying an ambush, since mages who lay ambushes can prep magical armor to substitute for a lack of it worn.

One upside worth mentioning for mages who opt to wear metal: protection from microwave guns, which can pass through forcefields and non-metal armor.

if you're at the mercy of someone far away, that's only because you forgot to cast the spell "i also own a laser rifle and am proficient with it" in advance. possibly at the same time as having forgotten to cast the spell "i also have friends who own and are proficient with a variety of weapons and other problem-solving implements".

[flatline]

Microwave guns? What book has those?

[eliakon]

Microwave guns? What book has those?

Aliens Unlimited

[Tor]

I saw them on HU2p98 and was all "through force fields? I will conquer the Three Galaxies!" until I realized that most 3G ships probably had metal hulls and even if they didn't, the short range probably meant you could avoid it by traveling further into the ship.

Really an awesome dangerous weapon if you're going to Rifts Earth and shooting guys in Plastic-Man armor wearing Naruni Force Fields or something though. It's like a phase weapon only better because force fields stop those.

Was not aware they were also in AU but the Revised edition describes them on pages 185/186. I don't see an explicit mention of "penetrates/bypasses force fields" here as in HU2 but that could be assumed as an extension of "through most anything not metallic" I guess. That 'most' could throw people for a loop though. Like what non-metallic things could stop a microwave gun?

The range for the AU versions of Microwave guns are better than HU2 (pistol goes over 6x as far, rifle 10% further) but same payload and damage. Nice that it assigns stuff like weight, length and credit cost. Would love to find other microwave weapons besides these two.

[ShadowLogan]

Microwave guns? What book has those?

The only Microwave weapon in Rifts that I know about is on the G-40 Superbot in SB3 Mindwerks. A potentially nastly weapon, since it does damage to the armor, but can also penetrate the armor depending on the materials to harm the person inside.

It is easier to find Sonic weapons in Rifts than Microwave.

[Pepsi Jedi]

Range is already pretty pathetic for a lot of spells so that reduction does kinda suck, particularly if you're on the defensive and at the mercy of someone far away, especially if it were to slow down your movement speed to close the distance. Less of a problem if you're a mage laying an ambush, since mages who lay ambushes can prep magical armor to substitute for a lack of it worn.

One upside worth mentioning for mages who opt to wear metal: protection from microwave guns, which can pass through forcefields and non-metal armor.

if you're at the mercy of someone far away, that's only because you forgot to cast the spell "i also own a laser rifle and am proficient with it" in advance. possibly at the same time as having forgotten to cast the spell "i also have friends who own and are proficient with a variety of weapons and other problem-solving implements".

No. Not really. You're still at the mercy, by and large mages are not intensely trained combat wombats that also just happen to have spells to cast. They aren't going to be as good in a gun fight as the men at arms and are unlikely to be as heavily equipped or have the range of options open to them.

Yes. I know that some people ignore the write up's for mages that say they will not typically USE those laser rifles, that they see them as clunky and below them, and that they rely on their magic as they've dedicated their life to learning said magic. Some people ignore that and play them as commandos+ spells.

While not 'cheating' it -is- ignoring the aspects of the game as written. It's not 'uncommon'. Alot of people ignore things like that.

As pointed out, A Mage's range is a huge penalty to the spells. A grunt with a Rifle vs a mage with out one, starting at Maximum range (As the grunt would 'try' to do) Would school most mages and easily.

Another thing ignored is that a mage has to stop doing everything to cast. If memory serves they can't just fire off a spell. run, blow something up with their rifle, fire off another spell run and dive for cover, etc. They have to stop doing -everything- and concentrate on doing the spell. If you're engaged in combat or even taking fire, you have to stop for an action or two to catch your breath and center yourself before you can try and cast another spell. As that's going on, an enemy is going to try and keep blasting at you, thus keeping you 'in combat' and preventing you from getting that action or two to catch your breath to cast your spell.

Tacking on reduced range and increased cost does hurt the mage. --IF THE GM ENFORCES IT--. It's dependent on the GM forcing the purposefully built in limits and penalties for the usage of the armor. And yes, assumes that the GM is making the mage tire out quicker as he's someone used to wearing a robe (Or teeshirt and jeans or what ever) Running around in full armor.

Short version, for those that don't want to read it all: "They -are- penalty if the GM enforces them and also enforces the flavor of the game vs people that just ignore it, and if the GM pays attention to other factors that would limit the usage"

[Killer Cyborg]

Yes. I know that some people ignore the write up's for mages that say they will not typically USE those laser rifles, that they see them as clunky and below them, and that they rely on their magic as they've dedicated their life to learning said magic.

Not sure what part of the write-up you're talking about.
Care to quote some passages?
Since all mages tend to start with rifles in their equipment, I'd say they're not TOO scornful of them.

Another thing ignored is that a mage has to stop doing everything to cast. If memory serves they can't just fire off a spell. run, blow something up with their rifle, fire off another spell run and dive for cover, etc. They have to stop doing -everything- and concentrate on doing the spell. If you're engaged in combat or even taking fire, you have to stop for an action or two to catch your breath and center yourself before you can try and cast another spell. As that's going on, an enemy is going to try and keep blasting at you, thus keeping you 'in combat' and preventing you from getting that action or two to catch your breath to cast your spell.

Sounds like a good reason to use that rifle instead of casting spells.

Tacking on reduced range and increased cost does hurt the mage. --IF THE GM ENFORCES IT--.

Not significantly, no.
Most of the time, the only penalty is a higher PPE cost, and in the long run the differences are what Mack said, which isn't very significant.

[Bill]

Yes. I know that some people ignore the write up's for mages that say they will not typically USE those laser rifles, that they see them as clunky and below them, and that they rely on their magic as they've dedicated their life to learning said magic.

Not sure what part of the write-up you're talking about.
Care to quote some passages?
Since all mages tend to start with rifles in their equipment, I'd say they're not TOO scornful of them.

It's not difficult to find one.

The worst part is, many times this [using a gun over a spell] may actually make the most sense, but it detracts from the whole character of a mage. Sure they can use technology, and they will, but they know magic is superior (or at least they think so), so they will have a very strong tendency to prefer using it over feeble technology

I don't think a mage is necessarily above using a pistol when the situation calls for one, but I always prefer to play them as characters looking for other options. The penalties for wearing armor are not onerous, but I think they're only meant to be a reminder that this is not the direction that the character is intended to go. Rifts is less about niche protection than many other games and I think it's much more common to encounter a specific statement that something is forbidden than a penalty that makes doing something extraordinarily difficult or even improbable.

[flatline]

Why would a mage in armor tire faster than anyone else in armor?

My mages wear armor specifically so that they don't look like mages.

[eliakon]

Range is already pretty pathetic for a lot of spells so that reduction does kinda suck, particularly if you're on the defensive and at the mercy of someone far away, especially if it were to slow down your movement speed to close the distance. Less of a problem if you're a mage laying an ambush, since mages who lay ambushes can prep magical armor to substitute for a lack of it worn.

One upside worth mentioning for mages who opt to wear metal: protection from microwave guns, which can pass through forcefields and non-metal armor.

if you're at the mercy of someone far away, that's only because you forgot to cast the spell "i also own a laser rifle and am proficient with it" in advance. possibly at the same time as having forgotten to cast the spell "i also have friends who own and are proficient with a variety of weapons and other problem-solving implements".

No. Not really. You're still at the mercy, by and large mages are not intensely trained combat wombats that also just happen to have spells to cast. They aren't going to be as good in a gun fight as the men at arms and are unlikely to be as heavily equipped or have the range of options open to them.

Unless that "man at arms" took Sharpshooter, Trick Shooting, or leveled up his WP above his own level then yes, they WILL be just as good....
W.P. Energy Rifle at Level X provides the same bonus regardless of if your a mage, a psychic, a vagabond, a soldier, or any other class.
There are a very small number of highly skilled specialists that get an additional strike bonus with high-tech weapons. But that is the exception not the rule.

Yes. I know that some people ignore the write up's for mages that say they will not typically USE those laser rifles, that they see them as clunky and below them, and that they rely on their magic as they've dedicated their life to learning said magic. Some people ignore that and play them as commandos+ spells.

Can you provide the page and book number that says this please? The exact quote that they will not use weapons (please recall that TW energy rifles have just as much range too, and now come in e-clip flavors....)
I am especially curious as to when the OCC write-ups were changed, as my copy of rue says
"Ley Line Walkers are inquisitive and open to new ideas, people, and philosophes. Many are literate, study areas of science, and have no aversion to using high-tech weapons, vehicles, and equipment. Lightweight weapons and armor are generally preferred because they are less cumbersome and do not interfere with the flow of magic energy (Full body armor and bionics block and disrupt magic)
-RUE Page 113 Left Colum, third paragraph.

This is good because their basic starting gear includes
-light MDC body armor
-automatic pistol or submachine gun (players choice)
-Energy pistol or rifle
and goes on to note that their vehicle of choice is usually either a TW device or a hover vehicle, or motorcycle, or jet pack (so 3/4 of the preferred vehicles are high tech)

While not 'cheating' it -is- ignoring the aspects of the game as written. It's not 'uncommon'. Alot of people ignore things like that.

Correct mages shunning technology is not a part of the game as written (some specific classes of mages do....but explicitly not all of them)

As pointed out, A Mage's range is a huge penalty to the spells. A grunt with a Rifle vs a mage with out one, starting at Maximum range (As the grunt would 'try' to do) Would school most mages and easily.

Which is why the mage casts an armor spell and then shoots back with their starting rifle. Since they both have W.P. Energy Rifle at level 1 they would both have the exact same chances to hit (unless of course the mage has access to any of the numerous spells that allow increasing that, or adding attacks per melee, or armor, or turns invisible, or....)
Now yes, if the mage is an absolute idiot and tries to walk up so that they can use their spells as direct damage to win then sure they will die. But mages are not sledgehammers. That is what you have those tech weapons for.

Another thing ignored is that a mage has to stop doing everything to cast. If memory serves they can't just fire off a spell. run, blow something up with their rifle, fire off another spell run and dive for cover, etc. They have to stop doing -everything- and concentrate on doing the spell. If you're engaged in combat or even taking fire, you have to stop for an action or two to catch your breath and center yourself before you can try and cast another spell. As that's going on, an enemy is going to try and keep blasting at you, thus keeping you 'in combat' and preventing you from getting that action or two to catch your breath to cast your spell.

Um no.
Not unless you have a house rule going on.
By the rules a spell level 1-5 simply takes a single action to cast. A spell of level 6-10 takes two actions (like a power blow) and a spell 11+ takes 3 actions.
There is nothing in the books that says anything about stopping for actions to catch your breath and center your self, any more than yo have to stop and center your self to draw a gun and start shooting.

Tacking on reduced range and increased cost does hurt the mage. --IF THE GM ENFORCES IT--. It's dependent on the GM forcing the purposefully built in limits and penalties for the usage of the armor. And yes, assumes that the GM is making the mage tire out quicker as he's someone used to wearing a robe (Or teeshirt and jeans or what ever) Running around in full armor.

Except that the book explicitly says that they start with, and wear armor. They are even described as wearing armor as part of those 'robes' This is not AD&D where mages can not wear anything. They don't have to 'run around in a teeshirt and jeans' they can wear what ever they like...just like every other person in the game can. However if they choose to wear armor they will have a minor penalty to their range, ppe, and/or damage tacked on.
Of course a GM is free to invent a house rule that says that only Men-At-Arms/Soldiers are allowed to wear armor and everyone else isn't allowed to.....but that's going to pretty quickly solve the issue of 'what to play' (hint, no scholar/adventurers that would just be silly)

Short version, for those that don't want to read it all: "They -are- penalty if the GM enforces them and also enforces the flavor of the game vs people that just ignore it, and if the GM pays attention to other factors that would limit the usage"

Yes they are a (trivial) penalty to a mage. Which should be considered in there proper light and not seen as some sort of massive drain that makes spell casting unviable (which is a common misperception)

[eliakon]

Yes. I know that some people ignore the write up's for mages that say they will not typically USE those laser rifles, that they see them as clunky and below them, and that they rely on their magic as they've dedicated their life to learning said magic.

Not sure what part of the write-up you're talking about.
Care to quote some passages?
Since all mages tend to start with rifles in their equipment, I'd say they're not TOO scornful of them.

It's not difficult to find one.

The worst part is, many times this [using a gun over a spell] may actually make the most sense, but it detracts from the whole character of a mage. Sure they can use technology, and they will, but they know magic is superior (or at least they think so), so they will have a very strong tendency to prefer using it over feeble technology

"Ley Line Walkers are inquisitive and open to new ideas, people, and philosophes. Many are literate, study areas of science, and have no aversion to using high-tech weapons, vehicles, and equipment. Lightweight weapons and armor are generally preferred because they are less cumbersome and do not interfere with the flow of magic energy (Full body armor and bionics block and disrupt magic)
-RUE Page 113 Left Colum, third paragraph.

I am going to say that the later book, which is the actual class description for the LLW probably trumps a generic discussion about how mages prefer magic over technology.
Especially since the question is not do they PREFER magic, but will they NOT USE tech.
I can prefer to use magic for things. But if I don't have magic for the job then I am going to have to use the right tool for the job. And sometimes (sadly) that tool is one of those technological devices. Sigh. At least it doesn't use up my energy, so I can kill this guy and move on to the important stuff, like deciphering these glyphs.

[Killer Cyborg]

Yes. I know that some people ignore the write up's for mages that say they will not typically USE those laser rifles, that they see them as clunky and below them, and that they rely on their magic as they've dedicated their life to learning said magic.

Not sure what part of the write-up you're talking about.
Care to quote some passages?
Since all mages tend to start with rifles in their equipment, I'd say they're not TOO scornful of them.

It's not difficult to find one.

The worst part is, many times this [using a gun over a spell] may actually make the most sense, but it detracts from the whole character of a mage. Sure they can use technology, and they will, but they know magic is superior (or at least they think so), so they will have a very strong tendency to prefer using it over feeble technology

I don't think a mage is necessarily above using a pistol when the situation calls for one, but I always prefer to play them as characters looking for other options.

Yeah, I've read that Rifter opinion piece by Hugh King.
I've also read Kevin's notes on the piece, like this one (also from p. 10):
Mages are for characters who see the beauty and possibilities of magic. Who intend to use magic for more than blasting their way out of trouble.
Which is how I play mages--they're guys who know the proper tool for the job. Most of the time, blasting their way out of trouble is rifle work.
Magic is for doing more than just brute violence.

I've also read KS's note on p.11:
Not that there is anything wrong with playing an aggressive, gone-toting, combat-oriented mage.

And I've read the part of King's essay that states:
...their gun should be there as something of a last resort. Sort of like, "Well if I absolutely must fight directly..." (reluctantly pulls out a gun and starts shooting). This may or may not happen with a lot of players playing spell casters, but it should!
Notice that the "last resort" scenario posed for mages isn't a situation where they're out of PPE.
It's not a situation where the enemy is out of range of their spells.
It's a situation where the mage needs to fight directly. That's it. That's all that King was talking about--mages should prefer to think and to use magic to get around actual combat, not that mages should as a rule prefer to waste their PPE on something as vulgar as direct violence.

As KS states on p. 18, ...unlike the CS who completely rejects magic in all its forms, few practitioners of magic dismiss technology out of hand. While it is true most rely heavily on their magic powers and natural abilities, many human and D-Bee sorcerers also use technology. Energy weapons, vibro-blades...are commonly part of the magic characters' gear and equipment and The exception to the welcomed use of technology comes from supernatural beings (demons and gods) and creatures of magic.

Mages as a rule rely on their magic... but that doesn't mean that they don't also rely on technology. In fact, as a rule, they "welcome it."
Which is probably why so many mage OCCs (all of them?) start off with tech weapons, because when it comes down to something as inelegant as blasting energy at somebody, you might as well use a rifle, and save your PPE for important stuff.

Anyway, I've read all of it.
I was just curious which parts Pepsi specifically thought meant "mages will not typically USE laser rifles; they see them as clunky."
Because as much as I've read, I don't recall seeing anything that really translates into that.

The penalties for wearing armor are not onerous, but I think they're only meant to be a reminder that this is not the direction that the character is intended to go. Rifts is less about niche protection than many other games and I think it's much more common to encounter a specific statement that something is forbidden than a penalty that makes doing something extraordinarily difficult or even improbable.

The penalties are not onerous to the character... but they ARE onerous to the player, because of the randomness of the penalties. Every time a heavy-armor-wearing mage casts a spell, the player has to do extra math, and roll extra dice.
I agree that it's just there as a "reminder," but it's a reminder of something that wasn't present anywhere in the RMB or the early game.
It's also a reminder that was clumsily introduced, clumsily revised, clumsily re-revised, and that ultimately serves to make mages less interesting, more of a stereotype than an archetype.

[Shark_Force]

there are some mages that don't start with tech gear. not many. but some.

for example, i'm pretty sure the biomancer doesn't (unless you go with the definition of technology being the use of tools, in which case they definitely start off with tools... just magical ones is all).

there's probably some more primitive spellcasters somewhere that don't start with tech as well (again, assuming we're referring to advanced electronic devices rather than an inclined plane that they use to move heavy stuff to higher places).

[eliakon]

there are some mages that don't start with tech gear. not many. but some.

for example, i'm pretty sure the biomancer doesn't (unless you go with the definition of technology being the use of tools, in which case they definitely start off with tools... just magical ones is all).

there's probably some more primitive spellcasters somewhere that don't start with tech as well (again, assuming we're referring to advanced electronic devices rather than an inclined plane that they use to move heavy stuff to higher places).

Correct a few specialized forms of mages that by nature of their special class explicitly shun technology don't get it.
Just like certain kinds of humans based on their class or upbringing (Pure One Native Americans for instance) do not get or use tech....this does not mean that humans do not get tech and I doubt that anyone would be willing to believe that it was in anyway ever meant to imply that they don't.

Most magic users do not have a problem with technology, there are some that do, but they are a minority. Just as there is a minority of humans that do not use technology, and there are a minority of D-bees that do not use technology.

[glitterboy2098]

magic users and technology is like jedi and blasters. Obiwan kenobi may have thought blasters "clumsy and random" and "uncivilized" compared to lightsabers and the force.. but had no hesitation to grab a blaster and shoot people when that was the option that would work, like against General Grievous.

[SittingBull]

Magic users BELIEVE in magic. This is how they can cast their spells. Believing in magic, at least to me, means using it for offense, defense, as tools when possible, etc. They wear light armor, in Rifts, only because the speed of casting magic would get you killed most times without that light armor. Now heavier armors not being comfortable, some of us might ignore, but I know when I am not comfortable, I am not happy, and I will do my best to get back to comfortable as quickly as possible. If Rifts were an SDC setting, then mages (as they are written by the writers) would most likely not wear armor; unless they would be expecting to encounter a hostile glitterboy or something along those lines.

[Nightmask]

Magic users BELIEVE in magic. This is how they can cast their spells. Believing in magic, at least to me, means using it for offense, defense, as tools when possible, etc. They wear light armor, in Rifts, only because the speed of casting magic would get you killed most times without that light armor. Now heavier armors not being comfortable, some of us might ignore, but I know when I am not comfortable, I am not happy, and I will do my best to get back to comfortable as quickly as possible. If Rifts were an SDC setting, then mages (as they are written by the writers) would most likely not wear armor; unless they would be expecting to encounter a hostile glitterboy or something along those lines.

BELIEVING in magic and thinking one should use it in every situation aren't the same thing, or that somehow you're being 'disloyal' unless you insist on using magic even when a non-magical solution or item would be more appropriate.

[Killer Cyborg]

Magic users BELIEVE in magic. This is how they can cast their spells. Believing in magic, at least to me, means using it for offense, defense, as tools when possible, etc. They wear light armor, in Rifts, only because the speed of casting magic would get you killed most times without that light armor. Now heavier armors not being comfortable, some of us might ignore, but I know when I am not comfortable, I am not happy, and I will do my best to get back to comfortable as quickly as possible. If Rifts were an SDC setting, then mages (as they are written by the writers) would most likely not wear armor; unless they would be expecting to encounter a hostile glitterboy or something along those lines.

BELIEVING in magic and thinking one should use it in every situation aren't the same thing, or that somehow you're being 'disloyal' unless you insist on using magic even when a non-magical solution or item would be more appropriate.

Exactly.

Indiana Jones believed in archaeology, but that didn't mean that he tried to use archaeology to solve every problem in his life.
He didn't face off against the Nazis with a book in one hand and digging tools in the other.

[Pepsi Jedi]

Why would a mage in armor tire faster than anyone else in armor?

My mages wear armor specifically so that they don't look like mages.

Wow. Really? Have you ever played football Flatline? Or done anything that requires the wearing of something beyond jeans and a teeshirt, or even a business suit? Anything that requries heavy gear, that restricts movement? I'm honestly asking, not trying to be insulting. Your post sort of hints that you haven't. Even just wearing the pads and uniform in football, the first thing you do when the game is over is peel that stuff off ASAP. I mean you fling it off. And that's just a few light plastic pads, some foam and an open faced helmet.

Putting on, wearing and hauling around extra gear, tires you out. And this is before you even get to full environmental armor strapped to every inch of your body and weighing you down, restricting movement etc. If you're not trained/used to it, it tires you out quick. Even if you -are- trained an used to it, it's not something you do unless you have to.

This sort of mentality is -exactly- what I'm talking about where people don't factor that sort of thing in when they want to play their commando mages. They're not trained and or used to wearing heavy armor. It's uncomfortable for those that are trained and use it all the time. It's going to be nigh on unbearable for those that aren't/don't. When you're used to unrestricted (For lack of better term) "Street clothes" and you don a suit of full EBA it's going to be horribly restrictive and uncomfortable. You're going to be clumbsy, bouncing off of things, knocking things over, unable to reach things you thought you could reach because the armor will bind on itself and catch. You can't just reach across to your oppisite hip because the plates restrict movement in different ways. Wayst hat only can be midigated or overcome with lots of usage and practice. When you wear the armor for days and weeks on end (Not constant, but often) You learn how you 'can' move. you learn the 'tricks' of the movement. you learn go gage how 'big' you are now with the armor shell around you. You learn how to bend and run (Not anywhere near as natural as you might think) with out pinching yourself in the armor (Perhaps damaging yourself, sometimes seriously) You learn to be able to kneel (NOT instinctive) and how to be able to get back up once you have. lol.

Wearing armor is more than 'I have it on my sheet'. If you give thought to it it's a tough ability that takes a number of skills rolled into one that takes time to master. Time that Mages, haven't put in, because as per the write up and rules.. they don't 'do' that.

[Pepsi Jedi]

Yes. I know that some people ignore the write up's for mages that say they will not typically USE those laser rifles, that they see them as clunky and below them, and that they rely on their magic as they've dedicated their life to learning said magic.

Not sure what part of the write-up you're talking about.
Care to quote some passages?
Since all mages tend to start with rifles in their equipment, I'd say they're not TOO scornful of them.

It's not difficult to find one.

The worst part is, many times this [using a gun over a spell] may actually make the most sense, but it detracts from the whole character of a mage. Sure they can use technology, and they will, but they know magic is superior (or at least they think so), so they will have a very strong tendency to prefer using it over feeble technology

I don't think a mage is necessarily above using a pistol when the situation calls for one, but I always prefer to play them as characters looking for other options. The penalties for wearing armor are not onerous, but I think they're only meant to be a reminder that this is not the direction that the character is intended to go. Rifts is less about niche protection than many other games and I think it's much more common to encounter a specific statement that something is forbidden than a penalty that makes doing something extraordinarily difficult or even improbable.

Thank you Bill. Saves me the effort of looking it up.

The section actually goes into more detail if memory serves than just the one or two sentences. It's a page or two on the mindset and mentality of mages and why they 'are' mages and such. Boils down to "You don't spend a decade or two of your life learning to wield the magnificent powers of magic and bending the universe to your will, to act like a common thug with a pistol, you use that magic you've spent decades honing and exault in being superior"

Sort of like Jedi CAN use a pistol but usually use their light sabers unless sourly pressed.

It boils down to "If you want to play a mage, play a MAGE. Don't play a commando with a list of spells on the end as well. If you wanna play a commando play a commando"

[Pepsi Jedi]

Yes. I know that some people ignore the write up's for mages that say they will not typically USE those laser rifles, that they see them as clunky and below them, and that they rely on their magic as they've dedicated their life to learning said magic.

Not sure what part of the write-up you're talking about.
Care to quote some passages?
Since all mages tend to start with rifles in their equipment, I'd say they're not TOO scornful of them.

It's not difficult to find one.

The worst part is, many times this [using a gun over a spell] may actually make the most sense, but it detracts from the whole character of a mage. Sure they can use technology, and they will, but they know magic is superior (or at least they think so), so they will have a very strong tendency to prefer using it over feeble technology

"Ley Line Walkers are inquisitive and open to new ideas, people, and philosophes. Many are literate, study areas of science, and have no aversion to using high-tech weapons, vehicles, and equipment. Lightweight weapons and armor are generally preferred because they are less cumbersome and do not interfere with the flow of magic energy (Full body armor and bionics block and disrupt magic)
-RUE Page 113 Left Colum, third paragraph.

I am going to say that the later book, which is the actual class description for the LLW probably trumps a generic discussion about how mages prefer magic over technology.
Especially since the question is not do they PREFER magic, but will they NOT USE tech.
I can prefer to use magic for things. But if I don't have magic for the job then I am going to have to use the right tool for the job. And sometimes (sadly) that tool is one of those technological devices. Sigh. At least it doesn't use up my energy, so I can kill this guy and move on to the important stuff, like deciphering these glyphs.

So you ask for a passage, you're handed the exact passage that 100% backs up my statement and you choose to ignore it. In the section overall about mages. About Magic and those that use it and their out look, which 100% backs up my statements. I'm not really sure what to tell ya. Its in the books. There's a large section on magic and those that use it, and their preferences and that they do indeed act as I've indicated. If you choose to ignore the setting that's fine, but that's an aspect of the game you're choosing to ignore. Which is fine, but don't act like others are crazy, when they point out that you are, in fact ignoring the setting of the game.

It's just not what mages "do". They 'can' if absolutely no other option exists. They're not 100% locked in. Those that play mages as heavy armor wearing, commandos +spells, are going against the intent of the class, and setting of the game.

It's not unique. You see it in every game. Someone just looks at the stats and numbers and ignores any discription/flavor/fluff text that they don't like. But it is a thing.

EDIT:

There's actually ALOT more in the book covering this aspect. lol

Book of Magic. Page 10

Category:

MAGES SHOULD USE MAGIC --DUH! (( Words straight from the book)
"One of the things that bugs me about Rifts mages is that it seems alot of the time, maybe even the majority, mages who are off adventuring are better off relying on technology than their magic, or there doesn't seem to be much reason to use magic. "Hm, I can Fire Bolt that guy eight times completely depleting my PPE or I can shoot him with my gun and only use my ammunition, Both do the same damage and the gun can shoot twice as far (or more likely lots more than that) Guess I'll use my gun" The worst part is, many times this may actually make the most sense, but it detracts from the whole character of a mage. Sure they can use technology, and they will, but they know magic is surperior (or at least they think they do) so they will have a very strong tendancy to use magic over Feeble technology. (( the book's inflection))

It's addressed 100% directly in the book. Literally, if you open it up the book addresses the 'Mage with a gun' aspect 100% head on.

It goes on for paragraphs about this, and then has a direct note from Kevin himself, IN THE BOOK. Saying it's Hugh's Exactly right. That if the player isl ooking for a shooter and combat character that a mage is not for him.

This goes on to the next page with large headers like "MAGES ARE CONVINCED MAGIC IS SURPERIOR. REMEMBER IT!" and "EVERYONE PREFERS WHAT THEY'RE BEST AT"


I'm not trying to nitpick but the point is addressed by the writer of the book of magic and the game creator himself in direct, on point terms and explanations, should one care to look.

It says that yes, sometimes using a gun is easier and might make more sense, but mages are still going to use their spells anyway. Because they're MAGES, not combat oocs.

[dragonfett]

Why would a mage in armor tire faster than anyone else in armor?

My mages wear armor specifically so that they don't look like mages.

Wow. Really? Have you ever played football Flatline? Or done anything that requires the wearing of something beyond jeans and a teeshirt, or even a business suit? Anything that requries heavy gear, that restricts movement? I'm honestly asking, not trying to be insulting. Your post sort of hints that you haven't. Even just wearing the pads and uniform in football, the first thing you do when the game is over is peel that stuff off ASAP. I mean you fling it off. And that's just a few light plastic pads, some foam and an open faced helmet.

Putting on, wearing and hauling around extra gear, tires you out. And this is before you even get to full environmental armor strapped to every inch of your body and weighing you down, restricting movement etc. If you're not trained/used to it, it tires you out quick. Even if you -are- trained an used to it, it's not something you do unless you have to.

This sort of mentality is -exactly- what I'm talking about where people don't factor that sort of thing in when they want to play their commando mages. They're not trained and or used to wearing heavy armor. It's uncomfortable for those that are trained and use it all the time. It's going to be nigh on unbearable for those that aren't/don't. When you're used to unrestricted (For lack of better term) "Street clothes" and you don a suit of full EBA it's going to be horribly restrictive and uncomfortable. You're going to be clumbsy, bouncing off of things, knocking things over, unable to reach things you thought you could reach because the armor will bind on itself and catch. You can't just reach across to your oppisite hip because the plates restrict movement in different ways. Wayst hat only can be midigated or overcome with lots of usage and practice. When you wear the armor for days and weeks on end (Not constant, but often) You learn how you 'can' move. you learn the 'tricks' of the movement. you learn go gage how 'big' you are now with the armor shell around you. You learn how to bend and run (Not anywhere near as natural as you might think) with out pinching yourself in the armor (Perhaps damaging yourself, sometimes seriously) You learn to be able to kneel (NOT instinctive) and how to be able to get back up once you have. lol.

Wearing armor is more than 'I have it on my sheet'. If you give thought to it it's a tough ability that takes a number of skills rolled into one that takes time to master. Time that Mages, haven't put in, because as per the write up and rules.. they don't 'do' that.

There honestly should have been some armor skills in either the Military or Physical (or both) categories. On top of being conditioned to effectively wear the armor, it should also allow the person to perform minor maintenance on it.

Of course if Palladium had done this, that would have meant that they would have officially categorized armors (light, medium, heavy, exo-skeleton).

You know what, I am going to make a set of new house-ruled skills. This is what I have thought of just now:

Armor Proficiency: Light/Medium/Heavy/Exo-Skeleton
Penalties for wearing armor the character is not proficient in is double physical skill penalties (prowl, climb, etc.), -1 attack per melee, -5 to strike (ranged and melee), reduce speed by 25%, and fatigue at a much faster rate (I would have to figure out first what the normal fatigue rate is before I decided on how fast that would be). Also mages need to be trained in any armor to avoid the spell casting penalties.

Base skill to repair 1d6+1/lvl points of armor would be 35% + 5%/lvl.

Also, from what I remember about Jedi is that they only use the Force when they have to as over reliance on it is believed to be part of the path to the Dark Side...

[Pepsi Jedi]

Range is already pretty pathetic for a lot of spells so that reduction does kinda suck, particularly if you're on the defensive and at the mercy of someone far away, especially if it were to slow down your movement speed to close the distance. Less of a problem if you're a mage laying an ambush, since mages who lay ambushes can prep magical armor to substitute for a lack of it worn.

One upside worth mentioning for mages who opt to wear metal: protection from microwave guns, which can pass through forcefields and non-metal armor.

if you're at the mercy of someone far away, that's only because you forgot to cast the spell "i also own a laser rifle and am proficient with it" in advance. possibly at the same time as having forgotten to cast the spell "i also have friends who own and are proficient with a variety of weapons and other problem-solving implements".

No. Not really. You're still at the mercy, by and large mages are not intensely trained combat wombats that also just happen to have spells to cast. They aren't going to be as good in a gun fight as the men at arms and are unlikely to be as heavily equipped or have the range of options open to them.

Unless that "man at arms" took Sharpshooter, Trick Shooting, or leveled up his WP above his own level then yes, they WILL be just as good....
W.P. Energy Rifle at Level X provides the same bonus regardless of if your a mage, a psychic, a vagabond, a soldier, or any other class.
There are a very small number of highly skilled specialists that get an additional strike bonus with high-tech weapons. But that is the exception not the rule.

But you're ignoring the flavor and setting and only looking at the mechanics.

Yes. I know that some people ignore the write up's for mages that say they will not typically USE those laser rifles, that they see them as clunky and below them, and that they rely on their magic as they've dedicated their life to learning said magic. Some people ignore that and play them as commandos+ spells.

Can you provide the page and book number that says this please? The exact quote that they will not use weapons (please recall that TW energy rifles have just as much range too, and now come in e-clip flavors....)
I am especially curious as to when the OCC write-ups were changed, as my copy of rue says
"Ley Line Walkers are inquisitive and open to new ideas, people, and philosophes. Many are literate, study areas of science, and have no aversion to using high-tech weapons, vehicles, and equipment. Lightweight weapons and armor are generally preferred because they are less cumbersome and do not interfere with the flow of magic energy (Full body armor and bionics block and disrupt magic)
-RUE Page 113 Left Colum, third paragraph.

Cited in my posts replying to others, please see my above replies.

This is good because their basic starting gear includes
-light MDC body armor
-automatic pistol or submachine gun (players choice)
-Energy pistol or rifle
and goes on to note that their vehicle of choice is usually either a TW device or a hover vehicle, or motorcycle, or jet pack (so 3/4 of the preferred vehicles are high tech)

I'm aware of the starting gear. It's not that mages won't use technology at all. It's that they're mages and will use magic if at all possible before falling back on using a gun in a fight or the like. yeah sure they get around in a hovor bike or what ever, but that wasn't the point. The point was that people ignore the setting of the game and how mages are presented. I.E. they don't wear armor because it messes up their magic and as magic users that's horrible for them. That they DO use spells overguns if they can, because... they're a mage. Even if you look at numbers alone the gun wins out.

While not 'cheating' it -is- ignoring the aspects of the game as written. It's not 'uncommon'. Alot of people ignore things like that.

Correct mages shunning technology is not a part of the game as written (some specific classes of mages do....but explicitly not all of them)

As pointed out, A Mage's range is a huge penalty to the spells. A grunt with a Rifle vs a mage with out one, starting at Maximum range (As the grunt would 'try' to do) Would school most mages and easily.

Which is why the mage casts an armor spell and then shoots back with their starting rifle.

If you read above, I'd stated "A grunt with a rifle vs a mage with out one....

Since they both have W.P. Energy Rifle at level 1 they would both have the exact same chances to hit (unless of course the mage has access to any of the numerous spells that allow increasing that, or adding attacks per melee, or armor, or turns invisible, or....)
Now yes, if the mage is an absolute idiot and tries to walk up so that they can use their spells as direct damage to win then sure they will die. But mages are not sledgehammers. That is what you have those tech weapons for.

Well part of the point is that mages, by aspects of being mages, WILL Choose to use magic over technology most of the time. It's part of being a mage.

Another thing ignored is that a mage has to stop doing everything to cast. If memory serves they can't just fire off a spell. run, blow something up with their rifle, fire off another spell run and dive for cover, etc. They have to stop doing -everything- and concentrate on doing the spell. If you're engaged in combat or even taking fire, you have to stop for an action or two to catch your breath and center yourself before you can try and cast another spell. As that's going on, an enemy is going to try and keep blasting at you, thus keeping you 'in combat' and preventing you from getting that action or two to catch your breath to cast your spell.

Um no.
Not unless you have a house rule going on.
By the rules a spell level 1-5 simply takes a single action to cast. A spell of level 6-10 takes two actions (like a power blow) and a spell 11+ takes 3 actions.
There is nothing in the books that says anything about stopping for actions to catch your breath and center your self, any more than yo have to stop and center your self to draw a gun and start shooting.

Well. Actually there is.
If you look on page 189 of RUE, it goes into detail about "Vulnerable to pressed attack" Yes, low level spells can be fired off in a melee, but past lvl 5, I was correct. If it's not the low level spell,

"The act of parrying, dodging, or striking back will break the spell invocation, and prevent the mage from casting his spell ( He'll need a breather of 7-10 seconds to cast a higher level spell)"

7-10 seconds of a breather is 2+ Melee actions If you have any HTH you start with 4 melee actions in 15 seconds. 7 seconds would be half a melee, so a minimum of 2 actions to get your breath, if not more, before you can cast the spell) It goes on to state that something as 'simple' as getting punched in the head or stomach, or ANYTHING ELSE that breaks his concentration means he has to stop and start over again. It also says any time he's hit, that it needs to start over.

It continues onto page 190, saying that if a mage is under constant attack he can't fire off the higher lvl spells Even if the mage is parrying or what not, he can't fire off spells if he's being attacked.
"The same is true if the MAGE is attacking, or running, or performing any physical action."

To quote "To cast a spell the practicitoner of magic will need to stop, catch his breath (That should count as one or two of his melee actions/attacks) and then cast his spell (Another one or more of his melee actions depending on the spell level)

Now this part is important, as it points out that even those spells you can cast off as 1 melee action (Lvl 1-5) STILL need you to stop and catch your breath to cast.

Yes... even lvl 1-5 spells, need you to stop, use actions to catch your breaht, and THEN use actions to cast, if you're doing ANYTHING Physical. 1) Being hit. 2) parrying 3)Dodging, 4) Striking yourself (Hitting or shooting) 5) Running, 6) Performing any physical action. The inclusion of "Another ONE or more melee actions depending on the spell level) means that those little spells. lvl 1-5 are included in this 'Need to stop and catch your breath rule"

Sorry, the rule __IS__ in the books. It's plainly stated. Mages cannot enguage in combat AND fire off spells with out penalty.

They have to stop, breathe, THEN fire off the spell, and it STILL won't work if anyone is shooting at/striking the mage while he's trying.

The next paragraph starts with "That's just how magic works and a player has to be SMART about how he uses magic to take full advantage of it's strengths and avoid the pitfall of the weakness"

No house rule. Rules straight from the book that are OFTEN IGNORED, when people want Commandos+spells.

Short version, for those that don't want to read it all: "They -are- penalty if the GM enforces them and also enforces the flavor of the game vs people that just ignore it, and if the GM pays attention to other factors that would limit the usage"

Yes they are a (trivial) penalty to a mage. Which should be considered in there proper light and not seen as some sort of massive drain that makes spell casting unviable (which is a common misperception)

It's not trivial if the GM uses the rules in the book and enforces all the factors that stack to state in very clear terms and indications that mages are not commando's+spells. That they're quite different and have significant penalties should they try to be.

[Nekira Sudacne]

Why would a mage in armor tire faster than anyone else in armor?

My mages wear armor specifically so that they don't look like mages.

Wow. Really? Have you ever played football Flatline? Or done anything that requires the wearing of something beyond jeans and a teeshirt, or even a business suit? Anything that requries heavy gear, that restricts movement? I'm honestly asking, not trying to be insulting. Your post sort of hints that you haven't. Even just wearing the pads and uniform in football, the first thing you do when the game is over is peel that stuff off ASAP. I mean you fling it off. And that's just a few light plastic pads, some foam and an open faced helmet.

Putting on, wearing and hauling around extra gear, tires you out. And this is before you even get to full environmental armor strapped to every inch of your body and weighing you down, restricting movement etc. If you're not trained/used to it, it tires you out quick. Even if you -are- trained an used to it, it's not something you do unless you have to.

This sort of mentality is -exactly- what I'm talking about where people don't factor that sort of thing in when they want to play their commando mages. They're not trained and or used to wearing heavy armor. It's uncomfortable for those that are trained and use it all the time. It's going to be nigh on unbearable for those that aren't/don't. When you're used to unrestricted (For lack of better term) "Street clothes" and you don a suit of full EBA it's going to be horribly restrictive and uncomfortable. You're going to be clumbsy, bouncing off of things, knocking things over, unable to reach things you thought you could reach because the armor will bind on itself and catch. You can't just reach across to your oppisite hip because the plates restrict movement in different ways. Wayst hat only can be midigated or overcome with lots of usage and practice. When you wear the armor for days and weeks on end (Not constant, but often) You learn how you 'can' move. you learn the 'tricks' of the movement. you learn go gage how 'big' you are now with the armor shell around you. You learn how to bend and run (Not anywhere near as natural as you might think) with out pinching yourself in the armor (Perhaps damaging yourself, sometimes seriously) You learn to be able to kneel (NOT instinctive) and how to be able to get back up once you have. lol.

Wearing armor is more than 'I have it on my sheet'. If you give thought to it it's a tough ability that takes a number of skills rolled into one that takes time to master. Time that Mages, haven't put in, because as per the write up and rules.. they don't 'do' that.

What if your mage has supernatural strength and endurance?

[Pepsi Jedi]

magic users and technology is like jedi and blasters. Obiwan kenobi may have thought blasters "clumsy and random" and "uncivilized" compared to lightsabers and the force.. but had no hesitation to grab a blaster and shoot people when that was the option that would work, like against General Grievous.

Actually Obi Wan went to great lengths not to use a blaster and only DID use one in a case of last resort. Then threw it away in disgust. it's not like he was running around with an assault rifle for all the movies. He used his light saber 99% of the time nad the blaster.. once?

[Nekira Sudacne]

magic users and technology is like jedi and blasters. Obiwan kenobi may have thought blasters "clumsy and random" and "uncivilized" compared to lightsabers and the force.. but had no hesitation to grab a blaster and shoot people when that was the option that would work, like against General Grievous.

Actually Obi Wan went to great lengths not to use a blaster and only DID use one in a case of last resort. Then threw it away in disgust. it's not like he was running around with an assault rifle for all the movies. He used his light saber 99% of the time nad the blaster.. once?

To be fair, that's because the laws of movies dictate that most encounters were done at fairly close range where you could see both parties. it isn't like Rifts, where the average laser rifle has a range of 1600 feet and most firefights are decided before either side is more than a spec in the others advanced sighting systems.

I'm just saying, situations where mages /are/ forced to use guns instead of magic due to being laughably outranged is going to be fairly common, given magic's range limitations.

[dragonfett]

magic users and technology is like jedi and blasters. Obiwan kenobi may have thought blasters "clumsy and random" and "uncivilized" compared to lightsabers and the force.. but had no hesitation to grab a blaster and shoot people when that was the option that would work, like against General Grievous.

Actually Obi Wan went to great lengths not to use a blaster and only DID use one in a case of last resort. Then threw it away in disgust. it's not like he was running around with an assault rifle for all the movies. He used his light saber 99% of the time nad the blaster.. once?

To be fair, that's because the laws of movies dictate that most encounters were done at fairly close range where you could see both parties. it isn't like Rifts, where the average laser rifle has a range of 1600 feet and most firefights are decided before either side is more than a spec in the others advanced sighting systems.

I'm just saying, situations where mages /are/ forced to use guns instead of magic due to being laughably outranged is going to be fairly common, given magic's range limitations.

This is only because range was never beefed up with damage for the "magic rich" environment of Rifts Earth.

[dragonfett]

Question Pepsi Jedi, why would being hit by a laser beam (which is silent and has no kinetic impact) cause a mage (who has Armor of Ithan active) casting a spell to lose his focus?

[Pepsi Jedi]

magic users and technology is like jedi and blasters. Obiwan kenobi may have thought blasters "clumsy and random" and "uncivilized" compared to lightsabers and the force.. but had no hesitation to grab a blaster and shoot people when that was the option that would work, like against General Grievous.

Actually Obi Wan went to great lengths not to use a blaster and only DID use one in a case of last resort. Then threw it away in disgust. it's not like he was running around with an assault rifle for all the movies. He used his light saber 99% of the time nad the blaster.. once?

To be fair, that's because the laws of movies dictate that most encounters were done at fairly close range where you could see both parties. it isn't like Rifts, where the average laser rifle has a range of 1600 feet and most firefights are decided before either side is more than a spec in the others advanced sighting systems.

I'm just saying, situations where mages /are/ forced to use guns instead of magic due to being laughably outranged is going to be fairly common, given magic's range limitations.

Ehh.. I'd agree, if every Storm trooper, Clone Trooper, and anyone that was not a Jedi, didn't use ranged weapons many many many times over.

Your 'general' point holds, but in Star Wars EVERYONE uses ranged weapons except for the Jedi and Sith.

[Pepsi Jedi]

Question Pepsi Jedi, why would being hit by a laser beam (which is silent and has no kinetic impact) cause a mage (who has Armor of Ithan active) casting a spell to lose his focus?

because it causes mega damage and hurts. It's not like being hit with a laser pointer. Armor of Ithan, (It's been a few months so I'm going off memory) is pretty weak all things considered but still takes damage when hit with lasers. I don't know that being hit by an MD laser has zero kinetic energy. There's no kick, but the mega damge imparted has some effect that causes the damage. Burning at an atomic level causing the atoms to explode or whatever. *Waves hand* Don't need too much science in my science fiction.

And.. because it's in the rules. *shrugs* Not trying to be funny or snarky. I didn't write them. I just point them out from time to time. One of the rules is if a mage is struck (As little as a punch) or hit by weapons, it interrupts his casting. The rule following, says that it takes him 7-10 seconds to catch his breath before he can cast again (An action or two) Where in, the guy hitting or shooting at him, is likely still hitting or shooting as the mage is doing his funky mage thing and trying to cast a spell. which would push the 'caught breath' on down the line.

In my case. I rarely rarely rarely play mages. I'm usually on the 'other side' of encounters with mages. (And no. I'm not always a CS guy trying to kill them. lol)

In my case, it's beneficial to know how limiting magic is, because it usually gives my chars, who are 'not' usually magical in nature, HUGE Advantage. If I can hit or harry a mage, I cut off his or her ability to cast magic. If I can do that, it's likely to be better for 'my guy'.

[flatline]

Are you claiming that mages are not trained in the use of their starting gear? I would assume that they know how to put it on, how to wear it, and probably how to do simple maintenance like cleaning.

People do uncomfortable things all the time if it helps them survive.

Even if it's uncomfortable, I'd wear 15 lbs of EBA when I'm out in the field if there's a significant chance that someone is going to shoot me. Heck, I might wear EBA simply for the air conditioning if it's hot enough out.

[Pepsi Jedi]

Possession of something does not indicate training in it's usage.
Sure they can likely put on their light armor, but haven't been 'trained' in it's usage, as a man at arms occ would. Nor would they be accustomed to it in the same way. Much less heavier armors.

I can wear a jacket just fine, but I couldn't move around in a fireman's heavy call out gear nearly as well. Sure it goes on more or less like a jacket but still.

I couldn't move around in plate armor, very well at all. Even if I owned a suit and could put it on, because I don't wear it alot and it's difficult for even those that DO know what they're doing and are 'used to it'.

Personally I love the AC function of EBA and have made jokes to that extent in the past. But it's going to be uncomfortable even with AC, and something not really addressed, is that most eba have some sort of power source. It's not usually addressed but that source isn't unlimited. It's gotta be a battery or power source of some kind and if you sit around with the AC blasting non stop (As I totally would if I was suited up in the dang thing) it's going to drain that power source.

[glitterboy2098]

that is one reason i love the Southern Cross EBA from the 2nd ed robotech RPG. they gave it an energy capture system so that just walking/running in the EBA gradually recharges it.

[eliakon]

Range is already pretty pathetic for a lot of spells so that reduction does kinda suck, particularly if you're on the defensive and at the mercy of someone far away, especially if it were to slow down your movement speed to close the distance. Less of a problem if you're a mage laying an ambush, since mages who lay ambushes can prep magical armor to substitute for a lack of it worn.

One upside worth mentioning for mages who opt to wear metal: protection from microwave guns, which can pass through forcefields and non-metal armor.

if you're at the mercy of someone far away, that's only because you forgot to cast the spell "i also own a laser rifle and am proficient with it" in advance. possibly at the same time as having forgotten to cast the spell "i also have friends who own and are proficient with a variety of weapons and other problem-solving implements".

No. Not really. You're still at the mercy, by and large mages are not intensely trained combat wombats that also just happen to have spells to cast. They aren't going to be as good in a gun fight as the men at arms and are unlikely to be as heavily equipped or have the range of options open to them.

Unless that "man at arms" took Sharpshooter, Trick Shooting, or leveled up his WP above his own level then yes, they WILL be just as good....
W.P. Energy Rifle at Level X provides the same bonus regardless of if your a mage, a psychic, a vagabond, a soldier, or any other class.
There are a very small number of highly skilled specialists that get an additional strike bonus with high-tech weapons. But that is the exception not the rule.

But you're ignoring the flavor and setting and only looking at the mechanics.

Which flavor?
No seriously Which text in which book says that some people get to use their skills better than other people with out an actual class bonus?
Your trying to push your personal house rule (that Men-at-Arms should be the best weapon wielders out there) as a setting piece...so show me the text that backs up this claim.
Because I can see nothing that says "Mages, Scholars, Adventurers, Psychics, RCCs, and anyone else who is not a man-at-arms are actually worse at their weapons use than their stats say"
This is further compounded by the fact that anyone can use any high tech weapon with out a proficiency. So the 'I don't really know how to use the gun I am just doing it' is already covered in game and is not a weapon proficiency (which is defined as actual trained skill and proficiency in a weapon.)
Not all soldiers are combat-wombat commandos with guns....if they want that then take a class that gives them a weapon bonus, or use one of the many rules (core and optional) in the game that let them improve their guns skills (many of which are exclusive to men-at-arms in the first place)

Yes. I know that some people ignore the write up's for mages that say they will not typically USE those laser rifles, that they see them as clunky and below them, and that they rely on their magic as they've dedicated their life to learning said magic. Some people ignore that and play them as commandos+ spells.

Can you provide the page and book number that says this please? The exact quote that they will not use weapons (please recall that TW energy rifles have just as much range too, and now come in e-clip flavors....)
I am especially curious as to when the OCC write-ups were changed, as my copy of rue says
"Ley Line Walkers are inquisitive and open to new ideas, people, and philosophes. Many are literate, study areas of science, and have no aversion to using high-tech weapons, vehicles, and equipment. Lightweight weapons and armor are generally preferred because they are less cumbersome and do not interfere with the flow of magic energy (Full body armor and bionics block and disrupt magic)
-RUE Page 113 Left Colum, third paragraph.

Cited in my posts replying to others, please see my above replies.

You mean the post that does not challenge this?
The post that cites a book that is older than this writing and thus when there is a contest the newer book should take precedence?
The post that doesn't even begin to talk about Techno-Wizardry?
That post?
Because that post is totally and utterly irrelevant to my argument.

Please not the highlighted portion of my post.
Now contrast to your post
Because that post says "well this other guy says that mages like technology, so I don't think that they should use tech" (note that he never explicitly says that they will not use tech.
That post does not address the fact that the text you are citing has been formally supplanted by newer text (RUE is newer than the BOM)
That post does not address the fact that by your claim TWs can not exist at all, because mages will not use technology in any way....
The highlighted portion of my post is pretty explicit. I am looking for a newer claim to the contrary that nullifies that specific, explicit, sentence.

This is good because their basic starting gear includes
-light MDC body armor
-automatic pistol or submachine gun (players choice)
-Energy pistol or rifle
and goes on to note that their vehicle of choice is usually either a TW device or a hover vehicle, or motorcycle, or jet pack (so 3/4 of the preferred vehicles are high tech)

I'm aware of the starting gear. It's not that mages won't use technology at all. It's that they're mages and will use magic if at all possible before falling back on using a gun in a fight or the like. yeah sure they get around in a hovor bike or what ever, but that wasn't the point. The point was that people ignore the setting of the game and how mages are presented. I.E. they don't wear armor because it messes up their magic and as magic users that's horrible for them. That they DO use spells overguns if they can, because... they're a mage. Even if you look at numbers alone the gun wins out.

Unfortunately the actual game text explicitly says otherwise. (RUE page 113). Your personal opinion on the matter, does not actually change the Rules As Written.
As written many mages do welcome the use of technology. This sort of is hard to get around.
This is furthered by their gear list which has some of that welcomed technology.
Tech mind you, that does things that they can't do with their magic or that makes their life easier.

While not 'cheating' it -is- ignoring the aspects of the game as written. It's not 'uncommon'. Alot of people ignore things like that.

Correct mages shunning technology is not a part of the game as written (some specific classes of mages do....but explicitly not all of them)

Lets take the moment to reprise that we should not ignore the game as written and its explicit stance that mages will use and welcome technology.

As pointed out, A Mage's range is a huge penalty to the spells. A grunt with a Rifle vs a mage with out one, starting at Maximum range (As the grunt would 'try' to do) Would school most mages and easily.

Which is why the mage casts an armor spell and then shoots back with their starting rifle.

If you read above, I'd stated "A grunt with a rifle vs a mage with out one....

So why the heck would that mage be with out a weapon?
That's like saying "If I have a weapon, and I attack a person that doesn't that person is at a disadvantage. So therefore it was foolish to be a victim"
We can set up perfect scenarios where we stack the deck in our favor all we want....it doesn't prove anything except that we can ignore the written text and make up implausible scenarios. We could just as easily say "A grunt in a city with no weapons and armor will be schooled by any mage or psychic who has their full powers"
See how easy that was? If we concoct a scenario where one side is destined to lose....guess what? They almost always lose.

Since they both have W.P. Energy Rifle at level 1 they would both have the exact same chances to hit (unless of course the mage has access to any of the numerous spells that allow increasing that, or adding attacks per melee, or armor, or turns invisible, or....)
Now yes, if the mage is an absolute idiot and tries to walk up so that they can use their spells as direct damage to win then sure they will die. But mages are not sledgehammers. That is what you have those tech weapons for.

Well part of the point is that mages, by aspects of being mages, WILL Choose to use magic over technology most of the time. It's part of being a mage.

Too bad the actual game book disagrees with your stance.
The mages prefer magic, when it is the right tool for the job. In general though Mages are seen as intelligent. They are not (as a class) some sort of stupid fanatics who are technophobic. You can house rule that all you want...but the actual game books disagree with you.

Another thing ignored is that a mage has to stop doing everything to cast. If memory serves they can't just fire off a spell. run, blow something up with their rifle, fire off another spell run and dive for cover, etc. They have to stop doing -everything- and concentrate on doing the spell. If you're engaged in combat or even taking fire, you have to stop for an action or two to catch your breath and center yourself before you can try and cast another spell. As that's going on, an enemy is going to try and keep blasting at you, thus keeping you 'in combat' and preventing you from getting that action or two to catch your breath to cast your spell.

Um no.
Not unless you have a house rule going on.
By the rules a spell level 1-5 simply takes a single action to cast. A spell of level 6-10 takes two actions (like a power blow) and a spell 11+ takes 3 actions.
There is nothing in the books that says anything about stopping for actions to catch your breath and center your self, any more than yo have to stop and center your self to draw a gun and start shooting.

Well. Actually there is.
If you look on page 189 of RUE, it goes into detail about "Vulnerable to pressed attack" Yes, low level spells can be fired off in a melee, but past lvl 5, I was correct. If it's not the low level spell,

"The act of parrying, dodging, or striking back will break the spell invocation, and prevent the mage from casting his spell ( He'll need a breather of 7-10 seconds to cast a higher level spell)"

7-10 seconds of a breather is 2+ Melee actions If you have any HTH you start with 4 melee actions in 15 seconds. 7 seconds would be half a melee, so a minimum of 2 actions to get your breath, if not more, before you can cast the spell)

time out here
No, you need 7-10 seconds as the breather TO CAST THE SPELL. Not a pause of 2-3 actions before you can spend 2-3 actions to cast the spell.
You need the breather from direct attack to cast.

It goes on to state that something as 'simple' as getting punched in the head or stomach, or ANYTHING ELSE that breaks his concentration means he has to stop and start over again. It also says any time he's hit, that it needs to start over.

Yes. This is why most mages use spells 1-5 once they are actually in combat.....sort of the same reason that a lot of people don't use power blows in melee....because they can get interrupted.....

It continues onto page 190, saying that if a mage is under constant attack he can't fire off the higher lvl spells Even if the mage is parrying or what not, he can't fire off spells if he's being attacked.
"The same is true if the MAGE is attacking, or running, or performing any physical action."

Correct you can not move and cast, or dodge and cast higher level spells.
Note that all of this is preficed by higher level spells....which seems to imply that this only happens if you start a higher level spell and people disrupt your concentration. Which follows that if you never cast those spells in combat (I.e. are smart about the strengths and limtiaions of your magic) then you will not get into the 'must refocus'
Just like (by the rules) you can not move and shoot, or dodge and shoot (well you can, but unless your a sharpshooter both are considered wild shots)

To quote "To cast a spell the practicitoner of magic will need to stop, catch his breath (That should count as one or two of his melee actions/attacks) and then cast his spell (Another one or more of his melee actions depending on the spell level)

Now this part is important, as it points out that even those spells you can cast off as 1 melee action (Lvl 1-5) STILL need you to stop and catch your breath to cast.

Yes... even lvl 1-5 spells, need you to stop, use actions to catch your breaht, and THEN use actions to cast, if you're doing ANYTHING Physical. 1) Being hit. 2) parrying 3)Dodging, 4) Striking yourself (Hitting or shooting) 5) Running, 6) Performing any physical action. The inclusion of "Another ONE or more melee actions depending on the spell level) means that those little spells. lvl 1-5 are included in this 'Need to stop and catch your breath rule"

No this 'you must stop' rule is only from "hammered by a full press attack"
It also follows the 'higher level' trigger. Which as I said before seems to imply that the rules are only triggered if you get a full press attack interrupting higher level spells.....but you can house rule in more limits that are not in the book if you like
And it says
Attacking.
Running
Perfoming Physical Actions
It does not say that you need to catch your breath after being hit, parrying, or dodging.
You can add those of course if you want. But that is not the RAW

Sorry, the rule __IS__ in the books. It's plainly stated. Mages cannot enguage in combat AND fire off spells with out penalty.

They have to stop, breathe, THEN fire off the spell, and it STILL won't work if anyone is shooting at/striking the mage while he's trying.

I am going to have to say that we have a different definition of "full press attack" and 'physical action' ("I am sorry, you breathed, that's a physical action, try again next turn"), and 'higher level"

The next paragraph starts with "That's just how magic works and a player has to be SMART about how he uses magic to take full advantage of it's strengths and avoid the pitfall of the weakness"

Yep, like use the class description and use a gun or a sword? Or are we only using some cherry picked rules and not others that conflict?
Or maybe the mage could use their low level spells, never start the high level spells

No house rule. Rules straight from the book that are OFTEN IGNORED, when people want Commandos+spells.

Uhhh no.

You can house rule magic out of your game of course if you like. But the RAW is pretty clear that you can cast in combat. Just like you can use guns in combat.

Short version, for those that don't want to read it all: "They -are- penalty if the GM enforces them and also enforces the flavor of the game vs people that just ignore it, and if the GM pays attention to other factors that would limit the usage"

Yes they are a (trivial) penalty to a mage. Which should be considered in there proper light and not seen as some sort of massive drain that makes spell casting unviable (which is a common misperception)

It's not trivial if the GM uses the rules in the book and enforces all the factors that stack to state in very clear terms and indications that mages are not commando's+spells. That they're quite different and have significant penalties should they try to be.

Okay, so let me get this straight.
You house rule that mages can not wear armor
Then you house rule that mages can not use weapons
Then you house rule that mages can not use magic in fights
And then you say that mages are obviously not going to wear that armor and use those guns because they would want to use that magic that you have just house ruled out of the game?
Wouldn't by definition saying "I have house ruled magic out of combat in my game" mean that combat is now a "if they have no option" situation in the first place?
.
.
.
I am also curious as to the penalties you enforce on others for armor as you seem to claim that there should be some.
Do you also inflict these penalties on scholars and adventurers? Psychics? Combat focused mages? What about soldiers not trained in heavy armor?

Or are they only there to further limit mages?

[Bill]

Gentlemen, is this argument going to accomplish anything? It seems like you're going over the same ground again and again without changing each other's outlooks. Wouldn't it be more constructive to offer houserules that better reflect how you want the game to work?

[Pepsi Jedi]

One upside worth mentioning for mages who opt to wear metal: protection from microwave guns, which can pass through forcefields and non-metal armor.

if you're at the mercy of someone far away, that's only because you forgot to cast the spell "i also own a laser rifle and am proficient with it" in advance. possibly at the same time as having forgotten to cast the spell "i also have friends who own and are proficient with a variety of weapons and other problem-solving implements".[/quote]

No. Not really. You're still at the mercy, by and large mages are not intensely trained combat wombats that also just happen to have spells to cast. They aren't going to be as good in a gun fight as the men at arms and are unlikely to be as heavily equipped or have the range of options open to them. [/quote]
Unless that "man at arms" took Sharpshooter, Trick Shooting, or leveled up his WP above his own level then yes, they WILL be just as good....
W.P. Energy Rifle at Level X provides the same bonus regardless of if your a mage, a psychic, a vagabond, a soldier, or any other class.
There are a very small number of highly skilled specialists that get an additional strike bonus with high-tech weapons. But that is the exception not the rule. [/quote]

But you're ignoring the flavor and setting and only looking at the mechanics. [/quote]
Which flavor? [/quote]

The one that directly states in the book of magic that Mages don't roll that way. With topic headings like "Wizards should use magic --duh!"
and "Mages are convinced magic IS Surperior. Remember it!" and go on at length, for pages, saying such.

If you choose to ignore it, that's fine. But don't act like I'm crazy. I didn't dream it up. In the setting, it's as I've pointed out.

No seriously Which text in which book says that some people get to use their skills better than other people with out an actual class bonus?
Your trying to push your personal house rule (that Men-at-Arms should be the best weapon wielders out there) as a setting piece...so show me the text that backs up this claim.

Page 10 and 11 BOOK OF MAGIC. It goes into detail.

Not the least of which is from Kevin himself. To quote: "Hugh's exactly right. If a player is looking for a character good at combat and shooting things, a practictioner of magic is NOT the character for them"

Direct quote. Even the capital letters are in the book. But there's pages there if you care to read them.

Because I can see nothing that says "Mages, Scholars, Adventurers, Psychics, RCCs, and anyone else who is not a man-at-arms are actually worse at their weapons use than their stats say"

You've been given the pages, and part of the quotes. I'm not going to replicate huge sections of text and get in trouble.

This is further compounded by the fact that anyone can use any high tech weapon with out a proficiency. So the 'I don't really know how to use the gun I am just doing it' is already covered in game and is not a weapon proficiency (which is defined as actual trained skill and proficiency in a weapon.)
Not all soldiers are combat-wombat commandos with guns....if they want that then take a class that gives them a weapon bonus, or use one of the many rules (core and optional) in the game that let them improve their guns skills (many of which are exclusive to men-at-arms in the first place)

Which doesn't address the point at all, but most soldiers DO get default weapon training, in Rifles, and pistols (Or what ever) then also get WP's of their choice on top of that. So yes, they ARE trained in the useage of weapons and combat, it's just to varying extents. By nature of being soldiers they're trained. Some are soldiers that man the radio, and some are soldiers that charge the front lines, but they're all taught how to shoot and fight.

Yes. I know that some people ignore the write up's for mages that say they will not typically USE those laser rifles, that they see them as clunky and below them, and that they rely on their magic as they've dedicated their life to learning said magic. Some people ignore that and play them as commandos+ spells.

Can you provide the page and book number that says this please? The exact quote that they will not use weapons (please recall that TW energy rifles have just as much range too, and now come in e-clip flavors....)
I am especially curious as to when the OCC write-ups were changed, as my copy of rue says
"Ley Line Walkers are inquisitive and open to new ideas, people, and philosophes. Many are literate, study areas of science, and have no aversion to using high-tech weapons, vehicles, and equipment. Lightweight weapons and armor are generally preferred because they are less cumbersome and do not interfere with the flow of magic energy (Full body armor and bionics block and disrupt magic)
-RUE Page 113 Left Colum, third paragraph.

Cited in my posts replying to others, please see my above replies.

You mean the post that does not challenge this?

It directly says I'm 100% right. Sure you 'can' use technology but as a mage it's not your preference and you'd use magic if possible because technology is inferior.

I didn't write the setting. Your problem is with those that did.

The post that cites a book that is older than this writing and thus when there is a contest the newer book should take precedence?
The post that doesn't even begin to talk about Techno-Wizardry?
That post?
Because that post is totally and utterly irrelevant to my argument.

No. It 100% proves my point, and doesn't change yours. Mages 'can' use tech. They just often choose not to unless there's not a magical option avabile. it's directly addreessed. It's not even side handedly addressed. It's addressed DIRECTLY, to the point of saying that 'yeah, often it appears that guns WOULD be better, if you just look at the numbers, but mages don't care. If you refuse to read it, that's on you.

Please not the highlighted portion of my post.
Now contrast to your post
Because that post says "well this other guy says that mages like technology, so I don't think that they should use tech" (note that he never explicitly says that they will not use tech.
That post does not address the fact that the text you are citing has been formally supplanted by newer text (RUE is newer than the BOM)
That post does not address the fact that by your claim TWs can not exist at all, because mages will not use technology in any way....
The highlighted portion of my post is pretty explicit. I am looking for a newer claim to the contrary that nullifies that specific, explicit, sentence.

No. You're trying to exaggerate my point, to an absurd level to try and make your own. I didn't say mages would never use technology in any way. I said as written they will use magic if they can, and are not just commandos+Spells. there's a difference. I've pointed out that yes, even though it's often smarter/easier/more cost efficient, to use a laser pistol, -AS WRITTEN- The mages will still use magic if they can.

You don't like it, because I pointed out in the .. --- BOOK OF MAGIC--- that it 100% backs up my point. An OOC write up in a book doesn't invalidate the entire book about magic. lol. Sure some mages might be enchanted by technology. That's great. The book of Magic still stands.

You're trying to nitpick to dodge the over all point that was presented clearly, as I indicated it.

The ability to use technology, doesn't mean a mage is suddenly a combat warrior that just so happens to cast spells on the side. The -setting- tells us that mages don't work that way.

My point is, that it's often ignored by people that want their cake and eat it too. I.E. that IGNORE The fact that mages don't do that stuff.. so they can have commandos+spells.

This is good because their basic starting gear includes
-light MDC body armor
-automatic pistol or submachine gun (players choice)
-Energy pistol or rifle
and goes on to note that their vehicle of choice is usually either a TW device or a hover vehicle, or motorcycle, or jet pack (so 3/4 of the preferred vehicles are high tech)

I'm aware of the starting gear. It's not that mages won't use technology at all. It's that they're mages and will use magic if at all possible before falling back on using a gun in a fight or the like. yeah sure they get around in a hovor bike or what ever, but that wasn't the point. The point was that people ignore the setting of the game and how mages are presented. I.E. they don't wear armor because it messes up their magic and as magic users that's horrible for them. That they DO use spells overguns if they can, because... they're a mage. Even if you look at numbers alone the gun wins out.

Unfortunately the actual game text explicitly says otherwise. (RUE page 113). Your personal opinion on the matter, does not actually change the Rules As Written.

You keep acting like it's my personal opinion. It's not. It's -directly stated- in the book of magic, by the writer of the book of magic, then backed up by the GAME'S CREATOR himself.

As written many mages do welcome the use of technology. This sort of is hard to get around.
This is furthered by their gear list which has some of that welcomed technology.
Tech mind you, that does things that they can't do with their magic or that makes their life easier.

You're ignoring the fact that having tech, doesn't mean you have to use it, and there's --direct statements-- that say that even if tech is better/easier, that mages don't care. They prefer magic, as they're... mages.

While not 'cheating' it -is- ignoring the aspects of the game as written. It's not 'uncommon'. Alot of people ignore things like that.

Correct mages shunning technology is not a part of the game as written (some specific classes of mages do....but explicitly not all of them)

Lets take the moment to reprise that we should not ignore the game as written and its explicit stance that mages will use and welcome technology.

Only if you totally ignore the book titled 'BOOK OF MAGIC' and act like it wasn't directly addressed by the writer of the book of magic and the creator of the entire 'setting' and 'rules'. lol

As pointed out, A Mage's range is a huge penalty to the spells. A grunt with a Rifle vs a mage with out one, starting at Maximum range (As the grunt would 'try' to do) Would school most mages and easily.

Which is why the mage casts an armor spell and then shoots back with their starting rifle.

If you read above, I'd stated "A grunt with a rifle vs a mage with out one....

So why the heck would that mage be with out a weapon?

In the instance shown, it shows the penalty of using magic vs technology.

That's like saying "If I have a weapon, and I attack a person that doesn't that person is at a disadvantage. So therefore it was foolish to be a victim"

It's more like 'It's (often)dumb to bring magic to a gun fight."

We're discussing mages. Not two guys blowing each other away with guns.

We can set up perfect scenarios where we stack the deck in our favor all we want....it doesn't prove anything except that we can ignore the written text and make up implausible scenarios. We could just as easily say "A grunt in a city with no weapons and armor will be schooled by any mage or psychic who has their full powers"

Actually that exactly proves the converse of the point. YES> A grunt with no weapons and armor WILL be schooled by a mage or psychic who has their full powers. It's why there are mages and psychics. lol. They have their spot. Their place. Their usage.

It's not throwing down in a gun battle with the grunt. It's in their own usages that they shine. A grunt unarmed and armored is in a lot of trouble against a mage (Maybe. In theory if the grunt could get close he could just beat up the mage. lol. A punch to the face or gut stops magic from being cast.)

See how easy that was? If we concoct a scenario where one side is destined to lose....guess what? They almost always lose.

The difference being a mage with out a laser rifle is still a mage, a grunt with a rifle is still a grunt. The mage using 'magic' isn't like stripping a grunt naked and taking away his weapons. A mage usingmagic is doing what he's 'supposed' to be doing 'how' he's supposed to be doing it. lol

You're acting like mages are just other combat troops+Spells. that's not how they're presented.

Since they both have W.P. Energy Rifle at level 1 they would both have the exact same chances to hit (unless of course the mage has access to any of the numerous spells that allow increasing that, or adding attacks per melee, or armor, or turns invisible, or....)
Now yes, if the mage is an absolute idiot and tries to walk up so that they can use their spells as direct damage to win then sure they will die. But mages are not sledgehammers. That is what you have those tech weapons for.

Well part of the point is that mages, by aspects of being mages, WILL Choose to use magic over technology most of the time. It's part of being a mage.

Too bad the actual game book disagrees with your stance

No It doesn't. I've given exact page numbers that say I'm right. You're citing 'Well they come with laser rifles so you're wrong'. It's been directly addressed. Sorry. You're not correct. Which is fine. Now that you know, you can choose how to play your mages.

You can play them as presented in the game in the setting.
Or you can choose not to.

That's your choice.

Your choosing to play them differently than presented in the setting. Doesn't make me wrong, as per how the setting is presented.

The mages prefer magic, when it is the right tool for the job. In general though Mages are seen as intelligent. They are not (as a class) some sort of stupid fanatics who are technophobic. You can house rule that all you want...but the actual game books disagree with you.

And yet I have pages and quotes from the autrors and the game's designer that say I'm 100% correct. I'm sorry but you disagreeing doesn't invaidate the books and quotes I've presented. Open the book of MAGIC and Read through the first 15 or so pages.

Another thing ignored is that a mage has to stop doing everything to cast. If memory serves they can't just fire off a spell. run, blow something up with their rifle, fire off another spell run and dive for cover, etc. They have to stop doing -everything- and concentrate on doing the spell. If you're engaged in combat or even taking fire, you have to stop for an action or two to catch your breath and center yourself before you can try and cast another spell. As that's going on, an enemy is going to try and keep blasting at you, thus keeping you 'in combat' and preventing you from getting that action or two to catch your breath to cast your spell.

Um no.
Not unless you have a house rule going on.
By the rules a spell level 1-5 simply takes a single action to cast. A spell of level 6-10 takes two actions (like a power blow) and a spell 11+ takes 3 actions.
There is nothing in the books that says anything about stopping for actions to catch your breath and center your self, any more than yo have to stop and center your self to draw a gun and start shooting.

Well. Actually there is.
If you look on page 189 of RUE, it goes into detail about "Vulnerable to pressed attack" Yes, low level spells can be fired off in a melee, but past lvl 5, I was correct. If it's not the low level spell,

"The act of parrying, dodging, or striking back will break the spell invocation, and prevent the mage from casting his spell ( He'll need a breather of 7-10 seconds to cast a higher level spell)"

7-10 seconds of a breather is 2+ Melee actions If you have any HTH you start with 4 melee actions in 15 seconds. 7 seconds would be half a melee, so a minimum of 2 actions to get your breath, if not more, before you can cast the spell)

time out here
No, you need 7-10 seconds as the breather TO CAST THE SPELL. Not a pause of 2-3 actions before you can spend 2-3 actions to cast the spell.
You need the breather from direct attack to cast.

No. read it again. it says you need the time to catch your breath. AND THEN you need to cast your spell. It's very clear. It's in the first full paragraph on page 190. "To cast the spell the practicitoner of magic will need to stop, (Comma) catch his breath (That should count as one or two of his melee actions/attacks) AND THEN cast his spell (another one or more of his melee actions depending on spell level)

The (that should count as one or two of his melee actions/attacks) and the (another one or more of his melee actions depending on spell level) are not my additions. They're in the book word for word.

It goes on to state that something as 'simple' as getting punched in the head or stomach, or ANYTHING ELSE that breaks his concentration means he has to stop and start over again. It also says any time he's hit, that it needs to start over.

Yes. This is why most mages use spells 1-5 once they are actually in combat.....sort of the same reason that a lot of people don't use power blows in melee....because they can get interrupted.....

You 'can' use them in combat... if you're not the target of attacks. If you're the target of attacks you're penalized. You need 2 actions to catch your breath. If you move. 2 actions to stop and catch your breath. If you're punched, 2 actions to stop and catch your breath. If you dodge, 2 actions (After the dodge) To stop, catch your breath. If you parry, 2 actions to stop and catch your breath. THEN (If you still have an action left. mages don't usually have tons) You can try and cast your spell.

Mages in COMBAT are significantly hindered. If they're behind the lines (Where they're supposed to be) It's different, but if they're taking fire, or moving or doing -anything- other than casting their spells, they get penalized.

Again. I didn't write the rules. Those rules just often help my non mages win.

It continues onto page 190, saying that if a mage is under constant attack he can't fire off the higher lvl spells Even if the mage is parrying or what not, he can't fire off spells if he's being attacked.
"The same is true if the MAGE is attacking, or running, or performing any physical action."

Correct you can not move and cast, or dodge and cast higher level spells.

Nor low level ones with out pausing as well. If you have enough ACTIONS you might get one in by the end of the melee.

Note that all of this is preficed by higher level spells....which seems to imply that this only happens if you start a higher level spell and people disrupt your concentration. Which follows that if you never cast those spells in combat (I.e. are smart about the strengths and limtiaions of your magic) then you will not get into the 'must refocus'
Just like (by the rules) you can not move and shoot, or dodge and shoot (well you can, but unless your a sharpshooter both are considered wild shots)

At first it -seems- that way, but on page 190 there's the sentence that states you must pause, and spend an action or two to catch your breath AND THEN, spend ANOTHER __ONE__ Or more of your actions to cast a spell.

If you're only spending one action to cast a spell.. it's lvl 1-5. There for if you have to stop and catch yourbreath, AND THEN spend ONE ACTION to cast a spell... you've stopped to catch your breath before casting a low level spell....

To quote "To cast a spell the practicitoner of magic will need to stop, catch his breath (That should count as one or two of his melee actions/attacks) and then cast his spell (Another one or more of his melee actions depending on the spell level)

Now this part is important, as it points out that even those spells you can cast off as 1 melee action (Lvl 1-5) STILL need you to stop and catch your breath to cast.

Yes... even lvl 1-5 spells, need you to stop, use actions to catch your breaht, and THEN use actions to cast, if you're doing ANYTHING Physical. 1) Being hit. 2) parrying 3)Dodging, 4) Striking yourself (Hitting or shooting) 5) Running, 6) Performing any physical action. The inclusion of "Another ONE or more melee actions depending on the spell level) means that those little spells. lvl 1-5 are included in this 'Need to stop and catch your breath rule"

No this 'you must stop' rule is only from "hammered by a full press attack"

No.. lol it's not. You should really read the book. It's very clear. "The same is true if he is doing the phyiscial attacking, or running or PERFORMING ANY PHYSICAL ACTION"

It's right there on the page. First full paragraph on page 190.

It also follows the 'higher level' trigger. Which as I said before seems to imply that the rules are only triggered if you get a full press attack interrupting higher level spells.....but you can house rule in more limits that are not in the book if you like

As pointed out above it seems that way at the start of the discription, but in the middle it points out that it counts even if your spell only needs 1 action to cast. which is the lower 1-5 spells. Sorry. Not a house rule. Just reading the book.

And it says
Attacking.
Running
Perfoming Physical Actions
It does not say that you need to catch your breath after being hit, parrying, or dodging.
You can add those of course if you want. But that is not the RAW

It does two paragraphs prior on page 189. lol. "Likewise getting popped in the mouth (Getting hit) or stomach or getting knocked down or blinded, or anything that breaks the spell caster's concentration and makes him stop in the middle of his verbalization of the spell prevents him from finishing it.

You're trying to dodge around it hard, but as written the books say you can't do it. "ANY PHYSICAL ACTION" as per page 190 prevents it. Being hit, is directly addressed. Parrying and dodging are physical actions. Covered under the 'performing physical action" that prevents it. lol.

Sorry, the rule __IS__ in the books. It's plainly stated. Mages cannot enguage in combat AND fire off spells with out penalty.

They have to stop, breathe, THEN fire off the spell, and it STILL won't work if anyone is shooting at/striking the mage while he's trying.

I am going to have to say that we have a different definition of "full press attack" and 'physical action' ("I am sorry, you breathed, that's a physical action, try again next turn"), and 'higher level"

I'm going by what the book says.
Attacking=physical action. (You're attacking someone else. Other than psionics, that's gong to be physical. Or mystical but mystical attacks is what we're talking about)
parrying= Physical action (You're moving to block a strike)
Dodging= physical action (You're moving out of the way of an attack)
Moving/Running=Physical action.

There's not really any wriggle room here. It also states that getting hit prevents it.

The next paragraph starts with "That's just how magic works and a player has to be SMART about how he uses magic to take full advantage of it's strengths and avoid the pitfall of the weakness"

Yep, like use the class description and use a gun or a sword? Or are we only using some cherry picked rules and not others that conflict?

You can use a gun or a sword, but then you're not using your magic as a mage. You're using a gun or a sword. (and yes, guns can be magical and swords magical but it's not casting a spell which is what this part of the conversation is about.)

Or maybe the mage could use their low level spells, never start the high level spells

He or she could try, if he or she has enough melee actions to get past the penalties. And if he or she isn't getting attacked, or moving, or dodging, or parryng.

if he or she is standing there, still, and not being attacked, he or she can CERTAINLY fire off their spells. Of course, that's assuming the other side aren't following the tried and true tactic of 'Kill the wizard first". Which is going to be pretty hard to break them of.

No house rule. Rules straight from the book that are OFTEN IGNORED, when people want Commandos+spells.

Uhhh no. [/quote]

Uhhh yeah. You claimed there wasn't even such a rule. I pointed out the page and quoted it. you're still trying to dodge it's existence. lol If you didn't know the rule even existed, you clearly wern't using it in your games, thus... it was being ignored. Correct?

Not trying to nitpick, but you said that the rules didn't even exist. How could you be using them in your game? Thus, you were ignoring them. Right?

You can house rule magic out of your game of course if you like. But the RAW is pretty clear that you can cast in combat. Just like you can use guns in combat.

You -can- but it gets really difficult if you're actually fighting, and not hiding behind a bush or tree and doing it unseen. It depends on what you mean by "in combat" if you mean "I'm 100 feet back and noone's activly fighting me and noone's shooting me and I'm back here firing off my spells unhindered" then totally. You can totally use your spells in combat.

If you mean your char is 1) Moving. 2) Getting shot, 3) getting physically struck. 4) striking someone else or 5) shooting at someone else, then..... you 'can' if you have enough melee actions that the 2 action pause, to breathe, and THEN additional actions needed to cast, after one of those 5 previous things.

Mages typically aren't loaded down with actions. If you do 1 actions (even a parry or dodge)+2 to catch your breath. That's 3 melee actions already. And then you need at least 1 more to cast.

But that's assuming that in your two full actions to catch your breath, your attacker or combatant, didn't KEEP attacking you. (which they're almost assured to do) Which would reset your need to stop and catch your breath.

Yeah. Mages in combat are heavily penalized. -On purpose- as Kevin -directly states- that if you're trying to do it, that a mage isn't for you. lol

Short version, for those that don't want to read it all: "They -are- penalty if the GM enforces them and also enforces the flavor of the game vs people that just ignore it, and if the GM pays attention to other factors that would limit the usage"

Yes they are a (trivial) penalty to a mage. Which should be considered in there proper light and not seen as some sort of massive drain that makes spell casting unviable (which is a common misperception)

It's not trivial if the GM uses the rules in the book and enforces all the factors that stack to state in very clear terms and indications that mages are not commando's+spells. That they're quite different and have significant penalties should they try to be.

Okay, so let me get this straight.
You house rule that mages can not wear armor

No. the book says they're penalized if they wear armor that covers more than half their bodies. That's not my house rule. You should really read the books.

Then you house rule that mages can not use weapons

No. they 'can' use weapons. they just prefer to use magic and will often use magic even if weapons 'make more sense' by the aspect that they're mages. Again. Not a house rule. _DIRECTLY_ stated in the book.

Then you house rule that mages can not use magic in fights

No. I just point out rules that mage players would rather people not remember, that state that using magic in fights is really tough if someone's beating on your or shooting you up, or if your'e trying to avoid getting beat on, or shot up, or if you're beating on someone else or shooting them up.

Again. Not a house rule. it's directly in the book. It's a penalty on purpose. The writers made it that way. Not me.

Im just pointing it out. Sort of like it's not the weather girl's fault if it rains. she's just reporting it.

Same here. the rules state that it's really tough to cast in a fight.

And then you say that mages are obviously not going to wear that armor and use those guns because they would want to use that magic

The books say that. yes. I repeated it because people often ignore it. In my mind it's a form of cheating, when you ignore such profound setting elements. (It's not a 100% of the time thing, but yeah, the books indicate that even if it makes more sense to use a gun, that the mage is more likely to use magic ANYWAY)

that you have just house ruled out of the game?

Just because you don't like it. and didn't remember it existed. Doesn't make it a house rule. I've quoted the book. *shrugs* ignore if you like. (Which is part of my overall point. Many people do.)

Wouldn't by definition saying "I have house ruled magic out of combat in my game" mean that combat is now a "if they have no option" situation in the first place?

You're the one trying to say it's house rules. It's not. It's what's written in the books, but often ignored by those that want commandomages. It's not my fault they don't read or use rules that make their creations difficult. I didn't write the rules.

.
.
I am also curious as to the penalties you enforce on others for armor as you seem to claim that there should be some.

I do. THOSE PENALTIES, how ever, --ARE-- house rules. As they should exist, but seldom do in the books. They also address the common RPG "habit" of anyone with armor. Feeling they can live in said armor. 24/7, with out penalty. Which is plainly absurd.

Do you also inflict these penalties on scholars and adventurers? Psychics? Combat focused mages? What about soldiers not trained in heavy armor?

Yes, to scholars, psychics it depends as they can be men at arms, and yes to mages. Soldiers not trained in heavy armors? I'd need an example. Over all though I do have -house rules- pertaining to long term wearing of armor. And what happens if you don't take it off. Even for commando's and what have you. Though I don't think that's exactly what you're going for.

Short version: You can't -live- in armor. If you try it has a negative effect in short order, that increases over time.

Or are they only there to further limit mages?

No no. They're across the board. Those not trained in armor have some penalties for wearing it. penalties to strike, parry, dodge, speed, etc.
Those that are trained in it, still can't 'live' in armor, and after a certain point, also start taking penalties, and even damage.

Yes. It will start to eat away at your flesh if you stay in armor too long. Your joints start to chafe. Sweat and grime builds up in places. It starts to abrade your skin. Think "Trench foot" but all over and worse. EBA is tight, strapped down. You have hardly any air flow. And you sweat. even with the AC you're going to sweat if you're doing more than just sitting around reading a book. You can't move like you do out of armor. You get sore. you can't sleep as well. (You can sleep. You can sleep in the middle of a war if you get tired enough, but it's not -as- restful) it starts to all add up. You start taking penalties and after a time, damage.

It doesn't happen instantly, but anyone that's wore heavy gear will tell you, you take it off ASAP. If forced you can keep it on, but it starts to affect you pretty quick. A soldier might need to stay (Mostly) in his armor for a few days. And that's going to be uncomfortable. Past a few days it's going to start eating him alive.

[Pepsi Jedi]

Gentlemen, is this argument going to accomplish anything? It seems like you're going over the same ground again and again without changing each other's outlooks. Wouldn't it be more constructive to offer houserules that better reflect how you want the game to work?

I'd agree, but in general I don't play mages.

Thus if I'm in conflict with mages. They're trying to kill my guy.

If they're trying to kill my guy, the restrictions for mages in combat, benifit my non mage.

So I'm perfectly ok with Mages getting hosed via the rules in the book as written. (It's part of, but not all of, the reason I don't play um! lol )

[SittingBull]

Gentlemen, is this argument going to accomplish anything? It seems like you're going over the same ground again and again without changing each other's outlooks. Wouldn't it be more constructive to offer houserules that better reflect how you want the game to work?

I'd agree, but in general I don't play mages.

Thus if I'm in conflict with mages. They're trying to kill my guy.

If they're trying to kill my guy, the restrictions for mages in combat, benifit my non mage.

So I'm perfectly ok with Mages getting hosed via the rules in the book as written. (It's part of, but not all of, the reason I don't play um! lol )

I want Pepsi Jedi to run a game for mages!

[eliakon]

Gentlemen, is this argument going to accomplish anything? It seems like you're going over the same ground again and again without changing each other's outlooks. Wouldn't it be more constructive to offer houserules that better reflect how you want the game to work?

Since it looks like the argument is over 'which bit of the rules do I cherry pick to over ride which other bit'
then no...its just going to go in a circle for ever until it gets locked.

I think I will take my RUE and bow out of this before it does.

[Shark_Force]

if anything, i'd say the take-away of this thread is that if you want to use the rules for making mages not wear heavy armour for some reason, but don't want to roll 5 times every time a spell is used, just increase the PPE cost by 20% and ignore the rest.

[Killer Cyborg]

if anything, i'd say the take-away of this thread is that if you want to use the rules for making mages not wear heavy armour for some reason, but don't want to roll 5 times every time a spell is used, just increase the PPE cost by 20% and ignore the rest.

That'd be better.

For me, the movement penalties and simple role-playing were usually enough.

[flatline]

if anything, i'd say the take-away of this thread is that if you want to use the rules for making mages not wear heavy armour for some reason, but don't want to roll 5 times every time a spell is used, just increase the PPE cost by 20% and ignore the rest.

But that doesn't punish the player enough! The player *MUST* be punished for attempting to play their character in a way that doesn't match my narrow interpretation of how magic using characters are supposed to be played!

Ha ha. Only kidding. Right?

Right?

[Killer Cyborg]

The perfectly legal workaround is to just use TW devices instead of spells.

Or wear natural heavy armor, made from Fury Beetle or whatnot.

[Glistam]

if anything, i'd say the take-away of this thread is that if you want to use the rules for making mages not wear heavy armour for some reason, but don't want to roll 5 times every time a spell is used, just increase the PPE cost by 20% and ignore the rest.

I think the range and duration reduction of 10% as well are significant enough to enforce as well, per spell. Reducing damage by 5% is pretty inconsequential though except for very few spells, and the other penalties punish those spells enough anyway. So I like this idea of mages in full metal armor just having those penalties (+20% P.P.E. cost, 10% range and duration reduction) whenever they cast a spell. It seems far simpler.

[SittingBull]

If I were a mage, that had to wear heavy armor, then I would want the 5 random rolls per spell. Anything not random makes it too easy to play it off in character and too lenient.

[Hotrod]

Biomancy armor from South America and Millennium Tree Armor from England solve this issue nicely. Another possibility is to take the sewing skill twice (i.e. become a tailor), along with leather working, and tailor your own clothes out of MDC hides.

[SittingBull]

Biomancy armor from South America and Millennium Tree Armor from England solve this issue nicely. Another possibility is to take the sewing skill twice (i.e. become a tailor), along with leather working, and tailor your own clothes out of MDC hides.

This is what my wilderness scouts do.