Military Piloting Skills????

[MDGiest]

Ok this is one that has got me a bit POed at a GM right now.
I have 2 copies of the RUE, one printer in 2005 the other in 2007. Now I don't know if there are 2008 prints also, but I would have to assume so.
The questions concerns Pilot: Robots & Power Armor as well as Robot Combat Elite & Basic. Neither of my books lists these skills as being Military...so, a friend of mine (using my books) created a Burster who pilots a SAMAS. The Burster OCC states that the character can have any piloting skill that is NOT Military. Now, 3 months later, the GM wants to go back and nit pick, stating that HIS copy is the newest printing and that my friends character basically has to drop the only 2 piloting skills he has. Simply put, who (or which copy of the book) is right? Does anyone have a 2008 Print of the RUE who could look this up please? I think it pretty lame and unfair to nerf a persons character because they don't happen to have a brand new print of the rule book!

[Dustin Fireblade]

My 2005 RUE says that the Burster cannot have robot, power armor or military vehicle pilot skills, so yeah I'd say the character is technically illegal.

EDIT - Ok I see the two pilot skills of choice now in the OCC Skills, but with the restrictions in the OCC related skills maybe that's what the GM is looking at and basing his thoughts on?

[Crazy Lou]

The GM shouldn't try to alter a PC in a campaign three months into it. That would totally change everything. If you want, say that future created burster characters can't have those skills, but come up w/ some reason for the character to have learned them (use invented backstory, whatever). You're right, that's not cool at all to nerf the char because of a new rule printing. I don't have a re-print, but I'd say that regardless, if the GM allowed it when the char was created, then he can't go back now, he gave permission already. He had the opportunity to turn down the skill selection, and he didn't. So now it's too late.

Of course, maybe the player and GM can come to an agreement: the player "magically" looses the SAMAS suit, but he instantly gets the fully loaded value of the suit, plus the price it'd take to learn to pilot the suit (probably about another 150,000 MINIMUM), plus 3 extra minor psy powers or 1 super (he spent more time developing his psi powers instead of learning to pilot the suit). I doubt the GM will agree, but if he doesn't want to have a huge twist thrown into the game, then he shouldn't be wanting to throw a HUGE twist on a player character.

[Giant2005]

It doesn't matter what the rules say.
If at character creation, the GM said a character was allowed Horsemanship: Cosmic Forge and allowed the character to ride around on the back of the Forge, there isn't any taking that back.
If the character has it, it stays - the GM is just being a poke.

EDIT: Dd the player happen to **** off the GM in any way? There is much easier ways to get revenge as a GM...

[The Galactus Kid]

Ultimately, every call is up to the GM, but sometimes the calls aren't popular. I wouldn't have allowed the burster to have that skill at character creation, anyway, but I also would let that slide if I approved the character from the start. If its an aspect of the game that is being disruptive and causing problems, then I would talk with the player, and ask if he could change the piloting skills to something more in line, like pilot hovercycle or something.

[Dog_O_War]

None of that stuff matters, as the skill isn't strictly military (depending on the model used).

The reason it isn't military as there are plenty of non-military versions of powered armour and giant robots available to purchase and pilot. Immediately springing to mind is the Behemoth Explorer bot, available right in R:UE.

That said, the SAMAS is definately a military vehicle, and while the burster might be able to pilot it, even have RC:B apply to it - due to these being general skills not specific to any particular PA or robot - Robot Combat: Elite is definately military as long as it pertains to a military vehicle.

What I'm wondering is how this Burster got three pilot skills for the price of two. That is, Pilot: robots and PA is one skill, RC:B is another, and RC:E is a third skill, and the only skill that is illegal for the Burster OCC to take.

[Mouser13]

What I'm wondering is how this Burster got three pilot skills for the price of two. That is, Pilot: robots and PA is one skill, RC:B is another, and RC:E is a third skill, and the only skill that is illegal for the Burster OCC to take.

Think that is old school. If I remember right. Elite gives you the ablity to pilot so their is no need for Pilot: Robots and PA, but don't have my books here to check.

[Dog_O_War]

What I'm wondering is how this Burster got three pilot skills for the price of two. That is, Pilot: robots and PA is one skill, RC:B is another, and RC:E is a third skill, and the only skill that is illegal for the Burster OCC to take.

Think that is old school. If I remember right. Elite gives you the ablity to pilot so their is no need for Pilot: Robots and PA, but don't have my books here to check.

It what retorical.

[rat_bastard]

this is easily solved

get rifts canada

make a burster momono headhunter - cybernetics

take your piloting skills as you like them.

continue living your life.

[teulisch]

changing stuff mid-game is... not a good thing for a GM to do. you only do that when its to fix a big problem thats ruining peoples fun. not to edit someones character because you want to reinterpret the rules.

by the R:UE, a burster can have RPA and RC:elite, as long as they are from the OCC skills. i dont see any reason to exclude the samas from the list, if thats what he wants.

there are five 'military' vehicles skills, which are obvious in thr R:UE from the fact that they have the word military before them. tanks, subs, warships, jet fighters, and combat helicoptors.

[Dog_O_War]

changing stuff mid-game is... not a good thing for a GM to do. you only do that when its to fix a big problem thats ruining peoples fun. not to edit someones character because you want to reinterpret the rules.

by the R:UE, a burster can have RPA and RC:elite, as long as they are from the OCC skills. i dont see any reason to exclude the samas from the list, if thats what he wants.

By R:UE, they can't.
They only get two possible pilot choices that can take one of these three seperate skills, and in order to get two of them, you need pilot Robots and PA.
Also, as they are barred from military vehicles, this immediately eliminates the SAMAS suits, as they are Strategic Armour Military Assault Suits.

there are five 'military' vehicles skills, which are obvious in thr R:UE from the fact that they have the word military before them. tanks, subs, warships, jet fighters, and combat helicoptors.

Actually, there are 5 military pilot skills, but there are dozens of military vehicles. The text says vehicles, not pilot skills.

[runebeo]

If the player wants the skill let him have it. A burster in a Samas is no big deal now a dragon or Godling using one maybe. Any skill should be available if the player can explain how he got the training and if the GM does not have a problem with it. I normally side with the GM, but the player still has the right to play the way he wants and face it Samas are fun.

[teulisch]

whats your problem dog-o-war? if he can get the skill(which he can), then he should be allowed all uses of that skill. theres no reason to arbitrarily say he cant use one type of power armor just because you dont like the flavor text. And we all know how palladium is with typos. military vehicle and military piloting skill mean the same thing in this instance.

i dont see where your getting the 'three' skills thing. Robot combat elite includes robot combat basic, and does not have a perquisite.

[Dog_O_War]

whats your problem dog-o-war?

Unreasonable justification on the player's behalf when both sides have clearly made mistakes.
Many of you talk as if this player has earned those skills, when they were gained due to a simple clerical error.
While the GM might be regretting his decision to allow a psychic class to bend rules and abuse powers by wearing a suit of armour to gain more psychic attacks (which is clear that the player is doing as such for the GM to want hit out of the PA), he is not wrong for also wanting to update older OCCs to the newer rules-set.

Also, calling me out when I've offered objective, neutral explanations and solutions, as well as actual rules accounts instead of a false rules justification on why something should be allowed.

if he can get the skill(which he can), then he should be allowed all uses of that skill.

He can't get the skill, period.
He has two pilot skills that he can use to gain them.
There are three skills he wants.
Basic math states that if Johnny has two dollars, and apples are one dollar each, then Johnny can only buy two apples, no matter how much he wants three.

theres no reason to arbitrarily say he cant use one type of power armor just because you dont like the flavor text. And we all know how palladium is with typos. military vehicle and military piloting skill mean the same thing in this instance.

The reason is not "arbitrary", as it states within the OCC itself that no military vehicles are allowed. Period. That seems pretty decise and exacting in meaning to me, with nothing arbitrary or ambigious about it.
Additionally, a typo is wehn smoething is misspellt. This is not a typo.
See the difference?
This is what's known as prose, or writing clearly for every day discussion and facts. They clearly meant what they said, as if they were meaning to disallow robots and PA, they would've stated as such (since they did for dozens of other OCCs). Instead they chose military vehicles, as if to state that this Buster OCC is not something even remotely associated with a type of militia, or other organized armed force.

As rude or as harsh as this... "lesson" (for lack of a better word) has been here, I seriously do not appreciate being called out for challenging and correcting incorrect information.
Especially when zero proof has been presented in defense of such info.

While I do often agree that the text of a Palladium book is a rules-loophole nightmare, in this instance I firmly believe the intension of the writer (to specifically disallow military-class vehicles) is conveyed properly within the text.

i dont see where your getting the 'three' skills thing. Robot combat elite includes robot combat basic, and does not have a perquisite.

Incorrect. Robot Combat: Elite superceeds Robot Combat: Basic. If it was able to be taken without RC:B (without being offered via certain select OCCs), then no one would ever take RC:B because they can get the better one, and RC:B for free.

[teulisch]

Incorrect. Robot Combat: Elite superceeds Robot Combat: Basic. If it was able to be taken without RC:B (without being offered via certain select OCCs), then no one would ever take RC:B because they can get the better one, and RC:B for free.

go read you R:UE again. page 319, 4th sentance of the first paragraph under Robot combat elite. same text can be found on page 69 of the GMG.

you CAN take RC:elite without taking RC:basic first. there is no need to take RC:basic, unless elite is not an option for your OCC. for example, the R:UE city rat can learn RC:basic, but not pilot RPA.

[Dog_O_War]

Incorrect. Robot Combat: Elite superceeds Robot Combat: Basic. If it was able to be taken without RC:B (without being offered via certain select OCCs), then no one would ever take RC:B because they can get the better one, and RC:B for free.

go read you R:UE again. page 319, 4th sentance of the first paragraph under Robot combat elite. same text can be found on page 69 of the GMG.

you CAN take RC:elite without taking RC:basic first. there is no need to take RC:basic, unless elite is not an option for your OCC. for example, the R:UE city rat can learn RC:basic, but not pilot RPA.

Remember that "typo" you wanted to claim was in the text of the Burster?
Well this is where it actually exists.

What you are saying is that they purposefully meant to allow people to be expert combatants with equipment they have no idea how to use (thanks in-part to your City-Rat example).
I sincerely doubt that.

This is akin to being a weapons master, but also being born without arms. While the text of the weapons proficiency doesn't state that you need arms to use weapons, it is implied and assumed.
The same goes with the Robot Combats: you must learn the basics before you can become elite.

[Dustin Fireblade]

The same goes with the Robot Combats: you must learn the basics before you can become elite.

Then why doesn't that hold for HtH combat?

[teulisch]

theres some reason to take RC:Basic when you cant have RPA piloting. it lets you be a more effective gunner or other non-piloting position on a large robot. having a second pilot for extra attacks is part of what makes some giant robots so deadly.

if you can point to anywhere in the book that supports your claim that RC:basic is a perquisite of RC:elite, then do so.

the city rat bit isnt in the R:UE errata, so i would assume that it was intentional.

[Dog_O_War]

The same goes with the Robot Combats: you must learn the basics before you can become elite.

Then why doesn't that hold for HtH combat?

It does.

Every OCC that starts with basic, but can upgrade says, "take expert for one "Other" skill, or martial arts (or assassin if evil) for two "Other" skills.
These replace and supercede the "lesser" HtH, just as RC:E replaces and supercedes RC:B when applicable.
Every OCC with a "better" (though that is a subjetive term...) HtH skill doesn't offer that you can select Basic, it only offers that you can upgrade. The game goes under the assumption that you have learned the basics before getting into the more advanced stuff, and does this in multiple instances for multiple skills.
Basic and Advanced math (for example). There are OCCs that offer advanced, but not basic. It would be ludicrous and obsurd (not to mention a failure on-part of the person using that class) to assume that the OCC cannot count to ten, but can figure out the vector of a passing fighter-jet.

In summary, if an OCC offered Elite, it is both safe and sane to assume you know the basics of PA HtH combat before you became an elite master with a particular model.
Just as it's safe and sane to assume that you have to learn the basics before you can master the more advanced techniques.

[Dog_O_War]

theres some reason to take RC:Basic when you cant have RPA piloting. it lets you be a more effective gunner or other non-piloting position on a large robot. having a second pilot for extra attacks is part of what makes some giant robots so deadly.

I disagree, due to the text of the robot combat skills.
Specifically, the line, "when piloting a robot or powered armour, you get..."
Gunner is a gunner; pilot is a pilot - there is a clear distinction there.

if you can point to anywhere in the book that supports your claim that RC:basic is a perquisite of RC:elite, then do so.

Answer pending (I will in about an hour and a half when I get home to my books).

the city rat bit isnt in the R:UE errata, so i would assume that it was intentional.

There are alot of OCCs that are not in the errata that clearly needed it.
Such as the Battle Magus and their sharp-shooting ability with a "thing" that is neither a WP ( a prerequisite clearly stated in the text of the Sharp-shooting skill), nor applicable to be aimed or targetted with called shots (see ranged combat in R:UE and the total lack of mention that aimed or called shots can be done with anything other than things that allow a WP; this discludes magic, as there is no WP:magic).

[Crazy Lou]

if he can get the skill(which he can), then he should be allowed all uses of that skill.

He can't get the skill, period.

Wrong here, he can in this specific instance because the GM let him at character creation. Regardless of whether the GM was uncertain about it at the time, and regardless of whether he wants to change it now, he shouldn't. It's unfair to the player. And the whole idea of role playing is a player centered adventure meant to be fun. So unless the SAMAS is ruining the game for everyone else, then it shouldn't go. In future games the group runs, it can be considered that Bursters can't get the skill, but for the current character and game, nothing should have to change.

He has two pilot skills that he can use to gain them.
There are three skills he wants.
Basic math states that if Johnny has two dollars, and apples are one dollar each, then Johnny can only buy two apples, no matter how much he wants three.

Incorrect here, because anything can happen with GM approval, regardless of rules or wording interpretation, or whatever you want to call the confusion here. And GM approval was given.

[Dog_O_War]

if he can get the skill(which he can), then he should be allowed all uses of that skill.

He can't get the skill, period.

Wrong here, he can in this specific instance because the GM let him at character creation. Regardless of whether the GM was uncertain about it at the time, and regardless of whether he wants to change it now, he shouldn't. It's unfair to the player. And the whole idea of role playing is a player centered adventure meant to be fun. So unless the SAMAS is ruining the game for everyone else, then it shouldn't go. In future games the group runs, it can be considered that Bursters can't get the skill, but for the current character and game, nothing should have to change.

Your statements are abitrary conjecture.

While the GM does have all the final decision-making powers, your very own statements can be used against themselves.

"he can in this specific instance because the GM let him at character creation. Regardless of whether the GM was uncertain about it at the time, and regardless of whether he wants to change it now, he shouldn't. It's unfair to the player."
He can change it back now because he feels that the rules they were playing under are enhanced by the update of R:UE, even if that means correcting or changing a few mistakes made in the past. He should, because it fair to everyone to live by the rules change, and unfair to make an exception for one player.

He has two pilot skills that he can use to gain them.
There are three skills he wants.
Basic math states that if Johnny has two dollars, and apples are one dollar each, then Johnny can only buy two apples, no matter how much he wants three.

Incorrect here, because anything can happen with GM approval, regardless of rules or wording interpretation, or whatever you want to call the confusion here. And GM approval was given.

My statement is not incorrect because basic math is subject to the scientific community, and not the GM of some game.
My example is real-world, not apart of an arbitrary rules-set put forth for an RPG setting.

[Dog_O_War]

My example is real-world, not apart of an arbitrary rules-set put forth for an RPG setting.

FIREBALL! Your example ignores sales tax, cost saving specials, and imports from China.

The GM can also introduce price haggling. The GM has the power to arbitrarily change the constants of the universe.

Got ya' back.

ARG!!!!

[Dog_O_War]

theres some reason to take RC:Basic when you cant have RPA piloting. it lets you be a more effective gunner or other non-piloting position on a large robot. having a second pilot for extra attacks is part of what makes some giant robots so deadly.

if you can point to anywhere in the book that supports your claim that RC:basic is a perquisite of RC:elite, then do so.

the city rat bit isnt in the R:UE errata, so i would assume that it was intentional.

PG. 351, R:UE

Robot Combat: Basic requires Pilot: Robots and Powered Armour. So why would they offer that a single skill, superior in all ways to RC:B - especially since it gives RC:B with all machines - at the cost of one skill?

They wouldn't. I wouldn't. Any GM with any sense wouldn't.
In all instances they mention that more specialized training - training above and beyond that of RC:B - is what Robot Combat: Elite is.

It even states under RC:B that, "To get superior combat bonuses, one needs to take the skill, Robot (and Power Armor) Combat: Elite". So why would the more basic training with inferior bonuses require an additional skill just to take, meanwhile the clearly superior one (even noted in RC:B) doesn't?

It's because they assumed people would see the logical path that you need to learn the basics before you can train to be elite (as I originally said).

Proof presented.

[rat_bastard]

Its easy to tell what skills are military piloting skills,

Take out your copy of RUE

turn to page 303

look at the piloting skills

See the piloting skills that start with the word Military:?

as in Military: <name of piloting skill>

those are the military piloting skills.

See, simple and very clear.

[Balabanto]

Robot Combat Elite Grants Elite Robot Combat to a specific GROUP of Robots.

The skills should read, on a character sheet, as follows:

Robot Combat Elite: Glitter Boy

Robot Combat Elite: Samas

Etc. Remember, that means if it contains the word SAMAS or Glitter Boy in the respective description, you can pilot it. That means the ones from Japan, too, or the GB-7 from South America 2. (Ironically, the GB 7 is NOT unbalanced, unlike much of the rest of the book).

Nonetheless, it does mean that you do NOT have Robot Combat Basic.

[Crazy Lou]

if he can get the skill(which he can), then he should be allowed all uses of that skill.

He can't get the skill, period.

Wrong here, he can in this specific instance because the GM let him at character creation. Regardless of whether the GM was uncertain about it at the time, and regardless of whether he wants to change it now, he shouldn't. It's unfair to the player. And the whole idea of role playing is a player centered adventure meant to be fun. So unless the SAMAS is ruining the game for everyone else, then it shouldn't go. In future games the group runs, it can be considered that Bursters can't get the skill, but for the current character and game, nothing should have to change.

Your statements are abitrary conjecture.

While the GM does have all the final decision-making powers, your very own statements can be used against themselves.

"he can in this specific instance because the GM let him at character creation. Regardless of whether the GM was uncertain about it at the time, and regardless of whether he wants to change it now, he shouldn't. It's unfair to the player."
He can change it back now because he feels that the rules they were playing under are enhanced by the update of R:UE, even if that means correcting or changing a few mistakes made in the past. He should, because it fair to everyone to live by the rules change, and unfair to make an exception for one player.

I recognize the GM's ability to make the change after the game has been going for a while to update to new rules, even if it means changing a PC drastically. BUT: I'm saying that the GM SHOULD NOT (not that he cannot, he just shouldn't) make such a big change to the PC unless the player really is okay with it. Because it's not fair to the player. There was has been no indication from the poster that the SAMAS has been causing problems in the game for other players, so I felt it was safe to assume that there were no problems, and the only reason the GM wanted to change the character is just because of a technical thing in the updated rules. If that assumption was incorrect, and there have been problems because of the SAMAS in the game, then I retract my previous assertions in this case.

Also, altering the PC because of a technical rule change without any other reason than, "because it fair to everyone to live by the rules change, and unfair to make an exception for one player, would only be unfair to the other players if the GM had to similarly nerf every other character because of such rule changes. Right now, as far as the situation has been described, the only nerfing being done is to this Burster character. The Burster character still has to live with every other rule change that all the other players have to. The "exception" if he has to lose his SAMAS is a disproportionate effect on the Burster's character due to these changes. While everyone else has littler differences, mostly all insignificant, the Burster also is being nerfed by the changes. So really, while TECHNICALLY, it would be an exception being made to the Burster not to take his SAMAS away, it is an exception being made which is MORE fair than having no exception.

He has two pilot skills that he can use to gain them.
There are three skills he wants.
Basic math states that if Johnny has two dollars, and apples are one dollar each, then Johnny can only buy two apples, no matter how much he wants three.

Incorrect here, because anything can happen with GM approval, regardless of rules or wording interpretation, or whatever you want to call the confusion here. And GM approval was given.

My statement is not incorrect because basic math is subject to the scientific community, and not the GM of some game.
My example is real-world, not apart of an arbitrary rules-set put forth for an RPG setting.

And my point was that since this ISN'T the real world, and it IS an RPG, the GM can do anything he wants. Including saying that while technically if the character only has 2 skill choices he can't take 3 skills, in this case the Burster can take 3 skills. So, regardless of whether a generic, exactly by the rules Burster can take all 3 skills or not, the Burster we're talking about can. So that specific argument about basic math doesn't really help say that in this case and problem presented by the original poster (which is what I'm trying to answer and on what I'm trying to focus and make my point) that the Burster should lose his SAMAS. Because the GM said it was okay.

It'd be like if you had made a Rifts Vagabond super powered character from the Original Rifts Conversion Book 1, and you had all those powers (and that's a lot you can take -- up to 3 majors and 3 minors, IIRC), and your GM approved the character, and then when the Revised CB1 came out, and the # of powers was different, the GM came to you after 3 months of the campaign and told you that, really sorry, but this rules update means you have to lose 1 major and 1 minor power, even though the update changes no one else's character. You'd be really annoyed at the least, because you've just been nerfed and no one else was, on account of a technicality. You hadn't been overbalancing the game, or annoying any other players with your awesome Vagabond, but you were nerfed anyway. That is unfair to the player (unless the player doesn't care). So while the GM, who has the ability to have anything he/she says be the absolute rule, COULD make the change to the super Vagabond, or to the Burster in question, he SHOULD not, because it's not the fair thing to do.

[ShadowLogan]

On the issue of weather the Burster can take the skill or not. The Rifts Main Book previously DID allow unrestricted piloting selections. Rifts: Psycape placed restrictions on the Piloting selection for the OCC pilot skills, and then Rifts:UE placed them on the rest of the piloting skill selection. However in this progression you also see an expansion of the OCC skills to include additional skills.

That said, I think it is a bit late to change the character like this if the character has already used those skills (otherwise if they have not I would allow them to be swapped since the character should not know the stuff). I do not think the GM is necessarily wanting to remove the piloting skills, but have the player change them. I'd allow it for this Burster to continue with it given the development of this class from book to book, even though R:UE was used. Future Bursters not so much, unless the player told me which version they wanted to use.

Robot Combat Elite Grants Elite Robot Combat to a specific GROUP of Robots.

The skills should read, on a character sheet, as follows:

Robot Combat Elite: Glitter Boy

Robot Combat Elite: Samas

Etc. Remember, that means if it contains the word SAMAS or Glitter Boy in the respective description, you can pilot it. That means the ones from Japan, too, or the GB-7 from South America 2. (Ironically, the GB 7 is NOT unbalanced, unlike much of the rest of the book).

Nonetheless, it does mean that you do NOT have Robot Combat Basic.

Actually Robot Combat: Elite does essentially grant Robot Combat: Basic.

Rifts MB p. 30 under the Robot Combat Eltie discription: "Elite training automatically gives the pilot a basic understanding and ability to pilot ALL standard types of robot vehicles at the 'basic' level as well."

Rifts UE p. 319 under the Robot Combat Elite discrption repeats what is stated in the Rifts MB.

So if you have Robot Combat: Elite you can operate other robot vehicles at the basic level, which is what Robot Combat: Basic is.

[Dog_O_War]

CWC: CS Special Forces O.C.C. They have the Robot Combat: Elite: Special Forces SAMAS but not Robot Combat: Basic. Can they use anything other than that SAMAS with any degree of skill? No.

Did you, read the RC:E combat skill? You get basic with the selection of it.
It states this right under the skill.
I also mentioned that certain OCCs do this (offer the more advanced without the basic level).

But this also breaks the requirement of having Basic before you make an Elite selection.

Not really, it's just redundant to print that you get basic and elite, when elite gives you basic.

The importance of Robot Combat: Basic is the ability to jump into any robot or power armor and have a bare minimum of combat bonuses and familiarity with the onboard weaponry just by looking at the Heads Up Display and weapons menus.

I'm not seeing those lines anywhere near the skill. It runs more along the lines of...
...Taking only Pilot Robots and PA offers that you will have a minimum of combat bonuses...
...Taking basic ensures you get more.

Its easy to tell what skills are military piloting skills,

Take out your copy of RUE

turn to page 303

look at the piloting skills

See the piloting skills that start with the word Military:?

as in Military: <name of piloting skill>

those are the military piloting skills.

See, simple and very clear.

Yeah, except that it does not say military piloting skills.

It says, "Military Vehicles".

Which includes the SAMAS, the Humvee, and all other military vehicles.

And if you want to get really technical, it had that stippulation under the Burster OCC since before they where calling pilot: tanks and APC's "Military: Pilot: Tanks and APC's".

While I do agree with your logic Dog_O_War, I have to say the game doesn't.

In fact there is not one O.C.C. in the game that I know of that grants Robot Combat: Elite that says it also grants Robot Combat: Basic. And that goes for O.C.C.s that don't specify what kind of Robot you can pilot (Special Forces for example).

It says that RC:B is granted under the skill RC:E. So if an OCC says that it has RC:E, then it automatically gets RC:B.

Just like with the skill, vehicle armourer and basic mechanics (? I think that's the one).

On the other hand every class I know of that grants mechanical skills that require prerequisite skills list all of those skills as O.C.C. skills (operator for example).

Its almost like saying you should need to have HtH: Basic before you can take HtH: Expert. It makes sense, but the game doesn't work that way.

???
I don't get the first part of your example there.
Also, every OCC that doesn't get HtH Basic has it cost one "Other" skill, and if they offer another HtH - like Expert - that skill costs two "Other" skills.
Meanwhile if an OCC started with basic, they uniformly need to pay only one "Other" skill for Expert, as if to state that taking Expert needs two skills, but since you started with one, you get it for the reduced cost.

Robot Combat Elite Grants Elite Robot Combat to a specific GROUP of Robots.

The skills should read, on a character sheet, as follows:

Robot Combat Elite: Glitter Boy

Robot Combat Elite: Samas

Etc. Remember, that means if it contains the word SAMAS or Glitter Boy in the respective description, you can pilot it. That means the ones from Japan, too, or the GB-7 from South America 2. (Ironically, the GB 7 is NOT unbalanced, unlike much of the rest of the book).

Point being? I (we, the poster community) already know this, have stated as such, and do not deny it. Additionally, this has nothing to do with the matter at hand, which the next part I'm about to quote you on, proves that you (like the people quoted before you) clearly didn't know or read in the skill description.

I mean, I even left a page number so that you could check it out for yourselves.

Nonetheless, it does mean that you do NOT have Robot Combat Basic.

Re-read pg. 351-352, R:UE
It seems to disagree with you.

Actually Robot Combat: Elite does essentially grant Robot Combat: Basic.

Rifts MB p. 30 under the Robot Combat Eltie discription: "Elite training automatically gives the pilot a basic understanding and ability to pilot ALL standard types of robot vehicles at the 'basic' level as well."

Rifts UE p. 319 under the Robot Combat Elite discrption repeats what is stated in the Rifts MB.

So if you have Robot Combat: Elite you can operate other robot vehicles at the basic level, which is what Robot Combat: Basic is.

Hey!
Another poster that actually read the skills and their full description!

[Dog_O_War]

Your statements are abitrary conjecture.

While the GM does have all the final decision-making powers, your very own statements can be used against themselves.

"he can in this specific instance because the GM let him at character creation. Regardless of whether the GM was uncertain about it at the time, and regardless of whether he wants to change it now, he shouldn't. It's unfair to the player."
He can change it back now because he feels that the rules they were playing under are enhanced by the update of R:UE, even if that means correcting or changing a few mistakes made in the past. He should, because it fair to everyone to live by the rules change, and unfair to make an exception for one player.

I recognize the GM's ability to make the change after the game has been going for a while to update to new rules, even if it means changing a PC drastically. BUT: I'm saying that the GM SHOULD NOT (not that he cannot, he just shouldn't) make such a big change to the PC unless the player really is okay with it. Because it's not fair to the player.

I'm saying he should, because it's not fair to the GM or the other players to give one guy something he shouldn't be allowed, but was due to an oversight.
Even then, if everyone wanted to update to the new rules-set, that means if one guy didn't he again is the exception.
So why is one player allowed exceptions, while the others aren't? I honestly cannot come up with a good reason, other than a mistake (that can be corrected) was made. It's not like he ret-conned an adventure, loot, or exp.

There was has been no indication from the poster that the SAMAS has been causing problems in the game for other players, so I felt it was safe to assume that there were no problems, and the only reason the GM wanted to change the character is just because of a technical thing in the updated rules. If that assumption was incorrect, and there have been problems because of the SAMAS in the game, then I retract my previous assertions in this case.

Friends tend to not speak ill of each-other; which is what the guy that happened to is with the OP.
Besides, who (in their right mind) wouldn't use those extra attacks granted via robot combat to use their psychic powers with?
I'm not saying that I wouldn't be cheesed as well if a GM wanted to do this to me, I'm saying that I'd atleast see the initial mistake for what it was - a mistake, and one that can be corrected.

Also, altering the PC because of a technical rule change without any other reason than, "because it fair to everyone to live by the rules change, and unfair to make an exception for one player, would only be unfair to the other players if the GM had to similarly nerf every other character because of such rule changes. Right now, as far as the situation has been described, the only nerfing being done is to this Burster character. The Burster character still has to live with every other rule change that all the other players have to. The "exception" if he has to lose his SAMAS is a disproportionate effect on the Burster's character due to these changes. While everyone else has littler differences, mostly all insignificant, the Burster also is being nerfed by the changes. So really, while TECHNICALLY, it would be an exception being made to the Burster not to take his SAMAS away, it is an exception being made which is MORE fair than having no exception.

More fair has nothing to do with a rules change. If all the players abuse a rule, and the GM nerfs it you wouldn't say that he was being unfair for stopping the abuse of that rule.
Yet you seem to be saying that because the others AREN'T abusing a rule, but one is, and that rule is getting nerfed, it is unfair.
So what is more fair; to let one player get away with abuse? Or to have all playing the same game?

That aside, the "abuse" that is going on is that he has more skills than he should, due to a clarity and clerical error. I'm betting that it is an oversight more than it is the GM wants to nerf him.

He has two pilot skills that he can use to gain them.
There are three skills he wants.
Basic math states that if Johnny has two dollars, and apples are one dollar each, then Johnny can only buy two apples, no matter how much he wants three.

Incorrect here, because anything can happen with GM approval, regardless of rules or wording interpretation, or whatever you want to call the confusion here. And GM approval was given.

My statement is not incorrect because basic math is subject to the scientific community, and not the GM of some game.
My example is real-world, not apart of an arbitrary rules-set put forth for an RPG setting.

And my point was that since this ISN'T the real world, and it IS an RPG, the GM can do anything he wants. Including saying that while technically if the character only has 2 skill choices he can't take 3 skills, in this case the Burster can take 3 skills. So, regardless of whether a generic, exactly by the rules Burster can take all 3 skills or not, the Burster we're talking about can.

No, the Burster we're talking about here did; there is a big difference (between can and did).
I doubt the GM realized it here (that he did) as the majority of the posters here didn't even realize it.
I'm not saying that he did this intentionally (he probably doesn't know that he can pilot other PA and robots on the basic level either), I'm saying that is was a mistake - plain and simple - for both parties.
The only difference here is that one sees the mistake as a "nerf" because he has exploited it thus far, while the other sees it as equalization, because he has felt exploited.

So that specific argument about basic math doesn't really help say that in this case and problem presented by the original poster (which is what I'm trying to answer and on what I'm trying to focus and make my point) that the Burster should lose his SAMAS. Because the GM said it was okay.

I disagree, for the above reasons. I may not be right (as I don't know their mindsets), but I do see where the mistake was initially made.

It'd be like if you had made a Rifts Vagabond super powered character from the Original Rifts Conversion Book 1, and you had all those powers (and that's a lot you can take -- up to 3 majors and 3 minors, IIRC), and your GM approved the character, and then when the Revised CB1 came out, and the # of powers was different, the GM came to you after 3 months of the campaign and told you that, really sorry, but this rules update means you have to lose 1 major and 1 minor power, even though the update changes no one else's character.

What would be like this? The current situation hasn't changed; the original burster didn't get three skills capable of taking the robots and PA line, and neither can the most current burster.
But what you do want to do here is condemn the GM for being dumb. Not everyone knows what SAMAS stands for. Additionally, not everyone reads the skills to their fullest - infact every GM I've ever played under seemed to know less about the actual rules of the game than the players did (or atleast aspects there of).

[slade the sniper]

It doesn't matter what the rules say.
If at character creation, the GM said a character was allowed Horsemanship: Cosmic Forge and allowed the character to ride around on the back of the Forge, there isn't any taking that back.

I formally ask to use that in my sig!

-STS

[Crazy Lou]

I'm going to start with the end of your last response, since it helps with explaining further arguments.

It'd be like if you had made a Rifts Vagabond super powered character from the Original Rifts Conversion Book 1, and you had all those powers (and that's a lot you can take -- up to 3 majors and 3 minors, IIRC), and your GM approved the character, and then when the Revised CB1 came out, and the # of powers was different, the GM came to you after 3 months of the campaign and told you that, really sorry, but this rules update means you have to lose 1 major and 1 minor power, even though the update changes no one else's character.

What would be like this? The current situation hasn't changed; the original burster didn't get three skills capable of taking the robots and PA line, and neither can the most current burster.
But what you do want to do here is condemn the GM for being dumb. Not everyone knows what SAMAS stands for. Additionally, not everyone reads the skills to their fullest - infact every GM I've ever played under seemed to know less about the actual rules of the game than the players did (or atleast aspects there of).[/quote]
The problem starts with the fact that when you quoted this, you cut off the second half of my argument. The rest was:

You'd be really annoyed at the least, because you've just been nerfed and no one else was, on account of a technicality. You hadn't been overbalancing the game, or annoying any other players with your awesome Vagabond, but you were nerfed anyway. That is unfair to the player (unless the player doesn't care). So while the GM, who has the ability to have anything he/she says be the absolute rule, COULD make the change to the super Vagabond, or to the Burster in question, he SHOULD not, because it's not the fair thing to do.

If you want to focus on the difference between the original burster and most current one, then I'll modify my analogy to have a Vagabond with 3 majors and 4 minors (which is 1 more than you should've been able to have before the revised edition of CB1, even w/ a vagabond). I was just trying to keep the analogy a bit more simple. So with that clarification, I will point to the now bold, underlined part of my argument, which was the biggest point. I'll address this a bit more in response to the below arguments.

Your statements are abitrary conjecture.

While the GM does have all the final decision-making powers, your very own statements can be used against themselves.

"he can in this specific instance because the GM let him at character creation. Regardless of whether the GM was uncertain about it at the time, and regardless of whether he wants to change it now, he shouldn't. It's unfair to the player."
He can change it back now because he feels that the rules they were playing under are enhanced by the update of R:UE, even if that means correcting or changing a few mistakes made in the past. He should, because it fair to everyone to live by the rules change, and unfair to make an exception for one player.

I recognize the GM's ability to make the change after the game has been going for a while to update to new rules, even if it means changing a PC drastically. BUT: I'm saying that the GM SHOULD NOT (not that he cannot, he just shouldn't) make such a big change to the PC unless the player really is okay with it. Because it's not fair to the player.

I'm saying he should, because it's not fair to the GM or the other players to give one guy something he shouldn't be allowed, but was due to an oversight.
Even then, if everyone wanted to update to the new rules-set, that means if one guy didn't he again is the exception.
So why is one player allowed exceptions, while the others aren't? I honestly cannot come up with a good reason, other than a mistake (that can be corrected) was made. It's not like he ret-conned an adventure, loot, or exp.

Regardless of oversight (I agree that it probably was an oversight), when the character was created, the GM approved it, and none of the other players (as far as we know) felt that it was unfair, and they didn't protest it. So, if it was fair upon creation, again regardless of any oversights made upon any and everyone's part, then why is it suddenly no longer fair 3 months later with a new edition printing's modified rule set (which you're arguing doesn't really even matter, as the original printing rules still said that the character was illegal)? If the character was against the rules originally too, and no one seemed to mind, and it's still against the rules, and it's still bothering no one, then why should people suddenly care about the rule discrepency?

There was has been no indication from the poster that the SAMAS has been causing problems in the game for other players, so I felt it was safe to assume that there were no problems, and the only reason the GM wanted to change the character is just because of a technical thing in the updated rules. If that assumption was incorrect, and there have been problems because of the SAMAS in the game, then I retract my previous assertions in this case.

Friends tend to not speak ill of each-other; which is what the guy that happened to is with the OP.
Besides, who (in their right mind) wouldn't use those extra attacks granted via robot combat to use their psychic powers with?
I'm not saying that I wouldn't be cheesed as well if a GM wanted to do this to me, I'm saying that I'd atleast see the initial mistake for what it was - a mistake, and one that can be corrected.

Well, if the other players actually did care, but no one said anything, then that's their problem that they didn't. They still shouldn't be allowed to change their minds and decide that they don't like another's character. They should've said they had a problem. And this really shouldn't even be a part of this debate at all, because it's as you put it "conjecture." We DON'T KNOW anything about intra-group issues with the character, either at creation, or now. So we can't really make assertions about it. I was very clear in my statement of this to note that if there were problems, then the whole matter is entirely changed (and a lot of what's been said in this debate is irrelevant). So I'm going to steer clear of this line of thought about friend tending not to offend each other, because it's relevancy is currently negligible.

About using the extra attacks to use your psi-powers instead of PA actions: well, you certainly don't have to take away the whole SAMAS to fix that problem. You just house rule that logically speaking, a physically (only physically) augmenting exoskeletal suit would not let you think faster, and thus not allow you to use extra psi actions, and that only physical actions could be made with the extra PA actions. And besides that easy fix, there's been no mention of this as part of the problem either. The reason stated for taking away the SAMAS and the skills given was purely because of a perceived (whether the reprinting changed the situation or not doesn't really matter, the differing editions of the books and the GM's notice of his probable oversight -- we can just agree right now that it was one, for the sake of this debate, since we both agree about that) rule change.

Last of all, you said you'd see it as a mistake which can be corrected. Well, yes, as we've now agreed that it was a mistake, I now reemphasize the difference between CAN and SHOULD (as you've also mentioned). Just because you can change the situation to be perfectly by-the-book rules accurate, doesn't mean that you have to, or that you should. In amost (I can't make an absolute statement because I don't have EVERY PB book) every book from Palladium, it's noted at least once that the official rules given are meant to be a framework, and one which can be bent or re-worked for the sake of fun, or to accomodate for just about anything you need to accomodate in a game.

Also, altering the PC because of a technical rule change without any other reason than, "because it fair to everyone to live by the rules change, and unfair to make an exception for one player, would only be unfair to the other players if the GM had to similarly nerf every other character because of such rule changes. Right now, as far as the situation has been described, the only nerfing being done is to this Burster character. The Burster character still has to live with every other rule change that all the other players have to. The "exception" if he has to lose his SAMAS is a disproportionate effect on the Burster's character due to these changes. While everyone else has littler differences, mostly all insignificant, the Burster also is being nerfed by the changes. So really, while TECHNICALLY, it would be an exception being made to the Burster not to take his SAMAS away, it is an exception being made which is MORE fair than having no exception.

More fair has nothing to do with a rules change. If all the players abuse a rule, and the GM nerfs it you wouldn't say that he was being unfair for stopping the abuse of that rule.
Yet you seem to be saying that because the others AREN'T abusing a rule, but one is, and that rule is getting nerfed, it is unfair.
So what is more fair; to let one player get away with abuse? Or to have all playing the same game?

That aside, the "abuse" that is going on is that he has more skills than he should, due to a clarity and clerical error. I'm betting that it is an oversight more than it is the GM wants to nerf him.

Actually I would argue that rule changes have everything to do with "more fair." Isn't that one of (which I emphasize so that we don't have to deal with other reasons also being noted) the big reasons that house rules are instated? Isn't that why there's been a suggestion by PB itself to reduce the South America stuff, because if used outside of SA it is (at least in many's opinions) unbalanced and unfair?

Also, this is not a case of rule abuse. Abuse of a rule would be if a rule was unclear or had some loophole which was being used by a player to give himself an unfair advantage over his other players. Or it would be a case of the player deliberately trying to trick the GM by hoping that he wouldn't notice the error of the SAMAS not being allowed to be used by a Burster. But this is not the case we are discussing. The player's character was approved by the GM, and as to our knowledge (which is all we can really go by in this debate) there wasn't an objection by anyone else either. Absence of objection in a case in which objection is not being prevented (which it wasn't) can only be interpreted a acceptance, if not actual agreement (which some would argue I suppose, but that would be another debate/issue entirely, which wouldn't be on topic for this thread, and which I don't feel like discussing). Besides that, rules can't really be abused by players anyway, since they aren't the one's with ultimate authority. If the GM accepts an interpretation of a rule by a player, then it isn't abuse, regardless of whether that interpretation is consistent with the original intent of the rule or its author. This wasn't abuse. It may have been an error, but it was one which hasn't negatively affected the game or the role-playing experience for the players, or caused a dampening of fun for other players.

He has two pilot skills that he can use to gain them.
There are three skills he wants.
Basic math states that if Johnny has two dollars, and apples are one dollar each, then Johnny can only buy two apples, no matter how much he wants three.

Incorrect here, because anything can happen with GM approval, regardless of rules or wording interpretation, or whatever you want to call the confusion here. And GM approval was given.

My statement is not incorrect because basic math is subject to the scientific community, and not the GM of some game.
My example is real-world, not apart of an arbitrary rules-set put forth for an RPG setting.

And my point was that since this ISN'T the real world, and it IS an RPG, the GM can do anything he wants. Including saying that while technically if the character only has 2 skill choices he can't take 3 skills, in this case the Burster can take 3 skills. So, regardless of whether a generic, exactly by the rules Burster can take all 3 skills or not, the Burster we're talking about can.

No, the Burster we're talking about here did; there is a big difference (between can and did).
I doubt the GM realized it here (that he did) as the majority of the posters here didn't even realize it.
I'm not saying that he did this intentionally (he probably doesn't know that he can pilot other PA and robots on the basic level either), I'm saying that is was a mistake - plain and simple - for both parties.
The only difference here is that one sees the mistake as a "nerf" because he has exploited it thus far, while the other sees it as equalization, because he has felt exploited.

There has been no exploitation, for the same reasons that there has been no abuse (really it's effectively the same thing). And it can't be an equilzation if it wasn't unbalanced to begin with, which as I've said, as far as we can know, there's been no overshadowing of other players, and no complaints from them about a burster with a SAMAS. Besides, if it WAS overbalanced, then the GM could just as easily fix it by adjusting the balance to make the burster-SAMAS on an equal field with the other characters. He wouldn't have to try to fix the oversight he as the GM made by weakening the player character or taking away something from the player who did nothing wrong to deserve punishment (and I'd say that making a change that big is a punishment, whether intended to be so or not, because it not only forces a change in the way the character can function, fight, and act, but it also forces a change in a part of the way the character is role-played).

So that specific argument about basic math doesn't really help say that in this case and problem presented by the original poster (which is what I'm trying to answer and on what I'm trying to focus and make my point) that the Burster should lose his SAMAS. Because the GM said it was okay.

I disagree, for the above reasons. I may not be right (as I don't know their mindsets), but I do see where the mistake was initially made.

But if you're disagreeing because of abuse and exploitation, and there wasn't really either of those, then do you still disagree? If you disagree still, then is it with my reasoning against those 2 things, or for other reasons? I also recognize a mistake made, but I don't see it to merit the response of retconning such a large portion of the character.

It'd be like if you had made a Rifts Vagabond super powered character from the Original Rifts Conversion Book 1, and you had all those powers (and that's a lot you can take -- up to 3 majors and 3 minors, IIRC), and your GM approved the character, and then when the Revised CB1 came out, and the # of powers was different, the GM came to you after 3 months of the campaign and told you that, really sorry, but this rules update means you have to lose 1 major and 1 minor power, even though the update changes no one else's character.

What would be like this? The current situation hasn't changed; the original burster didn't get three skills capable of taking the robots and PA line, and neither can the most current burster.
But what you do want to do here is condemn the GM for being dumb. Not everyone knows what SAMAS stands for. Additionally, not everyone reads the skills to their fullest - infact every GM I've ever played under seemed to know less about the actual rules of the game than the players did (or atleast aspects there of).

I'm not condemning the GM for anything, and certainly not for being dumb. Oversights are made, and that's a fact. But you don't always have to retcon to fix them, and certainly not in this way in this instance. The fact that the M in SAMAS is Military, which would stand to reason classifying it as a military vehicle (although I think that having piloting skills have Military:<skill name> to denote military piloting vehicles probably is at least an equally viable way to interpret those vehicles (and if you want, only those vehicles) as military ones (and that little bit may have been redundant, sorry if so; I'm getting tired)), doesn't mean that the GM is precluded from being able to override that. While originally that was a mistake, there's no reason he couldn't now, having recognized the mistake, simply go with it, and say that he's going to let it go since it's not hurting anything. Technicalities or rule clarifications, or realizations of mistakes shouldn't have giant effects if you try to fix them.

A personal example which exaggerates some of the circumstances, but still is relevent:
My first character ever was an outlaw cyberiod currently living in Takematsu (fugitive from the Republic of Japan). Our group was of a number of new or inexperienced players, with only a few vets. I spent a portion of the first session trying to find information (not using illegal means) about a gang leader using my laptop while other group members, including a Tengu, who had no modern technical skills -- didn't have computer operation, much less computer hacking. But out of character, the player knew I was a hacker. I was doing my searching for the gangster while that player was in the middle of a bar fight with some generic toughs. Later, after another fight with some gangsters, the police were questioning us about the situation. The player (also new) was concerned about being asked too much because he didn't want it to come out that he was a Tengu (he'd been staying in human disguise). So, trying to be left alone, he mentioned to the cop that while he didn't know where the crazy supernatural birg thing came from that participated in the fight, he did know that the cop should check out that little nerdy kid to the side because he knew I was a hacker. I immediately objected, but the GM was trying to keep the pace of the things going (there were about 12 of us in the group, several w/ ADD), didn't understand what I was objecting to. A few months later, he realized that my character never should've been busted, but there wasn't much to do about it anymore, because it'd already become too much a part of my character (which I agreed w/ even though I was still not very pleased about being fed to the cops by another player for no real reason).

In a similar way, I'm trying to say that the SAMAS, especially after 3 months of play, is a part of the character, and the GM shouldn't change the character. This is the core of my argument (and yes, I know my example was of an error due to the player, and not because of a noticed rule oversight by a GM, but the idea is essentially very similar).

[Killer Cyborg]

there are 5 military pilot skills, but there are dozens of military vehicles. The text says vehicles, not pilot skills.

Yup.

[Dog_O_War]

*relevant and pertainant stuff, with both a point and weight, but waaaay too long for me (Dog_O_War) to requote and go over*

As I said above, you hoist a good arguement here, and make many relevant points. But you seem (as most players do) to forget that there is always one more player that sits at the table; the GM.

People take this guy for granted, as if he's some autonomous robot that has no feelings and is there for their amusement. But the thing of it is that he's a player in the game too, and his voice does count for something. He doesn't like it, so that's one player who is unhappy, and vocal about it.

Additionally, the GM isn't taking away the SAMAS, the guy still has basic; he's removing some of the buffs is all. Like attacks at 3, 6, 9, 12, and some dodge-in-air and other minor bonuses. The Character isn't "ruined" because he's down 3 points of dodge and (possibly) an attack, now is he?

[MDGiest]

I'd like to point something out. Yes, the SAMAS is pure military. But, the T-21 Terrain Hopper is not for example. It is even listed as being used for civilian purpose such as delivering mail. The Behemoth Explorer is also noted as being a non-military vehicle. So where does that put us?

[Dog_O_War]

I'd like to point something out. Yes, the SAMAS is pure military. But, the T-21 Terrain Hopper is not for example. It is even listed as being used for civilian purpose such as delivering mail. The Behemoth Explorer is also noted as being a non-military vehicle. So where does that put us?

Those vehicles are non-military - the question answers itself. They may have been military once, but as it stands they are no longer (military).

I have a strange copy of the RUE that says house rules trump the books, and the GM is always right about everything.

So in the end analysis, I think burster-boy should suck it up and respect the GM's wishes, or elect another GM who doesn't mind his character.

That is all.

I have a copy of R:UE as well - it says that this isn't a house-rule. It says that it was a mistake over-looked from the beginning.

[Devari]

Personally, I don't understand what the burster was doing with an elite RPA skill in the first place. Elite training is not supposed to be a common skill or somthing that someone can just pick up in their spare time. The entire point of the Robot Pilot O.C.C. is that they specialize in piloting robots and power armor and have access to the necessary training to operate them at the elite level. In fact, the Robot Pilot O.C.C. even requires you to choose between either a robot or a power armor MOS, so it's clear that elite level RPA training is very specialized. If I was playing an RPA pilot and suddenly a psychic O.C.C. was flying a SAMAS at the elite level I'd be pretty ticked off. Elite training is a very specialized skill that defines the RPA pilot's role.

To provide a counter example, I don't suppose someone playing a burster would be very happy if an RPA pilot happened to have minor or major psionics and the GM mistakenly allowed him or her to take a burster O.C.C. ability.

As many people have stated earlier, removing an ability that was incorrectly given to a character isn't something the player really has a strong reason to complain about. In this case we're talking about reducing bonuses to an appropriate level (from elite to basic). It's not even the same as completely removing an ability or skill because the character can still use the power armor, just without the bonuses that a dedicated pilot would have (which as I described above is completely appropriate since the burster is not supposed to be trained as a dedicated RPA pilot). The GM isn't taking something away that the character is somehow entitled to, they're just requiring that the character is played within the rules.

[Dog_O_War]

Personally, I don't understand what the burster was doing with an elite RPA skill in the first place. Elite training is not supposed to be a common skill or somthing that someone can just pick up in their spare time. The entire point of the Robot Pilot O.C.C. is that they specialize in piloting robots and power armor and have access to the necessary training to operate them at the elite level. In fact, the Robot Pilot O.C.C. even requires you to choose between either a robot or a power armor MOS, so it's clear that elite level RPA training is very specialized. If I was playing an RPA pilot and suddenly a psychic O.C.C. was flying a SAMAS at the elite level I'd be pretty ticked off. Elite training is a very specialized skill that defines the RPA pilot's role.

WP Heavy energy requires as much training as Pilot:R&PA or RC:A/E. Why? They are both excluded from secondaries, and must be taken as an "other" skill if not already given by the OCC. In game terms this means that they are equal. You and I know that training to use a group of weapons and learning to drive a complex robot and PA do not require the same amount of training, but the game has them as similar skills both barred from the secondaries list.

That the Robot Pilot OCC is cheapened because of this is a fault of the OCC's creator, as well as the person who has seperated the rules as such - not the player or GM. As well, it really isn't a "fault" as the skill isn't as rare as you're convinced it must be. I'm betting 1 in 40 people know how to pilot robots and powered armour in North America alone.

To provide a counter example, I don't suppose someone playing a burster would be very happy if an RPA pilot happened to have minor or major psionics and the GM mistakenly allowed him or her to take a burster O.C.C. ability.

Your example is not equal to the reality of the game. The RPA pilot can have major psionics, but cannot have a burster OCC ability. The flip side is that the RPA pilot does not have any unique OCC abilities, so the error can never be made.

As many people have stated earlier, removing an ability that was incorrectly given to a character isn't something the player really has a strong reason to complain about. In this case we're talking about reducing bonuses to an appropriate level (from elite to basic).

Or even changing the PA used - Like to a Flying Titan or a SAMSON Redhawk*.


*note that the last one, despite being a SAMSON (not sure about the acronym, but I'm confident it involves the military), the Redhawk was established after PA 100, and available on a civilian market.

[Devari]

Personally, I don't understand what the burster was doing with an elite RPA skill in the first place. Elite training is not supposed to be a common skill or somthing that someone can just pick up in their spare time. The entire point of the Robot Pilot O.C.C. is that they specialize in piloting robots and power armor and have access to the necessary training to operate them at the elite level. In fact, the Robot Pilot O.C.C. even requires you to choose between either a robot or a power armor MOS, so it's clear that elite level RPA training is very specialized. If I was playing an RPA pilot and suddenly a psychic O.C.C. was flying a SAMAS at the elite level I'd be pretty ticked off. Elite training is a very specialized skill that defines the RPA pilot's role.

WP Heavy energy requires as much training as Pilot:R&PA or RC:A/E. Why? They are both excluded from secondaries, and must be taken as an "other" skill if not already given by the OCC. In game terms this means that they are equal. You and I know that training to use a group of weapons and learning to drive a complex robot and PA do not require the same amount of training, but the game has them as similar skills both barred from the secondaries list.

That the Robot Pilot OCC is cheapened because of this is a fault of the OCC's creator, as well as the person who has seperated the rules as such - not the player or GM. As well, it really isn't a "fault" as the skill isn't as rare as you're convinced it must be. I'm betting 1 in 40 people know how to pilot robots and powered armour in North America alone.

Just because two skills are both restricted from being taken as secondary skills doesn't make them equivalent in terms of complexity. It just means that they can't be self-taught under the Rifts rules. Flying a fighter jet is obviously more complex than firing a railgun. The rules often restrict certain skills from O.C.C. skill lists (such as piloting or certain physical skills) due to the complexity of these skills or due to game balance in additional to restricting them from being taken as secondary skills.

To provide a counter example, I don't suppose someone playing a burster would be very happy if an RPA pilot happened to have minor or major psionics and the GM mistakenly allowed him or her to take a burster O.C.C. ability.

Your example is not equal to the reality of the game. The RPA pilot can have major psionics, but cannot have a burster OCC ability. The flip side is that the RPA pilot does not have any unique OCC abilities, so the error can never be made.

The example is entirely appropriate because in both cases an O.C.C. is given an ability that they shouldn't have access to. The burster shouldn't have access to the piloting skills required to pilot military vehicles, bots or power armor because these are specifically restricted in the O.C.C. related skill list. Now, because of the way the burster O.C.C. rules are written it would be possible to take robot piloting and basic robot combat from the main O.C.C. skill list because the O.C.C. skills only restrict military piloting skills and technically robot piloting and robot combat are not listed as "military" skills. This probably isn't intentional, but as a GM I would be fine with the character taking robot piloting and basic robot combat skills because they could also be used for non-military robots. But letting a burster take robot combat elite when their O.C.C. related skills disallow robots, power armor and military piloting skills? That's just ridiculous and certainly isn't allowed by the rules because the character only has two O.C.C. skills that could be applied to robot piloting (in this case, robot piloting and robot combat basic) and couldn't use the O.C.C. related skills to get elite training.

Now, there's similarly no way for a Robot Pilot O.C.C. to gain a burster ability, unless the GM breaks the rules and lets a character take something that isn't permitted by the character's O.C.C. description. The fact that elite robot combat is a skill and the burster's ability is a psychic power isn't important because in each case the characters are not allowed to take these particular skills or powers. A Robot Pilot O.C.C. can have psionic powers (if they have major or minor psionics) but not burster powers. A Burster O.C.C. can have piloting skills, but not robots, power armor or military skills (except possibly as the two O.C.C. skills). In each case the GM would be letting the character gain something that, by the rules, they shouldn't have access to.

As many people have stated earlier, removing an ability that was incorrectly given to a character isn't something the player really has a strong reason to complain about. In this case we're talking about reducing bonuses to an appropriate level (from elite to basic).

Or even changing the PA used - Like to a Flying Titan or a SAMSON Redhawk*.


*note that the last one, despite being a SAMSON (not sure about the acronym, but I'm confident it involves the military), the Redhawk was established after PA 100, and available on a

Either way you want to look at it, the GM is making an appropriate decision based on the game rules and game balance in restricting a burster to robot combat basic. The suggestion that many people have made that the GM shouldn't go back and fix mistakes or oversights even if a character was given something that they shouldn't have had in the first place is ridiculous. The GM's entire role is to make these kinds of decisions about game balance.

[Dog_O_War]

Just because two skills are both restricted from being taken as secondary skills doesn't make them equivalent in terms of complexity. It just means that they can't be self-taught under the Rifts rules. Flying a fighter jet is obviously more complex than firing a railgun. The rules often restrict certain skills from O.C.C. skill lists (such as piloting or certain physical skills) due to the complexity of these skills or due to game balance in additional to restricting them from being taken as secondary skills.

You've misread me.
I agree that learning to fly a jet and learning to fire a rail gun are not equal in complexity. But the game itself disagrees with your statement.
That is, niether skill (WP E-Heavy or Pilot: R&PA) can be learned in a character's spare time, and both require only one skill choice, but an equal skill choice (an "other" skill) - this makes them mechanically equal in difficulty to learn.

The example is entirely appropriate because in both cases an O.C.C. is given an ability that they shouldn't have access to. The burster shouldn't have access to the piloting skillls required to pilot military vehicles, bots or power armor because these are specifically restricted in the O.C.C. related skill list.

I said this dozens of posts ago. I said that it was also likely unintentional, as not everyone knows what SAMAS stands for.
Your original statement was unclear on this matter as you were comparing clearly labelled PCC abilities with a wrong choice made due to an equipment acronym.
As I said, your example does not equal the reality of the game.

Now, because of the way the burster O.C.C. rules are written it would be possible to take robot piloting and basic robot combat from the main O.C.C. skill list because the O.C.C. skills only restrict military piloting skills and technically robot pilot and combat are not listed as "military" skills. This probably isn't intentional, but as a GM I would be fine with the character taking robot piloting and basic robot combat skills because they could also be used for non-military robots. But letting a burster take robot combat elite when their O.C.C. related skills disallow robots, power armor and military piloting skills?

Their OCC doesn't disallow Pilot robots and PA or Robot Combat: Basic/Elite. The thing that is disallowed is that the SAMAS is a military vehicle - the one thing the Burster is not allowed to train with. He could have Robot Combat: Elite with a Flying Titan combat PA as there is no military for this suit to be exclusive to, and that goes with certain other models as well.

That's just ridiculous and certainly isn't allowed by the rules because the character only has two O.C.C. skills that could be applied to robot piloting (in this case, robot piloting and robot combat basic) and couldn't use the O.C.C. related skills to get elite training.

Again, I said this - many posts ago.

Now, there's similarly no way for a Robot Pilot O.C.C. to gain a burster ability, unless the GM breaks the rules and lets a character take something that isn't permitted by the character's O.C.C. description.

There is nothing similar in how a Burster cannot gain Robot Combat: Elite, and how a Robot Pilot cannot gain Burster PCC-specific abilities. Robot combat is a skill anyone with the available skill-slots can take. Burster-PCC abilities are only ever available to people who take the burster PCC.
What it comes down to is that the burster ran out of skills available and picked a piece of equipment he didn't know was barred, not that he picked a skill he blatantly couldn't get.

The fact that elite robot combat is a skill and the burster's ability is a special psychic power isn't important because in each case the O.C.C. characters are not allowed to take these skills.

Completely wrong. The Burster can take Robot Combat: Elite (if he had more skills). The skill itself isn't specifically barred, only the piece of equipment he chose was.

Either way you want to look at it, the GM is making an appropriate decision based on the game rules and game balance in restricting a burster to robot combat basic. The suggestion that many people have made that the GM shouldn't go back and fix mistakes or oversights even if a character was given something that they shouldn't have had in the first place is ridiculous. The GM's entire role is to make these kinds of decisions about game balance.

I don't think that the GM knew he made a mistake though - it sounded like he was finding that the Burster was too powerful for his game and decided to nerf him. Then it seems as if the players were upset because they felt nerfed.

Then I pointed out that infact it wasn't a nerf but in reality a rules correction. Personally I'd be upset at the player (as another player) for whining when the GM told him that he couldn't have a skill he was unable to select (without taking RC:B anyways, as well as a different PA model). Really, what made him so special that he should get more skills than anyone else? Should the players not inadvertently cheating (even unwittingly) be penalized - or should the mistake be corrected for what it was, even if it supposedly "ruined" the character?

And if they think that it ruined the character, do you really want to play with a guy that saw a clerical error as what made his character in your party?

[Devari]

Just because two skills are both restricted from being taken as secondary skills doesn't make them equivalent in terms of complexity. It just means that they can't be self-taught under the Rifts rules. Flying a fighter jet is obviously more complex than firing a railgun. The rules often restrict certain skills from O.C.C. skill lists (such as piloting or certain physical skills) due to the complexity of these skills or due to game balance in additional to restricting them from being taken as secondary skills.

You've misread me.
I agree that learning to fly a jet and learning to fire a rail gun are not equal in complexity. But the game itself disagrees with your statement.
That is, niether skill (WP E-Heavy or Pilot: R&PA) can be learned in a character's spare time, and both require only one skill choice, but an equal skill choice (an "other" skill) - this makes them mechanically equal in difficulty to learn.

The game mechanics for skill selections are somewhat abstract but just because each skill costs a single skill selection doesn't mean that they are considered to be equally difficult to learn by the game rules. The only skills that require more than one skill selection are the hand to hand skills. The complexity of all of the other skills is determined by the accessibility of those skills rather than by skill selections. The ability to take a skill as an O.C.C. skill, O.C.C. related skill, or secondary skill are what determines skill complexity by the game rules. The fact that almost all skills require one skill "selection" to learn is simply a convenient game mechanic, it isn't used to imply that one skill is equal to another in terms of complexity. Certain skills are far more limited than others in terms of which O.C.C.s have access to them and this is what relfects their complexity in the rules.

The example is entirely appropriate because in both cases an O.C.C. is given an ability that they shouldn't have access to. The burster shouldn't have access to the piloting skillls required to pilot military vehicles, bots or power armor because these are specifically restricted in the O.C.C. related skill list.

I said this dozens of posts ago. I said that it was also likely unintentional, as not everyone knows what SAMAS stands for.
Your original statement was unclear on this matter as you were comparing clearly labelled PCC abilities with a wrong choice made due to an equipment acronym.
As I said, your example does not equal the reality of the game.

I realize that a GM is unlikely to give another character access to burster skills, my point was to illustrate that just because a skill isn't a "special ability" it doesn't mean that it should be given to other O.C.C.s without consideration for the rules and game balance. To ensure that O.C.C.s without special abilities such as the Robot Pilot O.C.C. aren't overshadowed by other classes I think it's particularly important that the GM doesn't allow classes to take skills that they shouldn't have access to under the rules.

Now, because of the way the burster O.C.C. rules are written it would be possible to take robot piloting and basic robot combat from the main O.C.C. skill list because the O.C.C. skills only restrict military piloting skills and technically robot pilot and combat are not listed as "military" skills. This probably isn't intentional, but as a GM I would be fine with the character taking robot piloting and basic robot combat skills because they could also be used for non-military robots. But letting a burster take robot combat elite when their O.C.C. related skills disallow robots, power armor and military piloting skills?

Their OCC doesn't disallow Pilot robots and PA or Robot Combat: Basic/Elite. The thing that is disallowed is that the SAMAS is a military vehicle - the one thing the Burster is not allowed to train with. He could have Robot Combat: Elite with a Flying Titan combat PA as there is no military for this suit to be exclusive to, and that goes with certain other models as well.

That's just ridiculous and certainly isn't allowed by the rules because the character only has two O.C.C. skills that could be applied to robot piloting (in this case, robot piloting and robot combat basic) and couldn't use the O.C.C. related skills to get elite training.

Again, I said this - many posts ago.

Now, there's similarly no way for a Robot Pilot O.C.C. to gain a burster ability, unless the GM breaks the rules and lets a character take something that isn't permitted by the character's O.C.C. description.

There is nothing similar in how a Burster cannot gain Robot Combat: Elite, and how a Robot Pilot cannot gain Burster PCC-specific abilities. Robot combat is a skill anyone with the available skill-slots can take. Burster-PCC abilities are only ever available to people who take the burster PCC.
What it comes down to is that the burster ran out of skills available and picked a piece of equipment he didn't know was barred, not that he picked a skill he blatantly couldn't get.

The fact that elite robot combat is a skill and the burster's ability is a special psychic power isn't important because in each case the O.C.C. characters are not allowed to take these skills.

Completely wrong. The Burster can take Robot Combat: Elite (if he had more skills). The skill itself isn't specifically barred, only the piece of equipment he chose was.

There's no reason that a character with basic robot combat can't operate a SAMAS suit. The restriction is on military skills, i.e., those skills specifically with military in the title such as Military: Pilot Jet Fighter. Robot combat (both elite and basic) are not considered military skills under the rules. The fact that the SAMAS has "military" in the title of the suit is irrelevant - it's the skill category that determines if a skill is a "military" skill, not the name of the equipment being used. The rules don't place restrictions on whether a specific type of vehicle or equipment can be used, they only use the skill categories to determine if the skill itself is accessible.

As a GM I would consider elite robot combat to be a military skill in terms of allowing access to the skill (for the reasons I've described above) because I don't see how a character who doesn't have access to military skills should have access to elite robot combat training. I wouldn't have a problem with a character taking robot piloting and basic robot combat, however, since these skills have non-military uses and aren't specialized like elite robot combat.

The issue here is that the burster only has two O.C.C. skill selections to use for robot piloting and basic robot combat and the burster O.C.C. is disallowed from taking piloting skills for robots, power armor or military vehicles as related skills, so there is no way for the character to take an elite skill. If the burster had three O.C.C. piloting skills then technically they could do this but it clearly isn't intended for the Burster O.C.C. to take elite robot combat (or to drive tanks, fly fighter jets and so on).

Either way you want to look at it, the GM is making an appropriate decision based on the game rules and game balance in restricting a burster to robot combat basic. The suggestion that many people have made that the GM shouldn't go back and fix mistakes or oversights even if a character was given something that they shouldn't have had in the first place is ridiculous. The GM's entire role is to make these kinds of decisions about game balance.

I don't think that the GM knew he made a mistake though - it sounded like he was finding that the Burster was too powerful for his game and decided to nerf him. Then it seems as if the players were upset because they felt nerfed.

Then I pointed out that infact it wasn't a nerf but in reality a rules correction. Personally I'd be upset at the player (as another player) for whining when the GM told him that he couldn't have a skill he was unable to select (without taking RC:B anyways, as well as a different PA model). Really, what made him so special that he should get more skills than anyone else? Should the players not inadvertently cheating (even unwittingly) be penalized - or should the mistake be corrected for what it was, even if it supposedly "ruined" the character?

And if they think that it ruined the character, do you really want to play with a guy that saw a clerical error as what made his character in your party?

It's not clear exactly what caused the change by the GM, but I see it as something that would bring balance to the game. The Burster isn't really getting "nerfed" here, he's simply being required to play according to the rules. As I stated above, I don't see that as something a player really has much reason to complain about.

[Dog_O_War]

I realize that a GM is unlikely to give another character access to burster skills, my point was to illustrate that just because a skill isn't a "special ability" it doesn't mean that it should be given to other O.C.C.s without consideration for the rules and game balance. To ensure that O.C.C.s without special abilities such as the Robot Pilot O.C.C. aren't overshadowed by other classes I think it's particularly important that the GM doesn't allow classes to take skills that they shouldn't have access to under the rules.

If the character were a head-hunter who took pilot R&PA as well as Robot combat, there wouldn't have been any discussion - and that class is "more powerful" than the robot pilot. Infact, he's generally better at piloting PA's that the robot pilot is AND he has OCC-specific abilities.
I don't believe game-balance has a whole lot to do with it.

Now, because of the way the burster O.C.C. rules are written it would be possible to take robot piloting and basic robot combat from the main O.C.C. skill list because the O.C.C. skills only restrict military piloting skills and technically robot pilot and combat are not listed as "military" skills. This probably isn't intentional, but as a GM I would be fine with the character taking robot piloting and basic robot combat skills because they could also be used for non-military robots. But letting a burster take robot combat elite when their O.C.C. related skills disallow robots, power armor and military piloting skills?

Their OCC doesn't disallow Pilot robots and PA or Robot Combat: Basic/Elite. The thing that is disallowed is that the SAMAS is a military vehicle - the one thing the Burster is not allowed to train with. He could have Robot Combat: Elite with a Flying Titan combat PA as there is no military for this suit to be exclusive to, and that goes with certain other models as well.

There's no reason that a character with basic robot combat can't operate a SAMAS suit. The restriction is on military skills, i.e., those skills specifically with military in the title such as Military: Pilot Jet Fighter. Robot combat (both elite and basic) are not considered military skills under the rules. The fact that the SAMAS has "military" in the title of the suit is irrelevant - it's the skill category that determines if a skill is a "military" skill, not the name of the equipment being used. The rules don't place restrictions on whether a specific type of vehicle or equipment can be used, they only use the skill categories to determine if the skill itself is accessible.

Nobody said he didn't know how to pilot a SAMAS - that is covered under Pilot robots and PA, as well as robot combat basic. He can pilot a SAMAS via these skills because these are general skills that apply to all robots and PA.
Also, the fact that SAMAS has military in the title is very relevant - you would know this if you read the thread btw, as the OCC has a very specific restriction; cannot take pilot skills for military vehicles. Not "barred from military pilot skills", but barred from learning any pilot skill involving military vehicles (as the focal point).

As a GM I would consider elite robot combat to be a military skill in terms of allowing access to the skill (for the reasons I've described above) because I don't see how a character who doesn't have access to military skills should have access to elite robot combat training. I wouldn't have a problem with a character taking robot piloting and basic robot combat, however, since these skills have non-military uses and aren't specialized like elite robot combat.

Well that's just fine, because as a player, I wouldn't be barred from gaining RC:E in a civilian model PA, despite using a military skill to do it will
Also, non-military basic combat, eh? So only people in the military take that combat skill to a professional level?
Sarcasm aside, I see now your arguing point - you didn't read the Bursters' description for skill restrictions.

The issue here is that the burster only has two O.C.C. skill selections to use for robot piloting and basic robot combat and the burster O.C.C. is disallowed from taking piloting skills for robots, power armor or military vehicles as related skills, so there is no way for the character to take an elite skill. If the burster had three O.C.C. piloting skills then technically they could do this but it clearly isn't intended for the Burster O.C.C. to take elite robot combat (or to drive tanks, fly fighter jets and so on).

Again, I said this many posts ago. Well, that the Burst only had 2 skills to take 3 skill-selections with anyways.

It's not clear exactly what caused the change by the GM, but I see it as something that would bring balance to the game. The Burster isn't really getting "nerfed" here, he's simply being required to play according to the rules. As I stated above, I don't see that as something a player really has much reason to complain about.

Something we completely agree apon here. Even if the GM unwittingly allowed the skills selection to happen, and then did a ret-con, it wasn't fair to begin with.

[Devari]

I realize that a GM is unlikely to give another character access to burster skills, my point was to illustrate that just because a skill isn't a "special ability" it doesn't mean that it should be given to other O.C.C.s without consideration for the rules and game balance. To ensure that O.C.C.s without special abilities such as the Robot Pilot O.C.C. aren't overshadowed by other classes I think it's particularly important that the GM doesn't allow classes to take skills that they shouldn't have access to under the rules.

If the character were a head-hunter who took pilot R&PA as well as Robot combat, there wouldn't have been any discussion - and that class is "more powerful" than the robot pilot. Infact, he's generally better at piloting PA's that the robot pilot is AND he has OCC-specific abilities.
I don't believe game-balance has a whole lot to do with it.

The robot pilot and headhunter are both skill-based and technology-based O.C.C.s and are balanced well relative to each other. There is no problem at all with other combat classes having access to elite robot combat. Where the problems arise is when a psychic or magic using class is incorrectly given access to these types of skills. Although game balance isn't acheived (or even attempted) with all of the Rifts O.C.C.s for the most part some attempt is made for the classes to have definitive strengths and limitations. Giving a psychic character class access to advanced robot combat training when it is clearly not intended by the rules is definately a situation that would disrupt game balance.

Now, because of the way the burster O.C.C. rules are written it would be possible to take robot piloting and basic robot combat from the main O.C.C. skill list because the O.C.C. skills only restrict military piloting skills and technically robot pilot and combat are not listed as "military" skills. This probably isn't intentional, but as a GM I would be fine with the character taking robot piloting and basic robot combat skills because they could also be used for non-military robots. But letting a burster take robot combat elite when their O.C.C. related skills disallow robots, power armor and military piloting skills?

Their OCC doesn't disallow Pilot robots and PA or Robot Combat: Basic/Elite. The thing that is disallowed is that the SAMAS is a military vehicle - the one thing the Burster is not allowed to train with. He could have Robot Combat: Elite with a Flying Titan combat PA as there is no military for this suit to be exclusive to, and that goes with certain other models as well.

There's no reason that a character with basic robot combat can't operate a SAMAS suit. The restriction is on military skills, i.e., those skills specifically with military in the title such as Military: Pilot Jet Fighter. Robot combat (both elite and basic) are not considered military skills under the rules. The fact that the SAMAS has "military" in the title of the suit is irrelevant - it's the skill category that determines if a skill is a "military" skill, not the name of the equipment being used. The rules don't place restrictions on whether a specific type of vehicle or equipment can be used, they only use the skill categories to determine if the skill itself is accessible.

Nobody said he didn't know how to pilot a SAMAS - that is covered under Pilot robots and PA, as well as robot combat basic. He can pilot a SAMAS via these skills because these are general skills that apply to all robots and PA.
Also, the fact that SAMAS has military in the title is very relevant - you would know this if you read the thread btw, as the OCC has a very specific restriction; cannot take pilot skills for military vehicles. Not "barred from military pilot skills", but barred from learning any pilot skill involving military vehicles (as the focal point).

As a GM I would consider elite robot combat to be a military skill in terms of allowing access to the skill (for the reasons I've described above) because I don't see how a character who doesn't have access to military skills should have access to elite robot combat training. I wouldn't have a problem with a character taking robot piloting and basic robot combat, however, since these skills have non-military uses and aren't specialized like elite robot combat.

Well that's just fine, because as a player, I wouldn't be barred from gaining RC:E in a civilian model PA, despite using a military skill to do it will
Also, non-military basic combat, eh? So only people in the military take that combat skill to a professional level?
Sarcasm aside, I see now your arguing point - you didn't read the Bursters' description for skill restrictions.

Sorry, but you're completely wrong about how military skills work. The restriction for piloting military vehicles in the burster O.C.C. refers to vehicles that use a Military piloting skill. Vehicles that use a piloting skill such as Military: Pilot Fighter Jet are military vehicles under the rules. Suggesting that each individual vehicle is somehow classified as "military" or "non-military" based on whether "military" happens to be in the name is ridiculous. The rules don't work that way at all because the vast majority of military vehicles in Rifts don't have the term "military" anywhere in the vehicle name or description. The rules that define a "military" vehicle very clearly refer to the Military piloting skill category.

[Dog_O_War]

Sorry, but you're completely wrong about how military skills work.

Sorry, but the text as written does not agree with your statement.

The restriction for piloting military vehicles in the burster O.C.C. refers to vehicles that use a Military piloting skill. Vehicles that use a piloting skill such as Military: Pilot Fighter Jet are military vehicles under the rules. Suggesting that each individual vehicle is somehow classified as "military" or "non-military" based on whether "military" happens to be in the name is ridiculous.

FIREBALL!
Also, Cyborgs are unaffected by Phase weapons.
Also, Siege on Tolkeen.
Also, It should be noted that dodging gunfire is only a -10 when you're within 10 feet, but it becomes twice as easy after that, until 50 feet where it isn't even a challenge for really dextrous people.
Also, my incredible intellect allows me to backflip with incredible grace and ease.

Rediculous enough for you?

The rules don't work that way at all because the vast majority of military vehicles in Rifts don't have the term "military" anywhere in the vehicle name or description.

The ones that might be confused as civilian or private arms do.

The rules that define a "military" vehicle very clearly refer to the Military piloting skill category.

Then why is a burster allowed to pilot a Strategic Armoured Military Assault Suit with elite training?
Or why isn't a burster allowed to pilot a SAMAS with Robot Combat: Elite (assuming he had 1 extra skill)?

It should be noted that all craft under the various military pilot skills are infact, all military craft - where as not all craft under the pilot robots and PA skill, robot combat basic/elite, as well as other pilot skills like pilot automobile are strictly military. The ones that are though are labelled as such. HUMVEE anyone?

[Devari]

Sorry, but you're completely wrong about how military skills work.

Sorry, but the text as written does not agree with your statement.

The text as written under "O.C.C. Skills" is clearly referring to skill selections from the Military category, not to some type of restriction on individual types of vehicles. What you're suggesting is simply incorrect and is directly refuted by the obvious Military classification used for certain types of piloting skills.

The restriction for piloting military vehicles in the burster O.C.C. refers to vehicles that use a Military piloting skill. Vehicles that use a piloting skill such as Military: Pilot Fighter Jet are military vehicles under the rules. Suggesting that each individual vehicle is somehow classified as "military" or "non-military" based on whether "military" happens to be in the name is ridiculous.

FIREBALL!
Also, Cyborgs are unaffected by Phase weapons.
Also, Siege on Tolkeen.
Also, It should be noted that dodging gunfire is only a -10 when you're within 10 feet, but it becomes twice as easy after that, until 50 feet where it isn't even a challenge for really dextrous people.
Also, my incredible intellect allows me to backflip with incredible grace and ease.

Rediculous enough for you?

Please read my post again. I wasn't saying that the rules were ridicuous (although some Rifts rules are). I was saying that your attempt to interpret "military vehicles" in the O.C.C. skill section as referring to any vehicle that you personally decide is a "military vehicle" (rather than referring specifically to piloting skills from the Military category) is ridiculous.

The rules don't work that way at all because the vast majority of military vehicles in Rifts don't have the term "military" anywhere in the vehicle name or description.

The ones that might be confused as civilian or private arms do.

Aside from the classification of a piloting skill as Military (which is the only rule that defines a vehicle as a Military vehicle) there is no other rule that determines if a vehicle or weapon is military or non-military anywhere in Rifts.

The rules that define a "military" vehicle very clearly refer to the Military piloting skill category.

Then why is a burster allowed to pilot a Strategic Armoured Military Assault Suit with elite training?
Or why isn't a burster allowed to pilot a SAMAS with Robot Combat: Elite (assuming he had 1 extra skill)?

It should be noted that all craft under the various military pilot skills are infact, all military craft - where as not all craft under the pilot robots and PA skill, robot combat basic/elite, as well as other pilot skills like pilot automobile are strictly military. The ones that are though are labelled as such. HUMVEE anyone?

I'll try explaining this one more time. Referring to "Military" when selecting skills refers specifically to a skill in the Military category. It is not a rule that is somehow applied to each individual vehicle.

I'm sorry but I really don't see how someone could read the rules in RUE and not understand this.

[Dog_O_War]

I'll try explaining this one more time. Referring to "Military" when selecting skills refers specifically to a skill in the Military category. It is not a rule that is somehow applied to each individual vehicle.

I'm sorry but I really don't see how someone could read the rules in RUE and not understand this.

Look, I'll explain this one more time, with a snappy food-based comparisons.

I can say that apples taste like oranges all I want because they are both fruit, but that does not make me correct in any way, shape, or form.

However, I can say that both apples and oranges are fruit, but clearly have different tastes, just like I can say that both the SAMAS and the Flying Titan are both PA, but are clearly pegged as either military or privately produced.

Meanwhile I can say that rye and wheat are emphatically grain without having to look up their literal definitions, just as I can say that APC's and tanks are emphatically military without having to look up their literal definitions. However, a person does need to look up what a bottle of Wiser's whiskey is considered. It is alcohol, and it is whiskey, but then again so is Jack Daniel's whiskey. The difference? One is grain and one is vegetable, and only those in the know would peg them as such.

That said, If the Wiser's and the JD are both Whiskey, but the Shifter is not allowed use products that consist of grains, but allowed any vegetable product he wants, guess what is barred for him?

The same is true of the PA; no military(grain) vehicles(whiskey), but the skill(irrelivant, as a skill is not a vehicle) is okay.
The same is true of booze; no grain(military) whiskey(vehicle), but whiskey(vehicles in general) is okay.


Edited with the second line as to highlight the differences.

[Devari]

I'll try explaining this one more time. Referring to "Military" when selecting skills refers specifically to a skill in the Military category. It is not a rule that is somehow applied to each individual vehicle.

I'm sorry but I really don't see how someone could read the rules in RUE and not understand this.

Look, I'll explain this one more time, with a snappy food-based comparisons.

I can say that apples taste like oranges all I want because they are both fruit, but that does not make me correct in any way, shape, or form.

However, I can say that both apples and oranges are fruit, but clearly have different tastes, just like I can say that both the SAMAS and the Flying Titan are both PA, but are clearly pegged as either military or privately produced.

Meanwhile I can say that rye and wheat are emphatically grain without having to look up their literal definitions, just as I can say that APC's and tanks are emphatically military without having to look up their literal definitions. However, a person does need to look up what a bottle of Wiser's whiskey is considered. It is alcohol, and it is whiskey, but then again so is Jack Daniel's whiskey. The difference? One is grain and one is vegetable, and only those in the know would peg them as such.

That said, If the Wiser's and the JD are both Whiskey, but the Shifter is not allowed use products that consist of grains, but allowed any vegetable product he wants, guess what is barred for him?

The same is true of the PA; no military(grain) vehicles(whiskey), but the skill(irrelivant, as a skill is not a vehicle) is okay.
The same is true of booze; no grain(military) whiskey(vehicle), but whiskey(vehicles in general) is okay.


Edited with the second line as to highlight the differences.

The difference is that I'm referring to a game rule that specifically lists Military piloting skills. What you're describing is the general idea of what a military vehicle or weapon is. The O.C.C. rules are clearly referring to the skill-based definition of a Military vehicle, i.e., a vehicle that specifically uses a Military piloting skill. What you're descrbing isn't a rule, it's a general definition of a "military" vehicle and is obviously NOT what the O.C.C. rules are referring to.

Amusingly enough, I actually agree with the concept you're describing to a certain extent. I've even stated in a previous post that as a GM I consider the Robot Combat: Elite skill to be in the Military category because I don't see how a character could be restricted from driving a tank but somehow permitted to learn elite robot combat. As a game rule, however, none of the robots or power armor fall under the Military skill category with regards to skill selection. That's just the way the rules work. Now, you can use a house rule (which is what I do) to include certain skills in the military category. But what you're suggesting isn't actually a rule in the game that affects skill selection, it's simply your personal definition of a military vehicle.

[Dog_O_War]

The difference is that I'm referring to a game rule that specifically lists Military piloting skills. What you're describing is the general idea of what a military vehicle or weapon is. The O.C.C. rules are clearly referring to the skill-based definition of a Military vehicle, i.e., a vehicle that specifically uses a Military piloting skill. What you're descrbing isn't a rule, it's a general definition of a "military" vehicle and is obviously NOT what the O.C.C. rules are referring to.

Unfortunately the definitions of the words, "Skill", "Vehicle", and "Military" disagree with you.
I know that there are several pilot skills clearly labelled, "Military Pilot: tanks and APCs, etc..."
But the text of the Burster does not reflect this, nor does the errata.
The text specifically says, "... except military vehicles".
Vehicle has its own definition, just as skill has its own definition. The term 'skill' pertains to knowledge of something. The term 'vehicle' pertains to an object used for movement.

The literal text is that only vehicles normally only available to the military are barred. Until they change the errata to reflect the word "skill" instead of "vehicle", it will remain the way I have described.

This is known as the RAW or Rules As Written. The RAW has always superceeded the RAI, or Rules As Intended. Also known as legalese, as when it comes down to it, the rule says "vehicles" not "skills".

[Library Ogre]

My broad-brush rule: Military piloting skills include Expert power armor skills, tanks and apcs, and jet fighters. Basic power armor combat is not a military skill.

[Devari]

The difference is that I'm referring to a game rule that specifically lists Military piloting skills. What you're describing is the general idea of what a military vehicle or weapon is. The O.C.C. rules are clearly referring to the skill-based definition of a Military vehicle, i.e., a vehicle that specifically uses a Military piloting skill. What you're descrbing isn't a rule, it's a general definition of a "military" vehicle and is obviously NOT what the O.C.C. rules are referring to.

Unfortunately the definitions of the words, "Skill", "Vehicle", and "Military" disagree with you.
I know that there are several pilot skills clearly labelled, "Military Pilot: tanks and APCs, etc..."
But the text of the Burster does not reflect this, nor does the errata.
The text specifically says, "... except military vehicles".
Vehicle has its own definition, just as skill has its own definition. The term 'skill' pertains to knowledge of something. The term 'vehicle' pertains to an object used for movement.

The literal text is that only vehicles normally only available to the military are barred. Until they change the errata to reflect the word "skill" instead of "vehicle", it will remain the way I have described.

This is known as the RAW or Rules As Written. The RAW has always superceeded the RAI, or Rules As Intended. Also known as legalese, as when it comes down to it, the rule says "vehicles" not "skills".

According to the rules for skill selection a Military vehicle is a vehicle that uses a Military piloting skill. It's as simple as that. There is no other rule that defines a military vehicle anywhere in Rifts other than the Military piloting skills. You're trying to misinterpret the wording used in the Burster O.C.C. skill section to invent a rule that doesn't exist.