Grazzik wrote:I presume it's wrt my previous example of the Lizard Mage. Initially, they were heavy outmatched by a squad of Kreeghor with heavy pulse rifles and suffered severe damage.
Mostly, what I took issue with was Lesson 3: "Low level human mages have no hope in direct combat - run away or surrender!"
That said, rogerd1 is correct in saying that the the stereotypical attitude of mages is not always warranted when there are clear advantages to using firearms instead of magic, but that is true of many callings... sometimes the real benefits only come to those that persevere until they can achieve a certain degree of mastery. Those who gain that mastery and demonstrate true power then, in turn, become the ideal to which novices aspire.
Well, that's the thing.
The "stereotypical attitude of mages" isn't what it's cracked up to be.
The stereotype in Rifts only comes from one main place:
An opinion piece by Hugh King that was published in the Rifter, and again in the BoM, with KS adding little "Yeah, this is the way" type comments."
But if you read that piece, and the comments, I don't think it's really coming out to what most people think.
In the section
Wizards should use magic--duh! for example, King writes:
One thing that bugs me about Rifts mages is that it seems a lot of the time, maybe even the majority, mages who are off adventuring are better off relying on technology than their magic, or there doesn't seem to be much reason to use magic. "Hm, I can Fire Bolt that guy eight times completely depleting my PPE, or I can shoot him with my gun and only use my ammunition. Both do the same damage and the gun can shoot twice as far (or more likely, lots more than that). Guess I'll use my gun."
The worst part is, many times this may actually make the most sense, but it detracts from the whole character of the mage. Sure, they can use technology, and they will, but they know magic is superior (or at least they think so), so they will have a very strong tendency to prefer using it over "feeble technology"...Again, this is an opinion piece by Hugh King, NOT Kevin writing his own personal view.
And my opinion is that Hugh King is wrong about a lot of stuff there.
Yes, mages should see magic as superior, but this does NOT mean that they should always try to use magic instead of technology, and it doesn't mean they need to only use technology with distaste, holding their noses as they do it.
Magic is not "the whole character of the mage."
It's important, but
mages should be 3-dimensional characters, not weirdos with a magic fetish who can't enjoy or appreciate anything else.They should not be one-trick ponies.
Mages are magic users, but they're also low-grade Skill Monkeys. Line Walkers start with 26 skills at first level, with a decent amount of potential variety.
City Rats start with 31 skills, for comparison.
Rogue Scholars start with 34.
Mages aren't too far behind, usually with more skills than Men At Arms, almost always with more skills than Psychics, and usually with a broad range of possibilities compared to MoAs who tend to have a bunch of their skills dedicated just to weaponry and vehicles.
You don't get that range of skills if your only passion in life is Magic.
You don't get that many potential tech skills if you turn your nose up at tech.
Hugh King is--if anybody is--the one detracting from "the whole character," by ignoring the rest of a mage's personality and reducing them to a pointless stereotype.
Having something that makes a character class different does NOT mean that the characters should prize that difference above all else, in all or even necessarily most circumstances.
If you have a Rogue Scholar, for example, he might well be a "man of intellect" who thinks that violence is vulgar, and he might well
prefer to use his intellect over any means of direct violence.
This does NOT mean that Rogue Scholars should prefer spouting lectures over pulling and firing a laser pistol after initiative is rolled.
That kind of expectation would be absurd, just as it would be absurd to expect Vagabonds to want to resolve all situations with Eyeball A Fella, or for a Glitterboy Pilot to try to solve every problem with his Boom Gun, even when that solution didn't make much sense.
Mages
should use magic, duh.
But only when it makes sense, duh.
Magic is a tool, and while it might be a preferred tool, that doesn't mean anybody with any brains is going to use the tool in inappropriate ways in times of emergency when they have other tools that would do the job better.
Personally, my favorite tool overall is the machete. I've used them all the time, for all kinds of things, from limbing trees to cutting and splitting firewood, to mowing grass, to blazing trails, and so forth.
I
love machetes, and I'm pretty good with them.
But if it's getting dark and I need serious firewood not just kindling and small stuff, and if I have a fueled-up chainsaw with me?
I'm not going to use the machete over the chainsaw.
If I've got 10 acres of lawn to mow, and I'm on or under some kind of clock?
I'm not going to use a machete; I'm going to get a mower, preferably a riding mower, because that's the right tool for that job.
So if your mage is looking at option A) cast Fire Bolt for 4d6 MD, and option B) Use his JA-12 to fire a 1d6x10+10 MD burst?
Well, that depends on the situation.
If it's not a matter of life and death, and the mage doesn't expect to need all his PPE for more important stuff later, sure, Fire Bolt away. Have a literal blast!
Especially if every laser blast you fire from your rifle is going to cost you money to recharge later, and even more especially if you don't know when the next opportunity to charge that E-clip will be.
But if the situation is serious, like your life (or your expensive armor) is in jeopardy?
A mage should use the gun every time, without hesitation, remorse, or squeamishness.
Yes, he's trained in magic.
But if he's got WP Energy Rifle, then he's trained in energy rifles too, and presumably he gets some level of joy and/or satisfaction out of using that skill.
Mages should value magic, but
value does not equate to fixation on magic as a solution in inappropriate situations.
I value a good machete, but I know when it's simply not the right tool for the job.
For that matter, I know when it's entirely sufficient for the job, but I don't want to sully or damage my blade unnecessarily.
And that's the thing about valuing Magic that King doesn't seem to appreciate:
if something is valuable, you do not, should not squander it.We all agree that versatility is the main power of magic. A mage can pull any number of tricks out of his proverbial wizard's hat, and they can cover a variety of situations, many of which tech cannot necessarily resolve.
So why
waste magic on doing things that are better accomplished by technology?
If a mage uses all or most of his PPE chucking Fire Bolts at somebody when he should be using a rifle, the mage is wasting his magic, squandering it, treating his PPE as if it were not a precious resource.
That's the opposite of
valuing it.
What if he needs that PPE later, in order to avoid falling to death, or drowning, or hiding via Chameleon or Invisibility?
What if he needs it for something more important, more nuanced, and less vulgar than just blasting energy at somebody?
Part of the character of a mage in virtually every setting that is not a Gauntlet-style video game (or something like 4E D&D which tries to emulate that sort of thing) is specifically that mages are
thinkers, and that they tend to budget their use of magic, saving their power for big feats and important things rather than trivia.
How many times in Lord of the Rings do we see Gandalf flat-out cast a magic spell?
Very few, compared to the times we see him use fireworks or intelligence, and when it comes to combat we always see Gandalf us his staff or his sword over magic, unless there's a situation where staff or sword simply won't cut it.
We NEVER see Gandalf fireball or magic missile a goblin, just because he wants to use magic in combat.
What we see consistently is Gandalf using the most efficient, lowest cost means to resolve a problem, saving magic for the problems that cannot be resolved as well through other means.
THAT is the character of a mage, in my opinion.
Now check out what KS says in his note after that bit I quoted from King:
Note From Siembieda: Hugh's exactly right. If a player is looking for a character good at combat and shooting things, a practitioner of magic is NOT the character for him. Mages are for characters who see the beauty and possibilities of magic.I think most people stop right there, and assume this is KS endorsing every little detail of what Hugh King had said. But when he says "Hugh's exactly right," he doesn't say about which what specifically, and I don't think it's about
everything that King said.
KS goes on, and this is the more important part in my mind (broken up for emphasis):
Mages are for characters who see the beauty and possibilities of magic.
Who intend to use the magic for more than blasting their way out of trouble.
The very nature of learning magic means a mage is more learned and scholarly than most other OCCs.
Thus, they use their magic to explore, observe, and learn. Learn things about people, places, culture, society, and so on. Then they use that knowledge and experience in their magic and adventuring. Thus,
they can use their magic as more than a magic weapon.
Sure, they can fight, but they can also magically influence, intimidate and inspire people. They can magically hide and lurk in the shadow. They can help and heal. Fly, travel to other worlds, communicate by magic, penetrate barriers, and do a host of other things.
Being a practitioner of magic, especially a Ley Line Walker, holds tremendous opportunity if the player has the vision to take advantage of it.
Not that there is anything wrong with playing an aggressive, gun-toting, combat-oriented mage. As with all things in role-playing, there are countless ways to play the same fundamental OCC.King's focus was on mages wanting to use magic above all else, and he puts some focus on the versatility of magic, mentioning using magic for "more than just blasting things," and that's what I think KS is agreeing with, mostly.
KS has always held Rifts up as a "thinking man's game," and he holds mages up as "more learned and scholarly than most other OCCs," emphasizing that they are thinkers, not just blasters.
Not that he minds if somebody wants to play a mage who just blasts things.
People seem to take KS's comments as support for the idea that mages should use magic above all else, for all things, but I think what he's agreeing with is that mages should be a) interested in magic, and b) interested in more than just blasting things.
This does NOT net out as "mages should be interested in blasting things with magic."
This nets out as "Mages shouldn't be primarily interested in just blasting things," with an indication that there's nothing wrong with playing a mage who IS primarily interested in just blasting away in combat, and also that such a mage should probably use guns.
KS doesn't seem to be a "use a spell when a gun will do the job" sort of guy.
He seems to be a "Think, don't just blast" kind of guy who knows that when the situation comes where blasting away IS the right thing to do, you might as well use a gun for that.
Hugh King poses the choice between Fire Bolt and an energy weapon, and I don't see any reason to believe KS would expect a mage to go for Fire Bolt over the energy weapon.
What he would expect, I think, is for a mage to go for Magic Net, or Carpet of Adhesion, or Domination, or any other non-blasting spell over either Fire Bolt or an energy weapon.
And if it somehow came down to just blasting?
Well, there's nothing wrong with a gun-toting mage.
And this is just that one essay. There are plenty of places in the books--even that same book, IIRC--where we're flat-out told that mages don't have a problem using tech.
I mean, KS is the guy who wrote the game of Rifts where all mages started out with tech armor and tech weapons as part of their starting gear.
The armor got nerfed by RUE, but not by a lot.
The weapons are still guns, and I don't see any reason to believe he wouldn't want mages to use them any time it's the best tool for the job.
Which is most combats, unless something more impressive or versatile is needed.
Killer Cyborg, your question on odds at level 1 is an interesting one.
Thanks!
The answer always depends on who the GM is, what house rules they're using, and how they interpret any number of official rules. How spells work specifically, how psionics work specifically, and how combat works specifically, can all turn the tables in one direction or another.
In MY games?
A 1st level LLW is a match for a 1st Level Juicer, in large part because I interpret the rules to allow for Simultaneous Attacks in ranged combat, where many other GMs don't.
Just for example.
Assuming all have equivalent armor, the Mind Melter has a substantial advantage over all others given the array of super psionics they gain at first level.
Hm.
What Super Psionic are you thinking of?
The City Rat, Grunt and Scholar most likely are distinguished from each other by the skills they have access to (perhaps not a significant factor?) and the Grunt may have access to more powerful weaponry. The LLW is pointed out by canon to be considered one of the more powerful and versatile mages and at level 1 has powerful abilities on a LL, but wrt delivering damage while under direct fire is probably still limited to single action spells (level 1-5) due to knockdown effects impacting multi-action spells. As such, a Grunt with a C-27 may well outmatch a LLW in delivering damage. However, previous posters make the point that if LLWs and other mages combine their mage-fu savvy with combat prowess, they'd easily overcome opponents.
So this is where the GM matters, where rules interpretation matters, and where your idea of "how mages should behave" matters.
LLWs start with "light armor," which means that if they go for LLW style armor, they've only got 32+2d6 MDC, an average of 39 MDC, which isn't great.
Personally, at 1st level, I'd probably go with light Crusader Armor instead, for 55 MDC. It gives full mobility, no penalties, and is pretty awesome.
This would mean that every time I cast a spell, I'd have to roll on the tables for "mages wearing artificial armor," but the vast majority of the time, it wouldn't make any significant difference in combat.
The only thing that table really does is waste people's time
Meanwhile, a Grunt will potentially have 100 MDC worth of Heavy Deadboy armor, in which case my mage would be on the short end of things. But if it's an NPC or somebody assigned to light/scouting duty, it could be as low as 50 MDC with old-school Light Deadboy armor.
LLWs get an energy pistol or rifle to start. Might was well start with a JA-12, which has a 1d6x10+10 MD burst.
CS Grunts start with an energy rifle and sidearm, and the best CS energy rifle is probably the CP-50, which has a 6d6 MD pulse.
(This is another place where rules are crucial, because IF the GM interprets a C-29 Heavy Plasma Cannon to be an "energy rifle," then the Grunt could be doing 1d6x10 MD per shot with that, but since it's a "support weapon" and "heavy" and "plasma," I consider that to be a Heavy Energy Weapon.)
So if the Mage and Grunt just stand there blasting away at each other without dodging or anything, at this point...
-The Mage will be inflicting an average of 45 MD per attack, which means the 100 MDC of the Grunt's armor will be destroyed in 3 attacks. Depending on how one interprets the GI-Joe rule when it comes to armor, the Grunt would either die on that 3rd successful strike as the 45 incoming MD overwhelms the 10 MDC so completely that the rule doesn't apply, OR the mage would kill the Grunt on the 4th successful average hit.
-The Grunt will be inflicting 21 MD per attack, needing 3 attacks to successfully destroy the mage's armor. Again depending on the GM's interpretation of the GI Joe Rule, the mage might die on that 3rd attack, or the Grunt might need a 4th attack to finish him off.
This is a pretty even fight, even with a mage who just stands there blasting away.
It pretty much comes down to luck of the dice, who wins initiative, and whether anybody manages to miss their target or rolls unusually high or low damage.
A single Nat 20 could tip the balance combined with even an average roll of the dice, and if either one got a Nat 20 and max damage?
They'd almost definitely win pretty quickly after.
(Same scenario on a Ley Line? Things tip strongly in the Mage's favor because he can put up a Ley Line Force Field around himself for an extra 22 MDC worth of protection
that replenishes automatically when destroyed. Depending on how the GM interprets the GI-Joe rule for armor, that right there ends the game. If the "last bit of armor" absorbs the rest of the incoming attack every time, the Grunt literally cannot kill the mage with his energy rifle just by blasting--the force field will replenish back to full before the Grunt can take advantage of the LLW's momentary lack of armor.)
But in that scenario, we're just letting them blast away at each other without dodging or doing anything fancy, and we're assuming that either both people already have their weapons drawn/ready at the start of combat, or that the GM doesn't require characters to spend an action just to draw a weapon.
IF, on the other hand, the characters had their rifles slung over their shoulders, and the GM requires an action to be spent drawing a weapon?
Then things can get more complicated.
If the Grunt wins initiative, and he's not within tackling range of the Mage or something, he'll ready his weapon, most likely his rifle.
But if the Mage wins initiative? Well, he could ready his rifle, BUT his hands are already free, so he can start casting spells (levels 1-5) immediately, on his first attack.
1st level LLWs get 3 spells for each level 1-4 to start.
This provides a lot of options, since any of these spells can be cast in a single attack, and in a one-on-one fight any number of spells can basically win the match for the mage.
If it was me playing the mage, I'd probably lead with Magic Net.
If the Grunt chose not to dodge, then he's helpless for 2 melee rounds. Fight is over.
If the Grunt chose to dodge, but fails, then he's helpless for 2 melee rounds. Fight is over.
If the Grunt chose to dodge and succeeds, then the net misses, but he's used his attack up and it's my turn again.
I could just keep casting Magic Net, because it's doubtful that the dude is going to keep dodging successfully against a strike of 16, but dodging is really his only option because if that spell hits him, he loses.
And of course this same tactic could have been played out in the first scenario, if the mage had his hands free and the Grunt had his rifle out.
The mage could have won that one too, without taking any damage to his armor.
Unless the Grunt got initiative, and shot the mage before a spell could be cast, and the GM interpreted the rules in such a way that getting hit at all meant he could not cast even a 1-action spell until he'd recovered or something, in which case the Grunt would win for sure unless the mage used his rifle.
And also of course, the mage could use Magic Net to win against 2 Grunts almost as easily as 1, if the two were standing close together at the start of combat. The odds of both dodging are pretty low, so at least one would likely get caught in the net, then recover from dodging just in time to have to dodge the next net.
BUT just as of course, if the combatants didn't start within easy Magic Net range, then the mage would have to do some other stuff first.
At longer distances, Invisibility would be a great first spell, because it would give you a way to close in with very little chance of getting shot, then it would be Magic Net time again.
Or if the mage doesn't know Magic Net, he could go with Invisibility followed by Carpet of Adhesion, followed by walking around behind the Grunt and casting some other spell or spells--or using his rifle--to finish the Grunt off.
So... yeah, as you and other posters have said, a savvy mage could easily take down most Men At Arms or Adventurers/Scholars pretty easily using the right spells,
as long as they do something other than just blast away with Fire Bolt or whatever.
IF the mage does the more reasonable thing, and he blasts away with the high-quality weapon he is trained with and carries, then his odds against any Man At Arms or Adventurer is pretty even at worst, unless it's something like a Juicer under the right GM who interprets key rules certain ways and such.
IF the mage does the even more reasonable thing, and does something other than just Blasting Away (dealing direct damage), he can win the fight in a single attack or two if the dice don't do anything too weird.
And IF the mage is a Thinking Man, he might not have ended up in the combat in the first place, because he'd have already been traveling around Invisible or something in the first place.
So anyway, back to the "Magic is weak" claim.
As people have pointed out, a mage using zero weapons DOES typically inflict less damage than a person with an energy weapon that costs tens of thousands of credits, and that spends more credits every time it fires.
But I wouldn't call "my empty hands are 1/4-1/2 as good as your anti-armor rifle that can blast through boulders" exactly "weak."
And I certainly wouldn't call "a spell that can take down a human-sized opponent reliably in a single attack" or "a spell that can make you invisible" or any number of other spells "weak" either.
By "magic is weak," the only thing people can reasonably mean is "magic is bad at direct damage blasting, compared to expensive high-tech energy weapons."
And we know that "blasting" is NOT what magic is supposed to be for.
The ability to blast MD energy at people is just a side-gig for magic, a hobby, practically an after thought.
Arguing that MAGIC is weak because it's not great at blasting is like arguing that a boomslang is "weak" because the snake's fangs only leave tiny holes in your body, practically pinpricks.
It just misses the big picture.