Thanks for the quote, Paul. So yes, by the letter of the rules, at +9 Balanced, you'd be better able to attack with a weapon that you have absolutely zero training in than one that you have some (3 ranks) training in. And while I'm perfectly willing to accept this (the rules are clear and unambiguous, here) it seems to me that it doesn't make a lot of sense. There is no justification for this rule in the rulebook. So we are left to extrapolate our own reasons. I justify this rule with the fact that you have a significant level of training in melee combat, albeit with a different weapon type. So you can use that knowledge to be somewhat competent in melee with another weapon of a different type. To use your example, you're better at attacking with an unarmed attack (a weapon with zero training) than you are with a pole arm (a weapon where you already have 3 ranks of training.) To further the hypothetical example, let's say that you buy Big Marcus Tyson a drink and he offers you a boxing lesson. You learn 1 rank in melee (unarmed). Suddenly your unarmed attacks just got worse than they were before you learned a thing or two about boxing.
This is my conundrum. The letter of the rules is quite clear. But with respect to the spirit of the rules, it seems to me that this highest-5 rule should be applied to trained skills as well. That is, you should be able to use highest-5 or your current ranks, whichever is higher. And I was wondering what other people thought about that. Personally, I think I'd like to see this as an errata. But I wanted to see other opinions as well.
Scott