combating vampires with undead amulet

[scorps]

so what is to stop a party that is wearing undead amulets from waltzing down to the vampire intelligence and just whap, whapping on him until dead or leaves dimension? i just don't see many counters to this that the vampire kingdoms may have thought of.

[eliakon]

so what is to stop a party that is wearing undead amulets from waltzing down to the vampire intelligence and just whap, whapping on him until dead or leaves dimension? i just don't see many counters to this that the vampire kingdoms may have thought of.

TONS of things
All that amulet does is prevent the undead from physically touching the bearer.
It does nothing to protect you from Weapons, Psionics, Magic, Traps, Thrown Boulders, a VI thumping you with its tentacles, being dumped in a pit, pick pockets, demons, elementals, poison, cyborgs, tear gas, flamethrowers, fusion blocks, or basically anything else that is not a vampire punching you with their fist or biting you on the neck.

Yes it is a nice bit of protection but it is not, in the slightest bit, absolute and the vampires have a highly technical term for adventurers that rely on it for their protection. That term is "lunch".

[scorps]

so what is to stop a party that is wearing undead amulets from waltzing down to the vampire intelligence and just whap, whapping on him until dead or leaves dimension? i just don't see many counters to this that the vampire kingdoms may have thought of.

TONS of things
All that amulet does is prevent the undead from physically touching the bearer.
It does nothing to protect you from Weapons, Psionics, Magic, Traps, Thrown Boulders, a VI thumping you with its tentacles, being dumped in a pit, pick pockets, demons, elementals, poison, cyborgs, tear gas, flamethrowers, fusion blocks, or basically anything else that is not a vampire punching you with their fist or biting you on the neck.

Yes it is a nice bit of protection but it is not, in the slightest bit, absolute and the vampires have a highly technical term for adventurers that rely on it for their protection. That term is "lunch".

thanks for the ideas! mind controlled 'borgs. i like it.

thought of another. the demon familiar. and although vampire's prefer not to, i guess there is no reason they shouldn't be carrying around regular weapons, melee or ranged (secondary and master vampires).

[eliakon]

so what is to stop a party that is wearing undead amulets from waltzing down to the vampire intelligence and just whap, whapping on him until dead or leaves dimension? i just don't see many counters to this that the vampire kingdoms may have thought of.

TONS of things
All that amulet does is prevent the undead from physically touching the bearer.
It does nothing to protect you from Weapons, Psionics, Magic, Traps, Thrown Boulders, a VI thumping you with its tentacles, being dumped in a pit, pick pockets, demons, elementals, poison, cyborgs, tear gas, flamethrowers, fusion blocks, or basically anything else that is not a vampire punching you with their fist or biting you on the neck.

Yes it is a nice bit of protection but it is not, in the slightest bit, absolute and the vampires have a highly technical term for adventurers that rely on it for their protection. That term is "lunch".

thanks for the ideas! mind controlled 'borgs. i like it.

thought of another. the demon familiar. and although vampire's prefer not to, i guess there is no reason they shouldn't be carrying around regular weapons, melee or ranged (secondary and master vampires).

The new books have the vampires running a group called "Deathspike" Its a vampire hunter hunter group
one of its tactics is "vampire borgs" with out going into to much detail they have borgs that pretend to be vampires... and then whup on hunters who try to use amulets and squirt guns.

But there are a lot of simpler things to do...
A trained monkey can pick pocket your amulet
A vampire can walk up to you with a fusion block in his hands
A pit trap can drop you in a pit
A mind slave or sixty are going to be a problem (unless your heroes are up to slaughtering everyone in the city)
A tear gas grenade is going to be a pain
Did you remember to sleep with it on?
Just walk up, use hypnotic suggestion (every vampire has that) and ask them to give you the amulet
Shoot them with a gun
Shoot them with that annoying TW gun that the last group of hunters had
Drop a net on them
Have a mercenary shoot them with a mini-missile from a mile away
Put some poison in their food (silly mortals and their food habit)
And that's even before you consider all the various non-vampires running around. Most of the kingdoms have D-bees of various sorts that can provide muscle, not to mention mind slaves, and mercenaries (lots of people are perfectly willing to work for evil beings for pay and privileges) and in some of the kingdoms (like Mexico) the citizens will fight the adventurers because the vampires are a lesser evil than most of the perils of Rifts Earth. (sure the Adventurers are going to be saying 'we are saving you from the evil"... are they PERSONALLY going to stick around and protect everyone after they dispose of the peoples current guardians? No? Didn't think so)

[drewkitty ~..~]

I am presuming that what is being talked about are protection undead amulets.
Since the Amulet spell does not have an option so I presume it is from somewhere else….??

[eliakon]

I am presuming that what is being talked about are protection undead amulets.
Since the Amulet spell does not have an option so I presume it is from somewhere else….??

BoM page 143
Amulet
Option #5 Turn the Undead
"A charm that will prevent any of the undead from physically touching them while they wear or hold the amulet."

This is often colloquially called the "Protection from Undead amulet" since it is the Amulet spell that provides protection from the undead.

[Eagle]

Yeah, I figure a vampire community of any real size is going to have defenses that aren't just vampire-based. Mercenaries are great.

[boring7]

Book of magic: "The amulet works much like a cross does against vampires."

Okay, let's check the VK revised (since I believe it's the most recent release), relevant sections appear to be:
"If the incapacitated vampire is attacked, he can fight back, though without initiative and with half his usual number of attacks and bonuses."
and
"A successful save vs holy symbol (18 or higher), means the vampire hesitates (loses initiative and one melee attack), backs off to arm's length and suffers 1d6 Hit Point damage, but does not recoil any further, is not immobilized and is otherwise unaffected. The vampire is free to take evasive action, feign fear or attack and is not chased away nor held at by the holy symbol, but he still avoids it."

Then there's optional rules and blahblahblah...make of that what you will.

[eliakon]

Book of magic: "The amulet works much like a cross does against vampires."

Okay, let's check the VK revised (since I believe it's the most recent release), relevant sections appear to be:
"If the incapacitated vampire is attacked, he can fight back, though without initiative and with half his usual number of attacks and bonuses."
and
"A successful save vs holy symbol (18 or higher), means the vampire hesitates (loses initiative and one melee attack), backs off to arm's length and suffers 1d6 Hit Point damage, but does not recoil any further, is not immobilized and is otherwise unaffected. The vampire is free to take evasive action, feign fear or attack and is not chased away nor held at by the holy symbol, but he still avoids it."

Then there's optional rules and blahblahblah...make of that what you will.

I would say that "Much like" and "Identical to" are not the same.
The spell says that it prevents an undead from touching you physically. It does not say that it will burn undead. It does not say that it will hold them at bay. It does not say it will destroy them. It says that it will prevent them from touching you physically. Which I would note, that wearing a cross will NOT do.
So yes, "Much like" a cross not "Exactly identical to a cross in all respects"

Now sure the GM may allow it to be brandished like a cross (or may not) but even so to get the effects above you must make a melee attack and bring it into contact with the vampire's skin.
That means
1) mixing it up in Melee with a vampire (not exactly the safest of hobbies)
2) making a successful melee attack on a vampire (not exactly the easiest of tasks) with a small object (amulets are not like crosses, you can't make huge weapons out of them for example) that does no special damage other than that of being 'much like a cross' unlike say... a large silver mace or something.

Which means that you have... reinvented the cross weapon from VK, only its smaller, has no use other than against undead, gets no WP bonuses, is harder to use...
...hmm maybe just wear the amulet and carry one of the various cross weapons?

[Axelmania]

Given that nothing in that description prevents touching the amulet itself, they could still try to rip it off you. They would also be capable of touchingyour armor and weapons since that isn't you either.

Or you could pull a Magnus Lee and send a minion to snatch the protective amulet. Any werewolf mercs willing to work for vamps?

[boring7]

Book of magic: "The amulet works much like a cross does against vampires."

Okay, let's check the VK revised (since I believe it's the most recent release), relevant sections appear to be:
"If the incapacitated vampire is attacked, he can fight back, though without initiative and with half his usual number of attacks and bonuses."
and
"A successful save vs holy symbol (18 or higher), means the vampire hesitates (loses initiative and one melee attack), backs off to arm's length and suffers 1d6 Hit Point damage, but does not recoil any further, is not immobilized and is otherwise unaffected. The vampire is free to take evasive action, feign fear or attack and is not chased away nor held at by the holy symbol, but he still avoids it."

Then there's optional rules and blahblahblah...make of that what you will.

I would say that "Much like" and "Identical to" are not the same.
The spell says that it prevents an undead from touching you physically. It does not say that it will burn undead. It does not say that it will hold them at bay. It does not say it will destroy them. It says that it will prevent them from touching you physically. Which I would note, that wearing a cross will NOT do.
So yes, "Much like" a cross not "Exactly identical to a cross in all respects"

Now sure the GM may allow it to be brandished like a cross (or may not) but even so to get the effects above you must make a melee attack and bring it into contact with the vampire's skin.
That means
1) mixing it up in Melee with a vampire (not exactly the safest of hobbies)
2) making a successful melee attack on a vampire (not exactly the easiest of tasks) with a small object (amulets are not like crosses, you can't make huge weapons out of them for example) that does no special damage other than that of being 'much like a cross' unlike say... a large silver mace or something.

Which means that you have... reinvented the cross weapon from VK, only its smaller, has no use other than against undead, gets no WP bonuses, is harder to use...
...hmm maybe just wear the amulet and carry one of the various cross weapons?

Alternatively, the intent was that the amulet creates a mental block against touching the wearer for undead, but an undead creature with a strong will (such as a vampire, which is nearly people) can power through and hit you anyway. OR that it cannot touch you or attack you, but it can counter-attack as soon as you throw the first punch. OR...something else.

But that's #riftsediting for you. Vague and ambiguous statements as official rules.

ANyways, Rifts undead are notoriously weak creatures, vampires are only strong because of their organization and their list of immunities. Even after 2 books were released nerfing and modifying the powers and weapons from others books there are several ways to one-shot Master Vampires and one-round VIs. Exploits are what you make of them.

[dreicunan]

Given that nothing in that description prevents touching the amulet itself, they could still try to rip it off you. They would also be capable of touchingyour armor and weapons since that isn't you either.

Or you could pull a Magnus Lee and send a minion to snatch the protective amulet. Any werewolf mercs willing to work for vamps?

Nothing in the description says that they can touch it, either, so I see this as a GM call. I'd certainly not allow the undead to touch armor or clothes worn by a character wearing an amulet like this, mainly because if you need to be naked apart from the amulet to prevent being grappled by the undead, that should really be mentioned (probably along with an advertisement for Vampire Hunters Gone Wild).

[Axelmania]

I took it as meaning the vampire can grab your shirt but can't touch fangs to your neck.

So it doesn't prevent them from punching you to death but it DOES prevent a slowkill since touching flesh is essential to turning you.

[scorps]

I took it as meaning the vampire can grab your shirt but can't touch fangs to your neck.

So it doesn't prevent them from punching you to death but it DOES prevent a slowkill since touching flesh is essential to turning you.

depends on the GM i guess. personally i would play it as they cannot touch/punch/bite you (including if you are in armor, power armor, or just plain clothes) but they can if you are inside a robot, or at least until they peal you out of it. however they can shoot you, throw stuff at you, and bash you with a club/vibrosword/etc. as they aren't "physically touching you."

[Killer Cyborg]

so what is to stop a party that is wearing undead amulets from waltzing down to the vampire intelligence and just whap, whapping on him until dead or leaves dimension? i just don't see many counters to this that the vampire kingdoms may have thought of.

TONS of things
All that amulet does is prevent the undead from physically touching the bearer.
It does nothing to protect you from Weapons, Psionics, Magic, Traps, Thrown Boulders, a VI thumping you with its tentacles, being dumped in a pit, pick pockets, demons, elementals, poison, cyborgs, tear gas, flamethrowers, fusion blocks, or basically anything else that is not a vampire punching you with their fist or biting you on the neck.

Yes it is a nice bit of protection but it is not, in the slightest bit, absolute and the vampires have a highly technical term for adventurers that rely on it for their protection. That term is "lunch".

thanks for the ideas! mind controlled 'borgs. i like it.

thought of another. the demon familiar. and although vampire's prefer not to, i guess there is no reason they shouldn't be carrying around regular weapons, melee or ranged (secondary and master vampires).

The new books have the vampires running a group called "Deathspike" Its a vampire hunter hunter group
one of its tactics is "vampire borgs" with out going into to much detail they have borgs that pretend to be vampires... and then whup on hunters who try to use amulets and squirt guns.

Ha!

I used a similar trick back in the day, where the "Master Vampire" was just a crazy guy with super powers.

[kaid]

Yeah, I figure a vampire community of any real size is going to have defenses that aren't just vampire-based. Mercenaries are great.

Hordes of mind controlled thralls as well. No point paying mercs when you can dominate them and make them fight for you for free.

[Axelmania]

I took it as meaning the vampire can grab your shirt but can't touch fangs to your neck.

So it doesn't prevent them from punching you to death but it DOES prevent a slowkill since touching flesh is essential to turning you.

depends on the GM i guess. personally i would play it as they cannot touch/punch/bite you (including if you are in armor, power armor, or just plain clothes) but they can if you are inside a robot, or at least until they peal you out of it. however they can shoot you, throw stuff at you, and bash you with a club/vibrosword/etc. as they aren't "physically touching you."

If I were going to house rule the amulet as being more powerful than I suppose "they can't touch you" could be boosted to mean "they can't come within two inches of you" which would cover most reasonable clothing and armor.

I don't necessarily want to protect all power armor worn by people with this. Maybe the vampire can't dig far enough in to hurt you, but saying they can't rip the wings off a SAMAS for example.. It really begs the question of where to draw the line.

That's why flesh-on-flesh is the simplest line.

Although I'm not sure how the amulet functions regarding involuntary proximity. For example (everyone is naked) hero A tosses Vampire C into hero B while hero B is wearing a prevent-touch amulet. Does the amulet prevent hero B from getting hit? Bounce the vamp off?

Automatic failure of Horror Factor at the thought of touching the wearer might be an easier explanation. Does it require sight though?

For example: Prowler is using invisibility superior and wearing "vamps can't touch me" amulet. He lies down in a vampire coffin to take a nap. Vampire returns, opens coffin, getting ready to lie down to rest...

What happens? Does it feel an knexicabld sense of dress that prevents it from choosing to use its coffin? Does it try jumping in and get telekinetically thrown out? Does the amulet cause the vampire to hover an inch away drkm the invisible sleeping prowler?

[Eagle]

Yeah, I figure a vampire community of any real size is going to have defenses that aren't just vampire-based. Mercenaries are great.

Hordes of mind controlled thralls as well. No point paying mercs when you can dominate them and make them fight for you for free.

I figured they'd get a bunch of Juicers to fight for them. Say you get a vampire Cyber-Doc or something who can create Juicers and Crazies. And you tell people, "work for us for X number of years, and when Last Call comes we'll make you immortal". That's a powerful sales pitch.

Now the vampire book says that Juicers can't become vampires, but that doesn't mean you tell that to the Juicers. And I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be turn-able anyway. They wouldn't get to keep their Juicer powers, they'd just be a normal vamp afterwards.

I also figure that weird D-Bees and one-off supernatural monsters could find a home in vampire territory. A group of Nightbane, a Temporal Raider and his minions, things like that should be given safe haven in Vampireland as long as they don't make trouble, on the condition they pick off a few vampire hunters every now and then.

[Eagle]

I took it as meaning the vampire can grab your shirt but can't touch fangs to your neck.

So it doesn't prevent them from punching you to death but it DOES prevent a slowkill since touching flesh is essential to turning you.

depends on the GM i guess. personally i would play it as they cannot touch/punch/bite you (including if you are in armor, power armor, or just plain clothes) but they can if you are inside a robot, or at least until they peal you out of it. however they can shoot you, throw stuff at you, and bash you with a club/vibrosword/etc. as they aren't "physically touching you."

If I were going to house rule the amulet as being more powerful than I suppose "they can't touch you" could be boosted to mean "they can't come within two inches of you" which would cover most reasonable clothing and armor.

I don't necessarily want to protect all power armor worn by people with this. Maybe the vampire can't dig far enough in to hurt you, but saying they can't rip the wings off a SAMAS for example.. It really begs the question of where to draw the line.

That's why flesh-on-flesh is the simplest line.

Although I'm not sure how the amulet functions regarding involuntary proximity. For example (everyone is naked) hero A tosses Vampire C into hero B while hero B is wearing a prevent-touch amulet. Does the amulet prevent hero B from getting hit? Bounce the vamp off?

Automatic failure of Horror Factor at the thought of touching the wearer might be an easier explanation. Does it require sight though?

For example: Prowler is using invisibility superior and wearing "vamps can't touch me" amulet. He lies down in a vampire coffin to take a nap. Vampire returns, opens coffin, getting ready to lie down to rest...

What happens? Does it feel an knexicabld sense of dress that prevents it from choosing to use its coffin? Does it try jumping in and get telekinetically thrown out? Does the amulet cause the vampire to hover an inch away drkm the invisible sleeping prowler?

Simplest to me is that the vampire can't knowingly or willingly make contact with somebody holding the amulet. If the vampire is staring at his iPhone walking down the street not paying any attention, then yeah he can bump into somebody holding the amulet. He probably gets shocked or something (not shocked as in taking damage, just feels a powerful sense of revulsion) and recoils from the individual. In your example, I think he probably touches the individual as he's climbing into bed, and then realizes that something is in his coffin, something with powerful magical protections that make the vampire recoil away from it. There's anti-undead magic in there.

Regarding how the vampire attacks? Rifts seems to treat body armor somewhat differently than power armor, and treats both of them very differently than being inside a robot or vehicle. I wouldn't let a vampire grab somebody by the jacket ("ha ha, not touching you, I'm touching your jacket!"). That eliminates the protective abilities of the amulet if you have to be naked while wearing it. Even then the vampire can just kick you to death with his shoes on. That's a really crappy magic item. I'd say that body armor and light power armor are both protected by the amulet.

Of course, the amulet might have to be visible for it to have an effect. If it is functioning similar to a cross, you can't have it hidden and have it still work. In keeping with vampire movies, I'd probably say that it becomes effective once it's on the outside of the clothing/armor. Wearing it inside your Glitter Boy does nothing, because it's basically not functional until it is displayed.

[eliakon]

I took it as meaning the vampire can grab your shirt but can't touch fangs to your neck.

So it doesn't prevent them from punching you to death but it DOES prevent a slowkill since touching flesh is essential to turning you.

depends on the GM i guess. personally i would play it as they cannot touch/punch/bite you (including if you are in armor, power armor, or just plain clothes) but they can if you are inside a robot, or at least until they peal you out of it. however they can shoot you, throw stuff at you, and bash you with a club/vibrosword/etc. as they aren't "physically touching you."

If I were going to house rule the amulet as being more powerful than I suppose "they can't touch you" could be boosted to mean "they can't come within two inches of you" which would cover most reasonable clothing and armor.

I don't necessarily want to protect all power armor worn by people with this. Maybe the vampire can't dig far enough in to hurt you, but saying they can't rip the wings off a SAMAS for example.. It really begs the question of where to draw the line.

That's why flesh-on-flesh is the simplest line.

Although I'm not sure how the amulet functions regarding involuntary proximity. For example (everyone is naked) hero A tosses Vampire C into hero B while hero B is wearing a prevent-touch amulet. Does the amulet prevent hero B from getting hit? Bounce the vamp off?

Automatic failure of Horror Factor at the thought of touching the wearer might be an easier explanation. Does it require sight though?

For example: Prowler is using invisibility superior and wearing "vamps can't touch me" amulet. He lies down in a vampire coffin to take a nap. Vampire returns, opens coffin, getting ready to lie down to rest...

What happens? Does it feel an knexicabld sense of dress that prevents it from choosing to use its coffin? Does it try jumping in and get telekinetically thrown out? Does the amulet cause the vampire to hover an inch away drkm the invisible sleeping prowler?

Simplest to me is that the vampire can't knowingly or willingly make contact with somebody holding the amulet. If the vampire is staring at his iPhone walking down the street not paying any attention, then yeah he can bump into somebody holding the amulet. He probably gets shocked or something (not shocked as in taking damage, just feels a powerful sense of revulsion) and recoils from the individual. In your example, I think he probably touches the individual as he's climbing into bed, and then realizes that something is in his coffin, something with powerful magical protections that make the vampire recoil away from it. There's anti-undead magic in there.

Regarding how the vampire attacks? Rifts seems to treat body armor somewhat differently than power armor, and treats both of them very differently than being inside a robot or vehicle. I wouldn't let a vampire grab somebody by the jacket ("ha ha, not touching you, I'm touching your jacket!"). That eliminates the protective abilities of the amulet if you have to be naked while wearing it. Even then the vampire can just kick you to death with his shoes on. That's a really crappy magic item. I'd say that body armor and light power armor are both protected by the amulet.

Of course, the amulet might have to be visible for it to have an effect. If it is functioning similar to a cross, you can't have it hidden and have it still work. In keeping with vampire movies, I'd probably say that it becomes effective once it's on the outside of the clothing/armor. Wearing it inside your Glitter Boy does nothing, because it's basically not functional until it is displayed.

^this^
Any interpretation of an item that rules lawyers the item into being utterly useless is probably the wrong interpretation.
If the argument is that the item works if, and only if, both people are completely naked then yes that is most likely a false conclusion.
Why?
Because the spell was written for games where characters and villains being naked is the rare exception not the rule.
That tells us that the spell was written to be useable by a character wearing clothing, and that it was expected to provide protection from an enemy that is wearing clothing.
This is further reinforced by the fact that nothing else in the game is described as needing 'skin to skin contact' for 'range touch'
Most spells for example with a range of touch can be used on someone who is wearing armor. They don't say "sorry, this is a combat spell but you can't actually use this in combat because your opponent is going to be wearing armor so it sucks you be you" Or we can look at the MANY super powers with a range of touch...
Now sure a GM could decide that they want to make magic and psionics and super powers almost useless in their game and make all 'touch' powers only work via skin contact. But that would be their own personal house rule.

[Axelmania]

It neither "removes the protective abilities" or makes it "utterly useless", as I already explained, a vampire can't touch his fangs to your neck and suck your blood or turn you when you wear this. That is a huge advantage.

Most spells for example with a range of touch can be used on someone who is wearing armor.

Which ones? Proof?

Keep in mind that lots of non - environmental armor has exposed areas where it is possible for an ally to touch your flesh to buff you while still wearing the armor and being protected by it.

[eliakon]

It neither "removes the protective abilities" or makes it "utterly useless", as I already explained, a vampire can't touch his fangs to your neck and suck your blood or turn you when you wear this. That is a huge advantage.

That isn't a "huge advantage" that is an almost trivial advantage that is so narrowly specialized to one single form of undead as to be almost not even worth discussing.
The Amulet protects from undead not "prevents you from being bitten by vampires"

Most spells for example with a range of touch can be used on someone who is wearing armor.

Which ones? Proof?

All of them?
They have Range: Touch
They have damage
They do not have any restriction that the normal rules of combat to NOT apply to them
To suddenly assume that no, there is really a restriction that is not mentioned in ANY BOOK ANYWHERE that is really implied and actually makes almost all powers utterly useless is so beyond absurd that its not even funny.
If you want to claim that spells, or any other power, need skin on skin contact then feel free to cite a source. Otherwise combat rules as normal cover these and all other attacks. And they do not say anything about clothing being some sort of absolute defense against magic.

Keep in mind that lots of non - environmental armor has exposed areas where it is possible for an ally to touch your flesh to buff you while still wearing the armor and being protected by it.

What a person can do with a called shot is not relevant to making a normal strike roll
Especially when much of those 'exposed areas' are covered by clothing themselves. Which by your claim makes them absolute protection from all forms of touch attacks...

[dreicunan]

"Touch. Means the magic's effects can only be transmitted through physical contact, flesh to flesh or flesh or through gloves and fabric, but not through sealed, environmental MDC body armor or armored vehicles (unless the magic is meant to effect the armor)." RUE page 187 on what touch means for magic spells. Now, if one is going to use that to inform their ruling, keep in mind that this could just as well be referring to the CASTER not being able to be in sealed, environmental MDC body armor as to the target (or both).

Dessicate the Supernatural is Range one target 50 ft per level or two by touch and does make clear that it won't work against someone completely sealed in environmental armor (or power armor or a vehicle). However, a bunch of other touch spells do NOT specify that, which would lead one to believe that the note on Dessicate is an exception, and that the rule is that a touch spell CAN work through such armor on the TARGET. Once again, make of that what you will as to how "touch" should be interpreted for the undead.

Personally, I'm not letting Vampires or other undead touch people or their armor if they have this amulet (regardless of if it is outside or inside the armor), and I'm not even sure about melee weapons wielded by thr undead, either).

[Axelmania]

Dessicate seams in line with the general description. It is probably just repeated for emphasis.

As for the overall description, the "through fabric" is illustrative. I have to wonder if it means a single layer though, as it is not "through fabrics" plural.

Otherwise a "touch" spell could reach someone through a mile of cloth?

[dreicunan]

If they were wearing cloth a mile thick? As written, yes.

[eliakon]

Dessicate seams in line with the general description. It is probably just repeated for emphasis.

As for the overall description, the "through fabric" is illustrative. I have to wonder if it means a single layer though, as it is not "through fabrics" plural.

Otherwise a "touch" spell could reach someone through a mile of cloth?

nice strawman or is that reductio ad absurdum? I can never tell.
No one (other than you) is pretending that a mile of cloth is in any way, shape or form, clothing.
It would be like claiming that 'a thin coating of dust' and 'the crust of a planet' are identical.

[Axelmania]

This isn't a strawman eliakon. The quote dreicunan provided says "through fabric", it doesn't mention clothing. So it could just as well work through a curtain or through a bedsheet.

This isn't necessarily all kinds of fabric or any amount of fabric though.

For example Joey Tribbiani "could I be wearing any more clothes", if he had taken some damage and I wanted to use Healing Touch (range touch psi) on him, I am not confident it would work through 10 shirts, even if all of them are fabric shirts.

At bare minimum we know that touch can work through at least 1 layer of at least 1 kind of fabric on Riffs Earth. The true extent may need to be left to the GM unless we have something else to goon.

This may be unique to this planet due to higher magic levels. Touch as defined in Palladium Fantasy is "direct contact" if I recall right, which rules out glove/fabric barriers since that is indirect.

[dreicunan]

This isn't a strawman eliakon. The quote dreicunan provided says "through fabric", it doesn't mention clothing. So it could just as well work through a curtain or through a bedsheet.

This isn't necessarily all kinds of fabric or any amount of fabric though.

For example Joey Tribbiani "could I be wearing any more clothes", if he had taken some damage and I wanted to use Healing Touch (range touch psi) on him, I am not confident it would work through 10 shirts, even if all of them are fabric shirts.

At bare minimum we know that touch can work through at least 1 layer of at least 1 kind of fabric on Riffs Earth. The true extent may need to be left to the GM unless we have something else to goon.

This may be unique to this planet due to higher magic levels. Touch as defined in Palladium Fantasy is "direct contact" if I recall right, which rules out glove/fabric barriers since that is indirect.

Heroes Unlimited defines it as "physical contact." However neither of those phrases in common usage necessitate actual skin to skin contact. You can't get out of a sexual harassment case for inappropriately touching a women's breast just because she was wearing a shirt!

[Killer Cyborg]

I have to wonder if it means a single layer though, as it is not "through fabrics" plural.

"Fabrics" is only the plural of "fabric" when it's a countable noun, not when it's a mass noun, and it's only a countable noun when referring to multiple kinds of fabric, not when referring to multiple layers or depths of fabric.

If somebody is wearing three layers of overlayed denim, and you grab/touch them through those layers, then you're touching them "through fabric."
If they have a layer of denim, a layer of silk, and a layer of polyester, then you're touching them through "fabrics."

[Axelmania]

If they have a layer of denim, a layer of silk, and a layer of polyester, then you're touching them through "fabrics."

Luckily since it's not explicitly "all" fabric (or unlimited amounts) there's wiggle room for GMs to defend the denim/silk/polester defense.

You can't get out of a sexual harassment case for inappropriately touching a women's breast just because she was wearing a shirt!

IRL laws tend to be pretty specific about things. For example http://law.justia.com/codes/louisiana/2 ... 78532.html says "using any instrumentality or any part of the body"

So "any instrumentality" could cover throwing a baseball from 100ft and hitting a guy in the groin, as an example.

[Killer Cyborg]

If they have a layer of denim, a layer of silk, and a layer of polyester, then you're touching them through "fabrics."

Luckily since it's not explicitly "all" fabric (or unlimited amounts) there's wiggle room for GMs to defend the denim/silk/polester defense.

For clarification, you're saying "could a GM technically defend the idea that because only the word "fabric" is used, that the statement would not apply to multiple layers of different kinds of fabric?
So a person wearing three layers of one fabric could be affected, but a person wearing "fabrics" of different kinds would not?

Sure, technically one could do that... but it would have many interesting repercussions within the game world, as that interpretation pattern would also mean somebody who is "impervious to fire/heat" is NOT "impervious to fires/heats," for example.
Same with "Impervious to Energy," and any number of other parts of the game.
By that same token, a number of situations would come up where the reverse applies, where multiples are listed but NOT singulars. Glitter Boy Armor, for example, has the note that "laser weapons do half damage to the Glitter Boy," which only specifies plural weapons. One could argue that a single laser weapon attacking a GB inflicts full damage, and it's only in cases where the GB is hit by multiple lasers that the defensive bonus kicks in.
But one shouldn't argue that, because it doesn't make any real sense unless we do a lot of mental gymnastic to try to justify that result.

[boring7]

Further thought reminds me that a much simpler "you can't touch me" option for vampires is just dropping a Globe of Daylight. The only vampires that can push through their aversion to the light and engage in melee are the Master Vampire (unless I'm mis-remembering) who may or may not even count as Undead (depending on which book you go with, #riftsediting), and the usually-considered-alive VI.

Anyway, dragging this back to the original topic. Personally I'd go with the "against vampires, the amulet counts as a cross/holy symbol with all associated rules". Sure it nerfs the amulet against that particular type of monster a bit, but not by much.

And to immediately drift off topic again: Do amulets stack? Can you wear 20 amulets of resist magic and automatically make all magic saves? Can you wear one of each kind of amulet, perhaps like this guy? Can you slot the amulets in a bracer or chestplate so you don't have a floppy necklace flopping about and being annoying? I recall mention somewhere of things usually stacking, but with a diminishing 1/2 return rate (so amulet 1 gives a +2 to horror saves, amulet 2 gives a +1, amulets 3-NaN give no bonus) but I don't recall where.

I think I'd rule 1 for each enchantment type, can be slotted anywhere as long as it's "worn" or "carried" (backpack is okay, attached to your Glitterboy is not).

[dreicunan]

Further thought reminds me that a much simpler "you can't touch me" option for vampires is just dropping a Globe of Daylight. The only vampires that can push through their aversion to the light and engage in melee are the Master Vampire (unless I'm mis-remembering) who may or may not even count as Undead (depending on which book you go with, #riftsediting), and the usually-considered-alive VI.

Anyway, dragging this back to the original topic. Personally I'd go with the "against vampires, the amulet counts as a cross/holy symbol with all associated rules". Sure it nerfs the amulet against that particular type of monster a bit, but not by much.

And to immediately drift off topic again: Do amulets stack? Can you wear 20 amulets of resist magic and automatically make all magic saves? Can you wear one of each kind of amulet, perhaps like this guy? Can you slot the amulets in a bracer or chestplate so you don't have a floppy necklace flopping about and being annoying? I recall mention somewhere of things usually stacking, but with a diminishing 1/2 return rate (so amulet 1 gives a +2 to horror saves, amulet 2 gives a +1, amulets 3-NaN give no bonus) but I don't recall where.

I think I'd rule 1 for each enchantment type, can be slotted anywhere as long as it's "worn" or "carried" (backpack is okay, attached to your Glitterboy is not).

So what would your version of the amulet do against mummies?

[Axelmania]

If they have a layer of denim, a layer of silk, and a layer of polyester, then you're touching them through "fabrics."

Luckily since it's not explicitly "all" fabric (or unlimited amounts) there's wiggle room for GMs to defend the denim/silk/polester defense.

For clarification, you're saying "could a GM technically defend the idea that because only the word "fabric" is used, that the statement would not apply to multiple layers of different kinds of fabric?
So a person wearing three layers of one fabric could be affected, but a person wearing "fabrics" of different kinds would not?

No, there's some miscommunication happening.

Even with 1 layer of fabric, it's up to the GM if that's one of the fabrics that magic can work through.

All we know is that some unidentified kind (or kinds) of fabric can channel magic "touch" range.

We would need further evidence as to what kind or kinds of fabric that is.

Sure, technically one could do that... but it would have many interesting repercussions within the game world, as that interpretation pattern would also mean somebody who is "impervious to fire/heat" is NOT "impervious to fires/heats," for example.

I believe the text of the spell elaborates enough.

Same with "Impervious to Energy," and any number of other parts of the game.

We already have that distinction with kinetic energy.

By that same token, a number of situations would come up where the reverse applies, where multiples are listed but NOT singulars. Glitter Boy Armor, for example, has the note that "laser weapons do half damage to the Glitter Boy," which only specifies plural weapons. One could argue that a single laser weapon attacking a GB inflicts full damage, and it's only in cases where the GB is hit by multiple lasers that the defensive bonus kicks in.

I don't think single>plural and plural>single examples match.

Anyway, we know some kinds of lasers don't do half damage, so this is a great example that "laser weapons" is not "ALL laser weapons" and "fabric" isn't "ALL fabric"

What we need to find is examples in the books (if any) of touch spells being used by touching various fabrics and what those fabrics are.

For example, what if it is just wool because sheep have special magic-conducting hair?

[boring7]

Further thought reminds me that a much simpler "you can't touch me" option for vampires is just dropping a Globe of Daylight. The only vampires that can push through their aversion to the light and engage in melee are the Master Vampire (unless I'm mis-remembering) who may or may not even count as Undead (depending on which book you go with, #riftsediting), and the usually-considered-alive VI.

Anyway, dragging this back to the original topic. Personally I'd go with the "against vampires, the amulet counts as a cross/holy symbol with all associated rules". Sure it nerfs the amulet against that particular type of monster a bit, but not by much.

And to immediately drift off topic again: Do amulets stack? Can you wear 20 amulets of resist magic and automatically make all magic saves? Can you wear one of each kind of amulet, perhaps like this guy? Can you slot the amulets in a bracer or chestplate so you don't have a floppy necklace flopping about and being annoying? I recall mention somewhere of things usually stacking, but with a diminishing 1/2 return rate (so amulet 1 gives a +2 to horror saves, amulet 2 gives a +1, amulets 3-NaN give no bonus) but I don't recall where.

I think I'd rule 1 for each enchantment type, can be slotted anywhere as long as it's "worn" or "carried" (backpack is okay, attached to your Glitterboy is not).

So what would your version of the amulet do against mummies?

The metaphorical half-centimeter forcefield option with "treat the opponent like s/he is on fire" as long as the amulet was visible. It's a high-level spell that takes prep-work and mummies are trash-monsters. If 35% of the undead horde is disabled by it, it's all in good fun. I mean it's not that different than wearing plastic-man armor and setting yourself on SDC fire.

[eliakon]

Further thought reminds me that a much simpler "you can't touch me" option for vampires is just dropping a Globe of Daylight. The only vampires that can push through their aversion to the light and engage in melee are the Master Vampire (unless I'm mis-remembering) who may or may not even count as Undead (depending on which book you go with, #riftsediting), and the usually-considered-alive VI.

Anyway, dragging this back to the original topic. Personally I'd go with the "against vampires, the amulet counts as a cross/holy symbol with all associated rules". Sure it nerfs the amulet against that particular type of monster a bit, but not by much.

And to immediately drift off topic again: Do amulets stack? Can you wear 20 amulets of resist magic and automatically make all magic saves? Can you wear one of each kind of amulet, perhaps like this guy? Can you slot the amulets in a bracer or chestplate so you don't have a floppy necklace flopping about and being annoying? I recall mention somewhere of things usually stacking, but with a diminishing 1/2 return rate (so amulet 1 gives a +2 to horror saves, amulet 2 gives a +1, amulets 3-NaN give no bonus) but I don't recall where.

I think I'd rule 1 for each enchantment type, can be slotted anywhere as long as it's "worn" or "carried" (backpack is okay, attached to your Glitterboy is not).

While it is a different game, PFRPG says that you can not wear multiple amulets of the same kind.
This makes sense and follows the general logic of not being able to benefit from the same boost multiple times.
I would not allow a person to just keep casting the same spell over and over to get the same bonus for example, and you cant take the same skill over and over so why should you be able to cast amulet over and over and have it stack?
As for 'wearing' I would say you have to wear it in a way that would be consistent with the way jewelry is worn.
You can have it on a belt, necklace, ring, earing, sewn on a shirt, worn as a medal... but not tucked in a shoe, in a pocket, or a backpack.
The first are 'worn' the second are not.

[Axelmania]

Does anyone know if any books talk about how large the human aura is? I was thinking maybe if we count the aura as part of you then "touch" could refer to simply touching the aura.

Dead Reign for example mentions that clothing/armor can't hide an aura but being behind a wall can. I'm wanting actual measurements though.

[boring7]

Further thought reminds me that a much simpler "you can't touch me" option for vampires is just dropping a Globe of Daylight. The only vampires that can push through their aversion to the light and engage in melee are the Master Vampire (unless I'm mis-remembering) who may or may not even count as Undead (depending on which book you go with, #riftsediting), and the usually-considered-alive VI.

Anyway, dragging this back to the original topic. Personally I'd go with the "against vampires, the amulet counts as a cross/holy symbol with all associated rules". Sure it nerfs the amulet against that particular type of monster a bit, but not by much.

And to immediately drift off topic again: Do amulets stack? Can you wear 20 amulets of resist magic and automatically make all magic saves? Can you wear one of each kind of amulet, perhaps like this guy? Can you slot the amulets in a bracer or chestplate so you don't have a floppy necklace flopping about and being annoying? I recall mention somewhere of things usually stacking, but with a diminishing 1/2 return rate (so amulet 1 gives a +2 to horror saves, amulet 2 gives a +1, amulets 3-NaN give no bonus) but I don't recall where.

I think I'd rule 1 for each enchantment type, can be slotted anywhere as long as it's "worn" or "carried" (backpack is okay, attached to your Glitterboy is not).

While it is a different game, PFRPG says that you can not wear multiple amulets of the same kind.
This makes sense and follows the general logic of not being able to benefit from the same boost multiple times.
I would not allow a person to just keep casting the same spell over and over to get the same bonus for example, and you cant take the same skill over and over so why should you be able to cast amulet over and over and have it stack?
As for 'wearing' I would say you have to wear it in a way that would be consistent with the way jewelry is worn.
You can have it on a belt, necklace, ring, earing, sewn on a shirt, worn as a medal... but not tucked in a shoe, in a pocket, or a backpack.
The first are 'worn' the second are not.

Rifts England has a guy wearing two amulets, of course one could be a different kind of amulet, or simply useless decoration.

Related note, the Talisman spell.

[eliakon]

Further thought reminds me that a much simpler "you can't touch me" option for vampires is just dropping a Globe of Daylight. The only vampires that can push through their aversion to the light and engage in melee are the Master Vampire (unless I'm mis-remembering) who may or may not even count as Undead (depending on which book you go with, #riftsediting), and the usually-considered-alive VI.

Anyway, dragging this back to the original topic. Personally I'd go with the "against vampires, the amulet counts as a cross/holy symbol with all associated rules". Sure it nerfs the amulet against that particular type of monster a bit, but not by much.

And to immediately drift off topic again: Do amulets stack? Can you wear 20 amulets of resist magic and automatically make all magic saves? Can you wear one of each kind of amulet, perhaps like this guy? Can you slot the amulets in a bracer or chestplate so you don't have a floppy necklace flopping about and being annoying? I recall mention somewhere of things usually stacking, but with a diminishing 1/2 return rate (so amulet 1 gives a +2 to horror saves, amulet 2 gives a +1, amulets 3-NaN give no bonus) but I don't recall where.

I think I'd rule 1 for each enchantment type, can be slotted anywhere as long as it's "worn" or "carried" (backpack is okay, attached to your Glitterboy is not).

While it is a different game, PFRPG says that you can not wear multiple amulets of the same kind.
This makes sense and follows the general logic of not being able to benefit from the same boost multiple times.
I would not allow a person to just keep casting the same spell over and over to get the same bonus for example, and you cant take the same skill over and over so why should you be able to cast amulet over and over and have it stack?
As for 'wearing' I would say you have to wear it in a way that would be consistent with the way jewelry is worn.
You can have it on a belt, necklace, ring, earing, sewn on a shirt, worn as a medal... but not tucked in a shoe, in a pocket, or a backpack.
The first are 'worn' the second are not.

Rifts England has a guy wearing two amulets, of course one could be a different kind of amulet, or simply useless decoration.

Related note, the Talisman spell.

Right
So wear one Charm, one Protection Against Sickness, one Protection Against Insanity, one Protection Against the Supernatural, one See the Invisible, one Sense the Presence of Spirits, one Turn the Undead...
That's fine. They are all different Amulets so you can wear one of each.
But You can't just stack a bunch of the same ones on and become immune to Horror Factor, Possession, Magic, Psychic Attack, etc...

Talisman is not an amulet so it is a bit different. In theory it is more like a weapon (or more like a grenade or E-clip actually) than a suit of armor and thus you can carry a large number of them. Also there is the fact that they need to be 'turned on' to do something and don't have an 'always on property' like amulets. Which means that theoretically there is no game difference to wearing 1 talisman or 20 talismans.
Which sadly is why you run into the perennial munchfest of "I want to make thousands of little teeny talismans shaped like chain links and make a shirt of chainmail out of talismans so I can carry gobs of PPE and dozens of every spell around" and similar tricks.
Which sort of abuse which seems endemic as soon as PCs get their hands on the spell is one of the reasons that many GMs don't allow their players to get the spell... which is IMHO a problem. My usual solution is the gander rule (my favorite game balance rule ever!) but I have seen a few GMs simply put hard caps on the number of talismans you can carry.

[Eagle]

I think you'd need to put some restrictions on talismans and on scrolls to keep people from creating too many of them. Once you get access to those spells, if you have enough downtime you can just crank out a near-endless supply of magic. The biggest problem is the way you tap PPE from ley lines in the new rules. It's easy to get tons of power very quickly. In the old rules, you were much more limited in how much you could take, so churning out cheap magic items wasn't a problem.

There's nothing to stop you from churning out 50 talismans if you find yourself at an unoccupied ley line for an hour. Buy a bucket of cheap trinket jewelry and go charge it up whenever you're bored. Under the old rules you had to wait for a solstice or something, which meant that everybody else was waiting for that time too, which meant you were more likely to have an encounter rather than just get to charge up.

[eliakon]

I think you'd need to put some restrictions on talismans and on scrolls to keep people from creating too many of them. Once you get access to those spells, if you have enough downtime you can just crank out a near-endless supply of magic. The biggest problem is the way you tap PPE from ley lines in the new rules. It's easy to get tons of power very quickly. In the old rules, you were much more limited in how much you could take, so churning out cheap magic items wasn't a problem.

There's nothing to stop you from churning out 50 talismans if you find yourself at an unoccupied ley line for an hour. Buy a bucket of cheap trinket jewelry and go charge it up whenever you're bored. Under the old rules you had to wait for a solstice or something, which meant that everybody else was waiting for that time too, which meant you were more likely to have an encounter rather than just get to charge up.

Like I said... there are reasons that most GMs are stingy with certain spells. The abuse levels are very high unfortunately. And while everyone says "don't worry I wont abuse it." The reality is that it is a very hard to resist temptation.
The best solution I have seen so far is to have a discussion between the GM and all the players before these spells get into play. In the discussion everyone outlines exactly what they want to see happen when these spells are used so that there are solid ground rules in place. Then when they do come up everyone knows ahead of time what is going to happen. That way if the group wants to veer into a high power game where people are stockpiling huge stashes of talismans of every kind in dozens of dimensional pockets that they can jump to easily that's fine... it wont be a surprise. And most importantly you wont have one or two players doing that, one or two players trying to make a ton of money selling items, one or two making a stash of goodies, and a fourth group that just use the spell to make one or two items as needed.

[Eagle]

Yeah, it's definitely best if everyone is on the same page before the game begins. Personally, I think the economy in Rifts is so screwed up that money is almost pointless. The GM has to control stuff through access, not through cost. You can flip some of the World Books and come up with a dozen different ways to get ultra-rich in just a few days. It isn't hard at all with the right OCCs. Better to limit who is buying and who is selling. "Yeah, that super-item is really cool, too bad nobody is selling one here." "So where can I buy one?" "Dunno, obviously not in this town."

[dreicunan]

Yeah, it's definitely best if everyone is on the same page before the game begins. Personally, I think the economy in Rifts is so screwed up that money is almost pointless. The GM has to control stuff through access, not through cost. You can flip some of the World Books and come up with a dozen different ways to get ultra-rich in just a few days. It isn't hard at all with the right OCCs. Better to limit who is buying and who is selling. "Yeah, that super-item is really cool, too bad nobody is selling one here." "So where can I buy one?" "Dunno, obviously not in this town."

I've always found the best limit on the economy is other people with an interest. If you start cranking out tons of cheap talismans or other things that would disrupt the market, you and everyone that you care about had better be kidnap-proof and murder-proof. Otherwise, the people currently making money on the status quo are going to come after you and either take you over or take you out unless you can stop them.

[dreicunan]

@Axelmania: Please explain which type of fabric is not "fabric." Since by definition all fabric is fabric, that means all fabric would be covered by the description of range touch for magic spells (if one thinks that even matters).

[Eagle]

Yeah, it's definitely best if everyone is on the same page before the game begins. Personally, I think the economy in Rifts is so screwed up that money is almost pointless. The GM has to control stuff through access, not through cost. You can flip some of the World Books and come up with a dozen different ways to get ultra-rich in just a few days. It isn't hard at all with the right OCCs. Better to limit who is buying and who is selling. "Yeah, that super-item is really cool, too bad nobody is selling one here." "So where can I buy one?" "Dunno, obviously not in this town."

I've always found the best limit on the economy is other people with an interest. If you start cranking out tons of cheap talismans or other things that would disrupt the market, you and everyone that you care about had better be kidnap-proof and murder-proof. Otherwise, the people currently making money on the status quo are going to come after you and either take you over or take you out unless you can stop them.

Well it's not just about making talismans. And who said you'd be making them for cheap, anyway? Sell the things at full price, just cash in.

The quickest way I can think of to make a bunch of cash is in Queenston Harbor, in the Coalition Navy book. They have an army of 10,000 troops, each equipped with a Splugorth Talisman of Armor, valued at 10 million credits each. If you can ambush and kill even one dude without attracting attention, you're suddenly rich. A group of experienced characters working together? You might be able to take an entire guard tower (10 guys in each one), or even more than one if you do it right.

The problem is that KS picked a lot of the prices for things out of a hat, and then didn't expect players to react accordingly.

[Killer Cyborg]

If they have a layer of denim, a layer of silk, and a layer of polyester, then you're touching them through "fabrics."

Luckily since it's not explicitly "all" fabric (or unlimited amounts) there's wiggle room for GMs to defend the denim/silk/polester defense.

For clarification, you're saying "could a GM technically defend the idea that because only the word "fabric" is used, that the statement would not apply to multiple layers of different kinds of fabric?
So a person wearing three layers of one fabric could be affected, but a person wearing "fabrics" of different kinds would not?

No, there's some miscommunication happening.

Even with 1 layer of fabric, it's up to the GM if that's one of the fabrics that magic can work through.

All we know is that some unidentified kind (or kinds) of fabric can channel magic "touch" range.

We would need further evidence as to what kind or kinds of fabric that is.

So... when somebody is impervious to "fire," we would need further evidence to know what kind of fire....?

Sure, technically one could do that... but it would have many interesting repercussions within the game world, as that interpretation pattern would also mean somebody who is "impervious to fire/heat" is NOT "impervious to fires/heats," for example.

I believe the text of the spell elaborates enough.

Not all things impervious to fire are that spell.

Same with "Impervious to Energy," and any number of other parts of the game.

We already have that distinction with kinetic energy.

Which would call all other kinds of energy into question?

Anyway, we know some kinds of lasers don't do half damage, so this is a great example that "laser weapons" is not "ALL laser weapons" and "fabric" isn't "ALL fabric"

But we do know that lasers as a rule do half damage.
Which would require an exception to be listed.
Same, I believe, with fabrics.

[Axelmania]

@Axelmania: Please explain which type of fabric is not "fabric." Since by definition all fabric is fabric, that means all fabric would be covered by the description of range touch for magic spells (if one thinks that even matters).

You're unfortunately arguing a straw man here, hopefully due to misunderstanding, so let me clarify my position. You provided this quote from RUE 187.

through physical contact, flesh to flesh or flesh or through gloves and fabric

We know that touch spells can be transmitted through gloves and fabric...

But we don't know it can be transmitted through ALL gloves and ALL fabric.

GM is free to decide which kinds of gloves and fabrics this is supposed to mean.

So... when somebody is impervious to "fire," we would need further evidence to know what kind of fire....?

The GM is free to decide which kinds of fire are excluded, sure. Spells which say 'harms creatures impervious to fire' being a good example.

Not all things impervious to fire are that spell.

What example are we talking about?

Which would call all other kinds of energy into question?

Any not explicitly covered under the spell, sure.

Anyway, we know some kinds of lasers don't do half damage, so this is a great example that "laser weapons" is not "ALL laser weapons" and "fabric" isn't "ALL fabric"

But we do know that lasers as a rule do half damage.
Which would require an exception to be listed.
Same, I believe, with fabrics.

There's no rule, we're simply informed that lasers do half, so we know SOME do half. The GM is free to assume this includes all lasers unless otherwise specified, just as he is free to not assume that.

Similarly, we can assume 'fabrics' means "all fabrics unless otherwise specified" or one might not assume that.

I'm more concerned with the length of fabric than the type, to be honest.

The problem I'm envisioning here is that you can tie a fabric scarf to your ally and channel your 'touch' spell through the scarf to benefit your ally.

I don't imagine this was the author's intent, so there needs to be some kind of reasonable limit put upon the distance a fabric can channel a touch into a target.

Otherwise suddenly you have "touch" spells traveling over 14,000 feet (correction: over 46,000 feet) which is further than a boomgun (correction: short-range missile) can shoot.

[boring7]

Talisman is not an amulet so it is a bit different.

Oh yeah, I just meant, "or random 2-necklace guy in the england book could have been wearing a talisman."

[Killer Cyborg]

So... when somebody is impervious to "fire," we would need further evidence to know what kind of fire....?

The GM is free to decide which kinds of fire are excluded, sure. Spells which say 'harms creatures impervious to fire' being a good example.

But not, in your mind, the only example?
Like "fire from propane" might not hurt the person, but "fire from wood" might?
Or "blue fire" doesn't hurt the person" but "green fire" does?

Not all things impervious to fire are that spell.

What example are we talking about?

Anything and everything that is "impervious to fire" instead of "impervious to fires."

Which would call all other kinds of energy into question?

Any not explicitly covered under the spell, sure.

Again, more things are impervious to energy than just things affected by that spell.

Anyway, we know some kinds of lasers don't do half damage, so this is a great example that "laser weapons" is not "ALL laser weapons" and "fabric" isn't "ALL fabric"

But we do know that lasers as a rule do half damage.
Which would require an exception to be listed.
Same, I believe, with fabrics.

There's no rule,

[url=Here is what "as a rule" means[/url]

we're simply informed that lasers do half, so we know SOME do half.

No. We know that lasers categorically do half damage, unless we are told otherwise in specific instances.

The GM is free to assume this includes all lasers unless otherwise specified, just as he is free to not assume that.

It's the "free to not assume that" which doesn't work.

The problem I'm envisioning here is that you can tie a fabric scarf to your ally and channel your 'touch' spell through the scarf to benefit your ally.

No need to fear; that wouldn't be "touching" the target.

[Axelmania]

But not, in your mind, the only example?
Like "fire from propane" might not hurt the person, but "fire from wood" might?
Or "blue fire" doesn't hurt the person" but "green fire" does?

I'm not aware of those being examples but they're certainly within the realm of possibility. We know 'fire' doesn't mean 'all fire' since there are things which harm those 'impervious to fire'. The GM creating additional things wouldn't contradict that.

Anything and everything that is "impervious to fire" instead of "impervious to fires."

I'm not certain we can quantify fire easily.

more things are impervious to energy than just things affected by that spell.

What're we referring to? That would help me know if there's examples of things harming that thing as a natural ability.

We know that lasers categorically do half damage, unless we are told otherwise in specific instances.

Source?

The GM is free to assume this includes all lasers unless otherwise specified, just as he is free to not assume that.

It's the "free to not assume that" which doesn't work.

No need to fear; that wouldn't be "touching" the target.

Source?

I'm not literally touching an ally if I touch their shirt, I'm touching the shirt.

If "touch' extends through worn fabrics (clothing) then how much of it?

The best interpretation I can think of is "transference of force" IE if it deforms when I touch clothing and someone can FEEL my touch, I'm touching them, which would rule out MDC armor unless it was flexible and didn't harden in response to kinetic impacts. But in that case, a vampire could certainly punch and damage your armor because he's touching the hardened armor and not transferring that impact to you. He couldn't punch someone in a silk undershirt though, because that wouldn't harden and transfer the kinetic impact.