Question regarding magic vs. AR

[Michael Barakofsky]

Durring a recent character roll up session to introduce some fresh blood to the Rifts setting the following question came up:

Does a magic spell ignore AR?

I said yes because thats how I have always worked it, however my friend/roommate/co-GM wanted to know in which book that is said. I have spent the last hour trying (and failing) to find where I read that. So my question is this:

Is it actually printed in a book that Magical spell attacks ignore AR (hence the saving throw) or have I been playing with a house rule so long that I forgot it was a house rule?

[The Beast]

AFAIK, a spell has to specifically state that it ignores AR in order to ignore it.

[Goliath Strongarm]

[quote="The Beast"]AFAIK, a spell has to specifically state that it ignores AR in order to ignore it.[/quote Actually, AFAIK, most spells don't require a roll to strike. Which would mean those spells automatically ignore AR.

Spells that require a strike are situation dependant. If it is a mentally debilitating spell, the AR wouldn't affect it. So why would you count it?
GM common sense ruling, case by case basis.

[Nekira Sudacne]

Durring a recent character roll up session to introduce some fresh blood to the Rifts setting the following question came up:

Does a magic spell ignore AR?

I said yes because thats how I have always worked it, however my friend/roommate/co-GM wanted to know in which book that is said. I have spent the last hour trying (and failing) to find where I read that. So my question is this:

Is it actually printed in a book that Magical spell attacks ignore AR (hence the saving throw) or have I been playing with a house rule so long that I forgot it was a house rule?

depends on what kind of spells your talking about. do you mean things like fire ball or carpet of adhesion or dominate?

[Michael Barakofsky]

Durring a recent character roll up session to introduce some fresh blood to the Rifts setting the following question came up:

Does a magic spell ignore AR?

I said yes because thats how I have always worked it, however my friend/roommate/co-GM wanted to know in which book that is said. I have spent the last hour trying (and failing) to find where I read that. So my question is this:

Is it actually printed in a book that Magical spell attacks ignore AR (hence the saving throw) or have I been playing with a house rule so long that I forgot it was a house rule?

depends on what kind of spells your talking about. do you mean things like fire ball or carpet of adhesion or dominate?

Direct attack type spells like Fireball or Call Lightning and similar, spells like carpet of adhesion I know don't care about AR.

[The Beast]

AFAIK, a spell has to specifically state that it ignores AR in order to ignore it.

Actually, AFAIK, most spells don't require a roll to strike. Which would mean those spells automatically ignore AR.

Spells that require a strike are situation dependant. If it is a mentally debilitating spell, the AR wouldn't affect it. So why would you count it?
GM common sense ruling, case by case basis.

I assumed that he was asking about the attack spells (which, according to his previous post, he was). But no, you are right. Something like Blinding Flash, Fly as the Eagle, or Carpet of Adhesion wouldn't need to worry about an AR since neither one interacts with the other when in use.

[Glistam]

Some damaging spells just "automatically hit" and the only way the target can avoid it is to try and dodge. It is unclear whether those spells would always bypass the A.R., or if they would always be subject to it. That would have to be a G.M. call.

[Soldier of Od]

If a physical attack spell like fireball or energy bolt doesn't state that it ignores A.R. I have to assume that it doesn't, and works like any other attack. If there is a strike roll, then that just works as normal for any other strike. If there is a set target dodge, then consider the 'strike' roll to always be this, e.g. a fireball always hits with a strike of 18, so it will beat any A.R. of 17 or less every time. But if someone is wearing armour of Ithan (A.R. 18), then the fireball will hit the armour every time. An automatic hit spell like call lightning automatically hits so would do damage to the target, not his armour.

I don't really play Rifts, but I'm guessing it's different for no-A.R. M.D.C. armour.

[Giant2005]

If there is a Strike Roll, there is the potential for AR to be a factor.
Keep in mind that not all spells have Strike Rolls - several mentioned in this thread (eg Fireball, Energy Bolt) have a Dodge roll but no Strike and AR is irrelevant without a Strike roll.

[Michael Barakofsky]

If there is a Strike Roll, there is the potential for AR to be a factor.
Keep in mind that not all spells have Strike Rolls - several mentioned in this thread (eg Fireball, Energy Bolt) have a Dodge roll but no Strike and AR is irrelevant without a Strike roll.

thank you, thats how I have been working spells for years. I was just wondering if there was a page in a rule book somewhere that supported this or if I just slipped into a "this seems the right way" method.

[Nekira Sudacne]

If there is a Strike Roll, there is the potential for AR to be a factor.
Keep in mind that not all spells have Strike Rolls - several mentioned in this thread (eg Fireball, Energy Bolt) have a Dodge roll but no Strike and AR is irrelevant without a Strike roll.

thank you, thats how I have been working spells for years. I was just wondering if there was a page in a rule book somewhere that supported this or if I just slipped into a "this seems the right way" method.

There's no specific page. Palladium deliberately leaves a lot of niggling details up to the GM.

[Michael Barakofsky]

If there is a Strike Roll, there is the potential for AR to be a factor.
Keep in mind that not all spells have Strike Rolls - several mentioned in this thread (eg Fireball, Energy Bolt) have a Dodge roll but no Strike and AR is irrelevant without a Strike roll.

thank you, thats how I have been working spells for years. I was just wondering if there was a page in a rule book somewhere that supported this or if I just slipped into a "this seems the right way" method.

There's no specific page. Palladium deliberately leaves a lot of niggling details up to the GM.

Well all righty then, thank you everyone for your feedback I got what I was needing.

[Glistam]

Spells with no strike rolls can't make called shots, so they hit the main body. I would have those spells always hit the armor, unless the character has some weird armor that doesn't really cover the main body. That would be my GMm call, and why.

[Stone Gargoyle]

I only use a strike roll for magic if they are trying to target a specific area of the body or touching the target is involved for the spell to work.