Energy field spell...AR solution.

[drewkitty ~..~]

I'm asking if you know of any situations where "can't miss" or "automatic hit" applies. In that case there's no chance of not hitting you target.

But in the case of AR being in the way you'd still have to roll because your target is the collective entity of armor + wearer.

No, there are no situations where there is no chance of 'not hitting' within the canon text. All times when hitting a target is automatic are situational and a GM ruling. There is always someway to miss the target. Even if it is shooting yourself in the foot or 'air ball' missing the swing/thrust to hit.

And you totally misunderstand the argument, or something else is a problem, if that is your comment.

[eliakon]

Again Eliakon you are saying ....

"""Drew you are wrong because you are using words I don't like you using to describe the same mechanic that I'm describing.""" Yes, you are the one causing this argument because you are not accepting that I am saying, with different words, to use the same mechanic you are saying to use.

*sigh* No I am arguing because you are, to paraphrase a movie using words that don't mean what you seem to think they mean

Quoting someone that is usually on the ball to use his words to deliver what I am saying: "roll over the AR 4 and damage the wall, roll under the AR... and miss the wall..." Since this is what NAR 4 mechanic means, I see no reason to change how I say to use this mechanic.

That is not what the nAR4 mechanic is though.
That is the point.
You are mistaken on that point.
You are confused because you keep mistaking the Energy Field as being an armor effect for the person. It is not.
Thus the spell is NOT a natural Armor Rating because, by definition, natural armor ratings include an element of ignoring damage. Energy Field does not do that. Therefore by definition it is not natural Armor Rating.

normal/regular AR does not use the NAR mechanic in any way shape or form. With normal/regular AR; paraphrasing from the canon text; if you roll over the AR score the attack goes through the protection and hits what is inside the 'protection'. So having an normal AR 4 is saying 'ALL attacks go through this protection and hits what is inside it'.

Correct.
But that is OF THE PROTECTION.
You are mistaking that the wall is protection.
The wall does not PROVIDE AR 4 it HAS AR 4
Thus the attack does not go 'through' the wall...
it goes through the 'protection' and this the protected... in this case it hits the SDC of the wall itself.

The EF spell says the AR score is 4, not 6 and not 10. The AR score is 4.

Yes, I am aware of that. Your point is?
Unless you are incapable of reading my commentary on what the results of effects that would RAISE the effects of the spells AR would be? Because raising the AR of something means that it no longer has the AR it had before. That is, after all what the word "raise" means.
That is why I used the number 6 and 10. To demonstrate the effects and differences between natural AR and normal AR.

And I am saying to use the NAR 4 mechanic, to be plain spoken w/o needing to explain the mechanic. To change the NAR score from 4 to something else is to be not talking about what I am talking about. This means your examples of evaluating NAR @ scores 6 & 10 are not applicable to this argument, because they are not examples of What I, Drew, Am Saying/talking about.

Except that they ARE.
Because you are talking about changing the spell itself.
As I pointed out, it is theoretically possible to have effects that will modify the spell by increasing the AR provided by the spell. THOSE effects will then have the effect based on the new AR. That effect needs to be looked at.
The spell does not change no matter what you use for 4 sure...
but above 4 it DOES change
This tells us that the version of AR that results in a change to the spell when the AR is changed is the wrong version of AR.

This is besides the explanation of your house rule about how normal AR works is inverted Cow Cud. And has no resemblance to what the canon text says what the normal AR mechanic is.

I was not aware that the RAW was cow cud house rules.
You might want to go read the rules again.

By the way, there is no Somehow to raise the AR score of the EF spell's effects without crafting a whole new <descriptive adverb>spell.

Mmmm? You sure? Care to bet?

And I for one would require the spell text state which AR (AR or NAR) mechanic that the NEW spell used.
Since I have been saying to use the "NAR 4 mechanic", your examples eli are not an example of what I have been saying.
(yes, it is much simpler to just say it is a NAR 4 because that is the shortest way of saying which AR mechanic to use and @ what score to evaluate the mechanic at. Which is the same mechanic you Eli have been saying to use.)

simply repeating yourself over and over again doesn't make your self correct. Argument from repetition is not truth.

-
-
-
-
Now lets step back a bit and consider the AoIthan spell. If we go by what you are saying is the normal AR mechanic, with the protection of normal AR 18 (PF2MB): a roll of 1-4 misses and a roll of 19 and higher damages just the spells protective SDC. But if strike roll is in the 5-18 range if just damages the SDC. This does not sound like the normal AR as described in the canon texts.
The AoI spell's AR is normal/regular AR....right?
yep, your mechanic sounds like it is just a NAR 4 mechanic writ large to impress those, to show how convolutedly smart you are. Not like drewkitty who is wrong out of his mind, who just simplified it into something that can be easily understood by people just reading the canon text.

NO that is NOT what I am saying in any way, shape or form.
*sigh*
The AoI spell is an ARMOR SPELL
Thus you use the rules for ARMOR there
1-4 miss
1-18 damage the SDC of the ARMOR
19+ bypass the ARMOR and affect the PERSON PROTECTED BY THE ARMOR.

Now note the difference
AoI is an armor spell that you are wearing. Energy Field is a force field that you cast on an area.
This is the difference between a bullet proof vest and a wall...
the AR of a bullet proof vest is the AR of if you hit the vest or you...
the AR of the WALL... well it doesn't affect YOU in the slightest, because you are not a factor in the issue really, its a private matter between the attacker and the wall and you need to wait your turn.
Does this make it clear?
Armor =/= Wall
The rules for body armor =/= rules for walls

And here I read the AoI canon text and the normal AR canon text...that on rolls 1-4 the strike misses, and on rolls 5-18 it hits the spell's protective SDC and on rolls of 19 an d higher it hits who/whatever is inside the spells protection. And it is nothing like the mechanic you have been saying to use for the EF spell. That you are claiming to be 'normal/regular AR'.

That is because EF and AoI are not the same spell?
When one compares apples to apples one gets good comparisons
When one compares apples to airplanes one does not.
The EF uses the rules for walls. AoI uses the rules for body armor. These rules are different. That is because the EF is not personal protection for a person and thus can not be bypassed to hit the person. Ever.

So pardon me if I find your explanation of how I am wrong just because I am specifically saying to use the NAR 4 mechanic, vs you saying that the spell's Ar is ""normal""/""regular"" AR and saying to use the same mechanic that I'm saying to use......is somehow seams to be crazy, wrong, stupid, asinine, insane, unsound, oddball, lunatic, mad, flawed.

You can use what ever insulting term you like...
The issue here is that you seem to be unable to grasp the most simple basic issue.
That issue is that EF IS NOT BODY ARMOR AND THUS DOES NOT USE THE RULES FOR BODY ARMOR.

Maybe stop acting the card 11e'or and just acknowledge that we are both talking about the same game mechanic and end this argument that you are making you look bad, and worse with every iteration.

Or perhaps you could bother to read the argument being presented instead of simply assuming that you are inherently correct?
Not all protection is body armor...
Sometimes it is cover.

Analogy:
canon normal/regular AR are oranges.
Nat AR, and Your regular AR are apples.

So quit complain I'm saying Gala and you are saying Fuji. They are both apples.

Better Analogy
AoI is an apple
EF is an Orange
Dont complain that you cant get apple juice from an EF.
Now... if the EF spell were a body armor spell like AoI? Yes THEN it would need to be natural AR.
But it is not body armor! It is a wall. And as a wall the AR of the wall is what it has, not what it provides.
Bodyarmor provides AR, objects HAVE AR. Does that help?


PS. If you wish to continue this that is fine I am more than happy to continue trying to make my case clear. The concept took a bit for me to grasp as well when it was pointed out to me at first as well. But you will need to do so in a polite and respectful way. The abuse and insults are not acceptable.

[Killer Cyborg]

Just to toss this into the mix...

HU2 257 Control Elemental Forces: Earth can create a Wall of Earth.
A dirt wall has AR 10, 200 SDC.
A clay or sand wall has AR 11, 300 SDC.
A stone wall has an AR 15, 400 SDC.

And there are some instructions as to how the AR for these walls functions:
All attacks strike the wall and do full damage to its SDC. A roll that is higher than the AR will go right through the wall and may hit somebody or something behind it. However this means the shooter is firing blindly and is -5 to hit. Additionally, the projectile or energy blast punching through the wall uses up some measure of energy doing so, thus a projectile that penetrates the wall's AR does half damage and the damage of an energy blast is reduced by 25%.

[Mack]

I hope this discussion can continue in a civil manner, especially without any condescending tone.

[drewkitty ~..~]

*talking to everyone*
Eliakon asked me to look up the vehicle section of the HU2 book to look up the AR text in there.

And I found that the Vehicle AR, as described there to say that attacks only effect the interior of the vehicles when the AR was surpassed or when the SDC of the vehicle was depleted. Thus describing the normal AR mechanic.

How this supports his claim the the EF field's AR is normal AR has me wondering 'Why' he pointed me to look at it. This is something that supports me in that he claims the EF spell's AR is normal AR and it describes whole the effects of what a normal AR means. If you surpass the normal AR it penetrates through the protection and does damage to what is inside that protection.

I am at a loss as to why Eliakon refuses to acknowledge that the AR mechanic he has described as the one to use for the EF spell, is what he insists is a 'normal AR', is in fact the Nat. AR 4 game mechanic.

Eliakon has also brought up that in one of the rifter that there is a mage specialty that could raise the AR score of the EF spell to 8. Under normal AR rules this actually gives the EF spell the protection HU2 Quilted armor, instead of no protection at all when evaluated at a score of 4.

When evaluated within the Nat. AR mechanic, the increase to a score of 8 only causes poorly aimed strikes under a strike roll of 9 to fail to damage the SDC of the EF.
(side-note: for games that use the RUE standards for Modern Weapon Combat, even raising the score to 8 would only come to the same mechanic for attacks with modern weapons: if it hits it hits the EF, if it misses it misses.)
--------
Now to speak to Eliakon directly
" EF IS NOT BODY ARMOR AND THUS DOES NOT USE THE RULES FOR BODY ARMOR. "
I totally agree with the surface level meaning of the words used in this statement.

The question that comes to mind is 'Why are you still insisting on calling the mechanic used the body-armor AR/normal AR/regular AR?'. Why is there still this inversion between the mechanic you describe (the Nat AR 4 mechanic) [if it hit it hits and dose damage to the EF & if it misses, it misses] and what you insist on incorrectly calling it (the normal AR)?

You imply I am insulting you by disagreeing with you?

I will say it plain and clear for you.
You have been insulting me and my intelligence when you say that the game mechanic we both are saying to use is the wrong game mechanic to use when I say to use it. For I can see the game mechanics we both are saying to use are the same mechanic. I have point this out repeatedly, and you have refused to admit this point.
----------
*talking to everyone again*
Note this, I am looking at things objectively to see them for they are and saying what I see. I really Do Not Care one whit or iota about calling things what the canon text calls them so long as I am accurately communicating what I mean with the least misunderstanding. This does mean.....
⁍ Calling a Psychic Character Class a PCC, even thou the text may be mislabel them as RCCs or OCCs.
⁍ Saying which of the two specifically detailed AR mechanics (the normal AR or Natural AR) to use.

This does mean in this, is that when I say to use the NAR 4 mechanic. I mean to only use the nat AR mechanic when evaluated when the AR score is 4. Not at 6. Not at 10. Not even at 8. Not ""somehow"" something else. It is Limited to ONLY the NAR mechanic when the score is 4.

And since I am HUMAN, & the mind does shorten this to NAR 4 for simplicity. This because it carries which canon mechanic to used when evaluated are which AR score. And all of this with four alpha-numerics.
When the words 'normal AR' or 'regular AR' are used, it immediately says to use the ""body-armor"" AR mechanic. The mechanic that can be 'by-passed'/'shot through' to hit what is inside.

I am not doing is using some verbal jujitsu to talk my way into the reason why i am right by calling something other the mechanic it uses is not.
I am stating observable things that anyone with a PB mainbook, that has the AR rules, can confirm for themselves.

So the question falls back to you eliakon to answer the binary question.

❖ Are you saying to use, for the Energy Field spell, the Body-Armor "Normal" AR mechanic when evaluated when it has a score of 4, or are you saying to use the Natural AR mechanic when evaluated when it has a score of 4? Those are the two choices. There are no other canon mechanics as choices.
If there is another AR mechanic detailed in a canon text. Please, by all means tell us all where it is.

And before you bring it up, my own choice of using the NAT 4 mech. is a house rule. This is to follow the canon text blindly makes the EF spell stupid, because it does not protect anyone since it says to use the normal "body-armor" AR.

[Killer Cyborg]

And before you bring it up, my own choice of using the NAT 4 mech. is a house rule. This is to follow the canon text blindly makes the EF spell stupid, because it does not protect anyone since it says to use the normal "body-armor" AR.

To all of which, I say "not necessarily."

You treating the AR of Energy Field as a Natural Armor Rating isn't necessarily a house rule, because it's not entirely clear how the authors intended it to work. It seems to me that there are cases of inanimate objects that have an Armor Rating that don't protect anything other than the object itself.
Haven't found any cases at the moment, but I haven't really looked hard either.
Armored atache cases protect the contents.
Vehicles protect their contents (passengers).
CEF-created stone walls protect the people behind them.
Armor protects the wearer.
But I seem to recall instances where something like a runesword or a lock or a rock or so forth had ARs listed that were not specified as Natural Armor Ratings.

If nothing else, there's HU 285 Plant Control, where it lists the Armor Rating of heavy weeds/vines, bushes/shrubs, and trees. We don't know for certain whether these stats are intended to apply to all trees, but even if they're just animated trees that are being treated like creatures the AR is NOT specified as being Natural, but it doesn't seem to make sense for the AR to work any other way.
Which implies that Palladium (surprise!) isn't always entirely precise in their labeling, and they sometimes describe what should be a Natural Armor Rating as just a normal AR, presumably under the assumption that we'll know how it's supposed to work from context.
And that may well be the case with Energy Field.
So we can't say for certain whether it's a house rule to treat that AR 4 as a Natural AR.

All that being said, it's also possible (though most likely NOT how the rules were intended) to take the CEF Earth rules for walls and apply them to other wall-like objects, including Energy Fields.
In which case, the result would be that an Energy Field wouldn't STOP most incoming attacks, but it would reduce the damage from them significantly: 1/2 damage from projectiles, and 3/4 damage from energy weapons.
Not as useful as the spell would be if you treat it as a Natural AR, or if you ignore AR entirely and require that the field's damage capacity be entirely reduced before attacks can be made on people behind it, but still fairly useful.

[drewkitty ~..~]

The EF spell text lists it as having a "Armor Rating is only 4". (ref HU2 MB)

I will agree that they imply for the EF to be a magical Force Field. But there AR listed is plain AR. Not natural.
The implication is confirmed when it corrected with the NSMB.

Besides, it was more of a taking away of a counter attack side-note to distract from the point that eliakon's 'explanation' about how a normal AR could act like a nat ar if there was no HP behind the SDC.

You forgot the put a after the 'surprise!'. Yes, this is not new to me. Thou, the RLs now'days keep pushing for the canon text for things they should just know.

[Killer Cyborg]

The EF spell text lists it as having a "Armor Rating is only 4". (ref HU2 MB)

Yes. What significance are you attaching to that phrasing?

I will agree that they imply for the EF to be a magical Force Field. But there AR listed is plain AR. Not natural.
The implication is confirmed when it corrected with the NSMB.

They changed it in Nightbane.
"Corrected" implies that there was an error, and we don't know that there was.

What stands out to me is that Energy Field's AR 4 seems to be a unique event, and there's no explanation.
Why would the writer write those words?
It seems unlikely that they accidentally just hit some random keys and typed out a sentence declaring an Armor Rating of 4 to that spell.
Maybe it was a typo, and it was supposed to be AR 14.
Maybe they meant for it to be a Natural AR, to cover cases where the field couldn't technically be missed, but should (in the writer's view) take any damage.
Maybe it's any number of things.
But I don't believe that the original intent was for that line to simply not exist, so I don't really count removing the line as a "fix."
I suppose that comes down to semantics.

Lucky me, because I played Rifts I was always able to ignore it.

[eliakon]

So the question falls back to you eliakon to answer the binary question.

❖ Are you saying to use, for the Energy Field spell, the Body-Armor "Normal" AR mechanic when evaluated when it has a score of 4, or are you saying to use the Natural AR mechanic when evaluated when it has a score of 4? Those are the two choices. There are no other canon mechanics as choices.
If there is another AR mechanic detailed in a canon text. Please, by all means tell us all where it is.

And before you bring it up, my own choice of using the NAT 4 mech. is a house rule. This is to follow the canon text blindly makes the EF spell stupid, because it does not protect anyone since it says to use the normal "body-armor" AR.

The regualr AR rule
Rolls above the AR of damage the object the AR is protecting (in this case the wall) Rolls below the AR damage the armor (which there isn't any armor so it is moot)

[drewkitty ~..~]

So the question falls back to you eliakon to answer the binary question.

❖ Are you saying to use, for the Energy Field spell, the Body-Armor "Normal" AR mechanic when evaluated when it has a score of 4, or are you saying to use the Natural AR mechanic when evaluated when it has a score of 4? Those are the two choices. There are no other canon mechanics as choices.
If there is another AR mechanic detailed in a canon text. Please, by all means tell us all where it is.

And before you bring it up, my own choice of using the NAT 4 mech. is a house rule. This is to follow the canon text blindly makes the EF spell stupid, because it does not protect anyone since it says to use the normal "body-armor" AR.

The regular AR rule
Rolls above the AR of damage the object the AR is protecting (in this case the wall) Rolls below the AR damage the armor (which there isn't any armor so it is moot)

There is a critical flaw in the way you wrote your response. AR is an aspect of what is doing the protecting, not the protection itself. As your response stands you are just rewriting a description of how Nat. AR works.
(note I have the PF2MB page 44 in front of me while I write this)
So a rewrite of the above, so it conforms to the RAW of the regular AR text is would need to look like this....

Rolls above the AR of the protection, the strike damages what is beyond the protection (in this case what is inside or behind the EF).
Rolls below the AR, damages the protection. (which it is moot for the EF spell, because the strike misses.)

This would be so much simpler if you said what you responded with your house rule rather then insisting it is canon. This something that is very basic and the text is easily found ....it just ends up you embarrassing yourself.

I don't know why you chose to embarrassing yourself. But I don't like it one bit because you have been insulting me and my intelligence for the past weeks with this proclamation of your house rules as if they were canon. Please Stop embarrassing yourself by saying something so blatantly false.

Warning: For insulting and condescending behavior. Mack

[drewkitty ~..~]

The EF spell text lists it as having a "Armor Rating is only 4". (ref HU2 MB)

Yes. What significance are you attaching to that phrasing?

The words 'natural' is not in it.
And since in a literal reading of the text excludes the use of the NAR mechanic, there is but one other AR mechanic to use within the canon text.

If there is a third AR mechanic within any canon text....where is it?

[Killer Cyborg]

The EF spell text lists it as having a "Armor Rating is only 4". (ref HU2 MB)

Yes. What significance are you attaching to that phrasing?

The words 'natural' is not in it.

Sure, but as I pointed out, it's likewise absent in other places--like trees--where normal AR wouldn't work and doesn't make sense.

And since in a literal reading of the text excludes the use of the NAR mechanic, there is but one other AR mechanic to use within the canon text.

I think you're confusing "literal" with "canon."
And being overly literal to boot.

How do you think the AR for trees works?
It doesn't say that it's Natural AR.
Do you think that canon is that rolling over the AR means you hit somebody behind the tree...?

[Mack]

Lock Warning.

[drewkitty ~..~]

The EF spell text lists it as having a "Armor Rating is only 4". (ref HU2 MB)

Yes. What significance are you attaching to that phrasing?

The words 'natural' is not in it.

Sure, but as I pointed out, it's likewise absent in other places--like trees--where normal AR wouldn't work and doesn't make sense.

And since in a literal reading of the text excludes the use of the NAR mechanic, there is but one other AR mechanic to use within the canon text.

I think you're confusing "literal" with "canon."
And being overly literal to boot.

How do you think the AR for trees works?
It doesn't say that it's Natural AR.
Do you think that canon is that rolling over the AR means you hit somebody behind the tree...?

RAW is canon. People, including eli, keep telling me this.
RAW is what is literally said in the text.

As far as I know trees don't have an AR. (though I have not looked for any mention of this ether)
[as I wrote the above the only inkiling I might have of trees having AR might come from the PF book the northern wilderness book. still nothing defininte]
--------------

Lock Warning.

go ahead, lock it up
it is oxymoronish that I the insulted party in this, who has been insulted for weeks by someone posting his house rules as if canon and telling me I am wrong over and over again for saying the same thing he was saying just in a way he did not like it being said, am the one to get the board waring for confronting said insulter.

I am done being insulted.

[Mack]

Folks, you can thank drewkitty.