Stacking Magical Armor

[Killer Cyborg]

As far as I know, it never states that you cannot stack multiple spells.
It also does not state that you cannoe stack the same spell multiple times.
But I think that common sense indicates that you cannot do either.

I'll agree that logic dictates 1 instance of a given spell. However, it's also perfectly logical to allow several spells with similar (and possibly overlaping) effects to be in place at the same time. Each of the spells in question gives a different specific amount of protection for a specific cost. Some of the spells grant more protection at a lower cost or less protection for a longer duration and are therfore obviously not identical spells, though the effects do overlap. Unless there is some compelling reason in the individual spell descriptions, there should be no problem with allowing them to function simultaneously.

By that logic, a mage should also be able to cast multiple types of sword spells and use them at once. In the same hand.
I don't buy it.

Whether one "buys" it or not, it remains, IN CANON, a "grey area" that Palladium has not addressed. Yay Palladium!!!

If one can find precedent, then one could go from there to go on and say "you know, there are no Canon Rulings on this subject, but based on Instance X in Book Y, I'd have to say........"

Since neither side can seem to produce "precedent" for one side of the Argument or the other (Apart from the example of Shiva [Rifts: Pantheons of the Megaverse, page 126], who is said to use multiple unnamed Magical Protective Spells at the same time), then BOTH sides are both 'wrong' and 'right' AT THE SAME TIME to try to assert either one stance or the other, at least as far as Canon is concerned......

Call me silly, but when in doubt I go with the answer that makes sense.

[Thinyser]

Doom

I'm still waiting on the info about Triax "plain clothes" armor.

Where does it say that one can't wear it under other "hard" armor

Its light and flexible as regular clothes...so why would one not be able to wear it under other armor?

Does the NGR military wear it under their armor?
If they could why wouldn't they?
A jump suit with hood under every armor would give an extra 12 MDC.

Cornholio is 100% correct in that an argument that says "if it doesn't specificically say you can then you can't" is about as illogical as one can be.

Actually he's 100% wrong but in all fairness he's only wrong about 50% of the time.
The "it doesn't say I can't" camp can run around shooting lasers from their eyes because "it doesn't say I can't" but it doesn't make it logical.

This does not make your "It doesn't say you can" argument any more valid and if you cant see that then you need to take a course on logic...disproving the opposite of your argument does not make your argument correct....as I said it is open to interpretation

If it doesn't specify one way or another it is open for interpretation...even things that specify something are usually open to interpretation...see the spell "magic net" for instance, it states it can "snare up to 1-6 human sized victims within a 10 foot radius"...does that mean that it can't possibly hold 8 or maybe even 12 ratlings (they are smaller than humans) or that it cannot hold even a single ogre (they are bigger than humans)?
By a strict interpretation only 1-6 human sized targets are trapped...this is specificlly stated and yet I don't think any good GM would run it this way.

Well the difference there is evidence and common sense.
In the case of stacking armor you have neither.

What evidence is there to say that the spell snares anything but human sized victims?
It doesn't say "human sized or smaller" or "human sized or larger" so by strict INTERPRETATION we must conclude that it only works on human sized creatures...the small ones slip out of the holes and the big ones can't be surrounded so they are both immune to the spell...but as I said no good GM would run it this way...
Common sense would indicate that if Plain clothes" armore fits like regular clothes then it fits under the other armor and as such it could be worn...not to say that it would be...there are cost considerations as well as comfort and multiple penalties to things like prowl and other physical skills...it may not always be practical to wear a 50,000 cr hooded jumpsuit for an additional 12 MDC...If a player were paranoid and wanted to do it I would most certainly let them.

The lack of a rule that says you can do somthing does NOT outright say, or even imply, that you cannot do this something...thats just not how it works.

It does if there is also nothing even pointing in that direction.

No. The lack of a statement does not imply the opposite of that statement...it simply means there is no statement on that issue and so it is up to the GM...
To repeat: The lack of a canon rule or example does not mean that the opposite is true...it means its GM's call.

[Dr. Doom III]

No. The lack of a statement does not imply the opposite of that statement...it simply means there is no statement on that issue and so it is up to the GM...
To repeat: The lack of a canon rule or example does not mean that the opposite is true...it means its GM's call.

The lack of a statement along with the lack of evidence does.

You're right it is a GM's call.
This is the difference between a call that makes sense and one that doesn't.

[demos606]

As far as I know, it never states that you cannot stack multiple spells.
It also does not state that you cannoe stack the same spell multiple times.
But I think that common sense indicates that you cannot do either.

I'll agree that logic dictates 1 instance of a given spell. However, it's also perfectly logical to allow several spells with similar (and possibly overlaping) effects to be in place at the same time. Each of the spells in question gives a different specific amount of protection for a specific cost. Some of the spells grant more protection at a lower cost or less protection for a longer duration and are therfore obviously not identical spells, though the effects do overlap. Unless there is some compelling reason in the individual spell descriptions, there should be no problem with allowing them to function simultaneously.

By that logic, a mage should also be able to cast multiple types of sword spells and use them at once. In the same hand.
I don't buy it.

Sure he can, as long as he has enough hands to wield every sword he wants to use.

[Dr. Doom III]

By that logic, a mage should also be able to cast multiple types of sword spells and use them at once. In the same hand.
I don't buy it.

Sure he can, as long as he has enough hands to wield every sword he wants to use.

Umm....

[SirTenzan]

Heya!

Though no rules exist in the books pertaining to stacking protective spells, I know in our campaign it is permissible. (Then again when you have a player who's played a Chiang-Ku hatchling for nearly ten years, achieving 25 levels of experience, AND who happens to have the heart encircled in chains tatoo, which provides 75 M.D.C. per level of experience, the other characters need all they can get to keep up!)

Ultimately though, I say go with what your' gut tells you, and with what would be appropriate for your' campaign. If your' campaign is a weak one at present, I'd say ban the practice. If, once things get a little more hairy as the campaign progresses, you can say the spell casters have been able to adapt their spells to permit it. If not that you could even develop a booster spell of some sort that must be cast in conjunction with each of the applicable skills to permit it.

[Thinyser]

No. The lack of a statement does not imply the opposite of that statement...it simply means there is no statement on that issue and so it is up to the GM...
To repeat: The lack of a canon rule or example does not mean that the opposite is true...it means its GM's call.

The lack of a statement along with the lack of evidence does.

You're right it is a GM's call.
This is the difference between a call that makes sense and one that doesn't.

I'd say your way doesn't make sense...wouldn't is not couldn't...why couldn't it (its a set of clothes that has MDC that fits under other armor)...Because Doom says so

Also I agree that this tanget is not even appllicable to the topic of the thread...its magic armor not physical armor.

Of Armor of Ithan, Armor bizzare, Invulnerability, Invincible Armor, ONLY invincable armor creates a cumbursome suit of plate armor, all the rest are armor "fields" or "auras".

I am of the opinion that each spell may not stack with itself but may be combined with the others...so long as they don't create a cumbersome suit of actual armor I see no reason why they would interfere with each other.

[Dr. Doom III]

I'd say your way doesn't make sense...wouldn't is not couldn't...why couldn't it (its a set of clothes that has MDC that fits under other armor)...Because Doom says so

You're not listening.
Because there is no evidence.

[Scooter the Outlaw]

Also I agree that this tanget is not even appllicable to the topic of the thread...its magic armor not physical armor.

Of Armor of Ithan, Armor bizzare, Invulnerability, Invincible Armor, ONLY invincable armor creates a cumbursome suit of plate armor, all the rest are armor "fields" or "auras".

I am of the opinion that each spell may not stack with itself but may be combined with the others...so long as they don't create a cumbersome suit of actual armor I see no reason why they would interfere with each other.

Book of Magic, P. 104, Armor Bizarre:

"Like the Armor of Ithan spell, Armor Bizarre creates a suit of magical form-fitting force to serve as armor."

P. 96, Armor of Ithan:

"This powerful spell instantly creates an invisible, weightless, noiseless, full suit of mystic armor upon the spell caster."

So, these two definitely do make suits of armor. Real, tangible armor. Invulnerability doesn't, it has some funky field going on. but the fact that they definitely create physical suits doesn't mean you cann't wear one suit over another. On the other hand, it doesn't mean you can.

...I'd just never allow it in my game.

[Jesterzzn]

Ok, I'm looking at the following for my purposes.


Stacking order of Armor/Fields, etc. (Magical, Psionic, or Technological.)

1 -- Independent Shields are partial barriers than can float around the protected individual.
2 -- Force Fields are full barriers that completely surround the protected individual. Some are skin or armor-tight (or nearly so), and some are spherical or hemi-spherical with a flat bottom when in contact with the ground.
3 -- A suit of “armor” that has no physical existence. It differs from a force-field only in the terms of its effective expression.
4 -- From arm-guards to tower shields, things actually carried around for extra defense.
5 -- An actual physical suit of armor. Some spells, like Invincible Armor, manifest themselves physically, and count for this slot.
6 -- The spell invulnerability, the Neo-Human psionic power Supernatural Transformation, or a Mega-Juicer’s conversion. These all count as “personal transformations”.

Code: Select all

1-Independent Shield          -- 1
2-Force Field                 -- 1 if no #3
3-Non-Physical Suit of Armor  -- 1 if no #2*
4-Full-Size Physical Shield   -- 1**
5-Physical Suit of Armor      -- 1***
6-Personal Transformation     -- 1 of each type.

* #2 and #3 are incompatible with each other only if #2 is a skin-tight or near skin-tight system. A domed force-field would not interfere (but usually domed force-fields don’t allow easy mobility (if they allow any mobility at all), as moving with one would run into physical objects like walls, rocks, tree-stumps, and allies).
** Shields are variable in size and purpose, from arm-guards and buckers to tower shields. Technically, two arm-guards can be carried, and for creatures will multiple arms, more can be added. A two-arm being may carry two full-size physical shields, but will carry no weapon.
*** Some physical armor systems may be stacked, but if so, this is included in their descriptions. Most individual armor systems may not be stacked with any reasonable practicality (yes, it is possible to tie on Explorer body armor over Crusader body armor, but it will look silly, and will mean that there are all sorts of oddly positioned and none to stable plates).

Once I deciphered what you were saying, this is a very good post.

[Killer Cyborg]

As far as I know, it never states that you cannot stack multiple spells.
It also does not state that you cannoe stack the same spell multiple times.
But I think that common sense indicates that you cannot do either.

I'll agree that logic dictates 1 instance of a given spell. However, it's also perfectly logical to allow several spells with similar (and possibly overlaping) effects to be in place at the same time. Each of the spells in question gives a different specific amount of protection for a specific cost. Some of the spells grant more protection at a lower cost or less protection for a longer duration and are therfore obviously not identical spells, though the effects do overlap. Unless there is some compelling reason in the individual spell descriptions, there should be no problem with allowing them to function simultaneously.

By that logic, a mage should also be able to cast multiple types of sword spells and use them at once. In the same hand.
I don't buy it.

Sure he can, as long as he has enough hands to wield every sword he wants to use.

Okay.
Then a mage can cast as many armor spells as he wants, providing he has enough bodies to wear all the armor...

[Killer Cyborg]

Heya!

Though no rules exist in the books pertaining to stacking protective spells, I know in our campaign it is permissible. (Then again when you have a player who's played a Chiang-Ku hatchling for nearly ten years, achieving 25 levels of experience, AND who happens to have the heart encircled in chains tatoo, which provides 75 M.D.C. per level of experience, the other characters need all they can get to keep up!)

'Nuff Said.

[Thinyser]

Also I agree that this tanget is not even appllicable to the topic of the thread...its magic armor not physical armor.

Of Armor of Ithan, Armor bizzare, Invulnerability, Invincible Armor, ONLY invincable armor creates a cumbursome suit of plate armor, all the rest are armor "fields" or "auras".

I am of the opinion that each spell may not stack with itself but may be combined with the others...so long as they don't create a cumbersome suit of actual armor I see no reason why they would interfere with each other.

Book of Magic, P. 104, Armor Bizarre:

"Like the Armor of Ithan spell, Armor Bizarre createsa suit of magical form-fitting force to serve as armor."

P. 96, Armor of Ithan:

"This powerful spell instantly creates an invisible, weightless, noiseless, full suit of mystic armor upon the spell caster."

So, these two definitely do make suits of armor. Real, tangible armor. Invulnerability doesn't, it has some funky field going on. but the fact that they definitely create physical suits doesn't mean you cann't wear one suit over another. On the other hand, it doesn't mean you can.

...I'd just never allow it in my game.

Both AoI and A Bizarre are formfitting (Unencumbering) Weightless, & silent. While the AoI is invisable the A Bizarre has an illusion of writhing snake/worms/mucus... ONLY the Invincable armor creates "armor" the other two as you pointed out are either a "form fitting force" or a "mystic armor" . From this I read that they are just form fitting suits of intangable force not a cumbersome physical construct like Invincable armor....IMO

[Dr. Doom III]

From this I read that they are just form fitting suits of intangable force not a cumbersome physical construct like Invincable armor....IMO

Intangible armor?
What does it stop? Intangible weapons?

It has to be tangible to stop anything.

[RainOfSteel]

Ok, I'm looking at the following for my purposes.

Stacking order of Armor/Fields, etc. (Magical, Psionic, or Technological.) [...]

Once I deciphered what you were saying, this is a very good post.

Why, thank you. I think.

Since I know what it means, it's crystal clear, to me.

Suggestions on rephrasing?

[cornholioprime]

From this I read that they are just form fitting suits of intangable force not a cumbersome physical construct like Invincable armor....IMO

Intangible armor?
What does it stop? Intangible weapons?

It has to be tangible to stop anything.

No, it doesn't.

You're sounding like Noob, Doom, repeatedly trying to assign Physical Laws to Magic.

In Rifts, do you not have several cases of Supernatural Creatures that are themselves intangible to most non-magical effects but can AT THE EXACT SAME TIME strike physical objects???

If so, then why is so hard for you to apply the same principle to MAGIC Armour???

****ADDENDUM****

The Nymph in Rifts: Conversion Book One is one such Creature; can attack objects in the Physical World while being itself intangible and COMPLETELY invulnerable to ALL Physical Attacks (Page 122)

[Dr. Doom III]

No, it doesn't.

You're sounding like Noob, Doom repeatedly trying to assign Physical Laws to Magic.

In Rifts, do you not have several cases of Supernatural Creatures that are themselves intangible to most non-magical effects but can AT THE EXACT SAME TIME strike physical objects???

If so, then why is so hard for you to apply the same principle to MAGIC Armour???

Name one that's intangible yet takes physical damage, which this fantasy intangible armor seems to do.

One that's intangible yet doesn't allow anything to pass through it which this fantasy intangible armor seems to do.

[Nekira Sudacne]

From this I read that they are just form fitting suits of intangable force not a cumbersome physical construct like Invincable armor....IMO

Intangible armor?
What does it stop? Intangible weapons?

It has to be tangible to stop anything.

No, it doesn't.

You're sounding like Noob, Doom, repeatedly trying to assign Physical Laws to Magic.

In Rifts, do you not have several cases of Supernatural Creatures that are themselves intangible to most non-magical effects but can AT THE EXACT SAME TIME strike physical objects???

If so, then why is so hard for you to apply the same principle to MAGIC Armour???

****ADDENDUM****

The Nymph in Rifts: Conversion Book One is one such Creature; can attack objects in the Physical World while being itself intangible and COMPLETELY invulnerable to ALL Physical Attacks (Page 122)

so, magically created wood dosnt' take up physical space?

[RainOfSteel]

From this I read that they are just form fitting suits of intangable force not a cumbersome physical construct like Invincable armor....IMO

Intangible armor?
What does it stop? Intangible weapons?

It has to be tangible to stop anything.

Yes, AoI's force-field is fully tangible and would co-occupy the space of any other similar mystic armor (although I feel either AoI Or InAr would fit over any single suit of Non-Magical Personal Armor).

The ultimate end-result of the "You can stack as many exact-same-type magic defenses" argument is: "I design a new spell, Viridian Armor; wait, no, I also design Irulian Armor; no, wait, I also design Mega Armor." With all the minds in the Megaverse laboring away on the subject, you'll have quite a few.

The smart and tough will stock up.

This will create ridiculous collections of defense spells stacked up on top of each other. Mages really will be the equivalent of a 20th Century tank.

[demos606]

This will create ridiculous collections of defense spells stacked up on top of each other. Mages really will be the equivalent of a 20th Century tank

Yet it's somehow more believable that infantry power armor starts out this powerful?

[cornholioprime]

From this I read that they are just form fitting suits of intangable force not a cumbersome physical construct like Invincable armor....IMO

Intangible armor?
What does it stop? Intangible weapons?

It has to be tangible to stop anything.

No, it doesn't.

You're sounding like Noob, Doom, repeatedly trying to assign Physical Laws to Magic.

In Rifts, do you not have several cases of Supernatural Creatures that are themselves intangible to most non-magical effects but can AT THE EXACT SAME TIME strike physical objects???

If so, then why is so hard for you to apply the same principle to MAGIC Armour???

****ADDENDUM****

The Nymph in Rifts: Conversion Book One is one such Creature; can attack objects in the Physical World while being itself intangible and COMPLETELY invulnerable to ALL Physical Attacks (Page 122)

so, magically created wood dosnt' take up physical space?

Nice try.

Reread the Spell Description.

That particular Spell assembles PHYSICAL Wood Particles from the environment into a PHYSICAL object, now doesn't it???

[cornholioprime]

This will create ridiculous collections of defense spells stacked up on top of each other. Mages really will be the equivalent of a 20th Century tank

Yet it's somehow more believable that infantry power armor starts out this powerful?

Agreed. Just because one does not like the implications, it still doesn't make a given situation "untrue."

It's simply amazing.

The Law of Physics that states that no two objects can occupy the same place at the same time would almost definitely NOT apply to Magical Constructs (as in, composed of pure Magical ENERGY/FORCE) in most cases, yet many people seem to forget that "fact...."

[Nekira Sudacne]

This will create ridiculous collections of defense spells stacked up on top of each other. Mages really will be the equivalent of a 20th Century tank

Yet it's somehow more believable that infantry power armor starts out this powerful?

Agreed. Just because one does not like the implications, it still doesn't make a given situation "untrue."

It's simply amazing.

The Law of Physics that states that no two objects can occupy the same place at the same time would almost definitely NOT apply to Magical Constructs (as in, composed of pure Magical ENERGY/FORCE) in most cases, yet many people seem to forget that "fact...."

show me where in the text it says that "clearly"

[cornholioprime]

This will create ridiculous collections of defense spells stacked up on top of each other. Mages really will be the equivalent of a 20th Century tank

Yet it's somehow more believable that infantry power armor starts out this powerful?

Agreed. Just because one does not like the implications, it still doesn't make a given situation "untrue."

It's simply amazing.

The Law of Physics that states that no two objects can occupy the same place at the same time would almost definitely NOT apply to Magical Constructs (as in, composed of pure Magical ENERGY/FORCE) in most cases, yet many people seem to forget that "fact...."

show me where in the text it says that "clearly"

Nice try Number Two.

If things were CLEARLY stated as regards this Issue, then none of us would be having this Conversation, now would we??

But at least I have the precedent of Magical Forces ignoring the Laws of Physics in Rifts, in many, many Cases, on my side.

And your precedents would be...???

[RainOfSteel]

This will create ridiculous collections of defense spells stacked up on top of each other. Mages really will be the equivalent of a 20th Century tank

Yet it's somehow more believable that infantry power armor starts out this powerful?

We're talking about the difference between a few hundred MDC for non-magical power armor, and thousands or tens of thousands of MDC per mage.

[Killer Cyborg]

In Rifts, do you not have several cases of Supernatural Creatures that are themselves intangible to most non-magical effects but can AT THE EXACT SAME TIME strike physical objects???

If so, then why is so hard for you to apply the same principle to MAGIC Armour???

Because none of the spell descriptions mention the armor working that way, and because there is no reason to assume that the armor works that way.

[Killer Cyborg]

The Law of Physics that states that no two objects can occupy the same place at the same time would almost definitely NOT apply to Magical Constructs (as in, composed of pure Magical ENERGY/FORCE) in most cases, yet many people seem to forget that "fact...."

So you would argue that a mage could weild multiple spell-created swords in the same hand, at the same time?

[demos606]

Show me a mage with the PPE for tens of thousands of magical armor worth of properly designed protective spells. For that matter, show me tens of thousands of points worth of properly designed protective spells.

You're gonna have to do better than this when the books make direct comparisons between power armor and modern tanks but it somehow bothers you that mages might reach the same protective levels at some cost to their ability to cast other spells. With the existing armor spells as guidelines, at level 15 its going to take 800+ PPE to get anywhere close to 10000 MDC worth of magical armor. Theres just no way any PC is going to have the PPE to do that regularly, if ever. A quick extrapolation from the 3 spells originally asked about at lvl 10 (400MDC:55PPE) gets us 10000 MDC for 1375 PPE if new spells have the same PPE effeciency.

[demos606]

The Law of Physics that states that no two objects can occupy the same place at the same time would almost definitely NOT apply to Magical Constructs (as in, composed of pure Magical ENERGY/FORCE) in most cases, yet many people seem to forget that "fact...."

So you would argue that a mage could weild multiple spell-created swords in the same hand, at the same time?

Most(all?) spell-created swords are fully physically manifested making it quite clear that they're subject to the standard rules for melee weapons. Most (all?) magical armor spells are invisible and weightless, making it quite plausable that they can be cast in conjunction with one another. There's even been a Canon example given to support that belief.

[Killer Cyborg]

Show me a mage with the PPE for tens of thousands of magical armor worth of properly designed protective spells. For that matter, show me tens of thousands of points worth of properly designed protective spells.

You're gonna have to do better than this when the books make direct comparisons between power armor and modern tanks but it somehow bothers you that mages might reach the same protective levels at some cost to their ability to cast other spells. With the existing armor spells as guidelines, at level 15 its going to take 800+ PPE to get anywhere close to 10000 MDC worth of magical armor. Theres just no way any PC is going to have the PPE to do that regularly, if ever. A quick extrapolation from the 3 spells originally asked about at lvl 10 (400MDC:55PPE) gets us 10000 MDC for 1375 PPE if new spells have the same PPE effeciency.

You have effectively shot down the "tens of thousands" of MDC argument.

What about the "hundreds of MDC" argument?
Is it acceptable to you for mages to have 200+ MDC without much effort?What about 500+ MDC?

[Killer Cyborg]

The Law of Physics that states that no two objects can occupy the same place at the same time would almost definitely NOT apply to Magical Constructs (as in, composed of pure Magical ENERGY/FORCE) in most cases, yet many people seem to forget that "fact...."

So you would argue that a mage could weild multiple spell-created swords in the same hand, at the same time?

Most(all?) spell-created swords are fully physically manifested making it quite clear that they're subject to the standard rules for melee weapons. Most (all?) magical armor spells are invisible and weightless, making it quite plausable that they can be cast in conjunction with one another.

No... that just means that the armor is invisible and weightless.
If you take your plate mail to an alchemist and get it enchanted to be weightless and invisible, does that mean that it suddenly becomes intangible as well?
No.

There's even been a Canon example given to support that belief.

By all means, cite it.

[demos606]

By all means, cite it.

The God Shiva (Rifts: Pantheons of the Megaverse, page 126), in combat, "....surrounds himself with different Force Fields and Protective Spells (adding a few hundred MDC of protection), and then wades into the thick of a fight."

Is it acceptable to you for mages to have 200+ MDC without much effort?What about 500+ MDC?

When 1 spell is worth 250MDC for 30 PPE (Invincible Armor) and another frequently used as a talisman over regular armor is worth 100 (AoI), no it doesnt bother me that mages can get a few hundred extra MDC in magical armor spells - a few thousand easy MDC might be alarming but the spells are more balanced than that.

If you take your plate mail to an alchemist and get it enchanted to be weightless and invisible, does that mean that it suddenly becomes intangible as well?

No, it makes it an invisible, weightless suit of platemail to kill yourself with in the middle of the night. It also doesn't change the fact that the suit of platemail is going to play hell with a mages ability to cast. A construct of pure magic isn't bound to the same physics as a metal suit of armor.

[Killer Cyborg]

By all means, cite it.

The God Shiva (Rifts: Pantheons of the Megaverse, page 126), in combat, "....surrounds himself with different Force Fields and Protective Spells (adding a few hundred MDC of protection), and then wades into the thick of a fight."

This doesn't really support your argument.
Shiva surrounds himself with forcefields. Okay. How many spells describe themselves as being "force fields"?
He surrounds himself with protective spells. Okay. Invulnerability, Impervious to Energy, etc. etc. etc. are all protective spells.

But we're talking about armor spells.

Is it acceptable to you for mages to have 200+ MDC without much effort?What about 500+ MDC?

When 1 spell is worth 250MDC for 30 PPE (Invincible Armor) and another frequently used as a talisman over regular armor is worth 100 (AoI), no it doesnt bother me that mages can get a few hundred extra MDC in magical armor spells - a few thousand easy MDC might be alarming but the spells are more balanced than that.

It doesn't make sense to me.
100 MDC from an AoI Talisman that costs a ton of credits doesn't mean that a mage should be able to stack up another couple hundred on top of that from another similar spell.

If you take your plate mail to an alchemist and get it enchanted to be weightless and invisible, does that mean that it suddenly becomes intangible as well?

No, it makes it an invisible, weightless suit of platemail to kill yourself with in the middle of the night. It also doesn't change the fact that the suit of platemail is going to play hell with a mages ability to cast. A construct of pure magic isn't bound to the same physics as a metal suit of armor.

Where does it say that it is not bound by the same physics?
Sure, it's invisible and weightless, but does that mean that all rules of physics go right out the window? No.

[demos606]

Yes, Invulnerability, protective spell worth 50MDC as one of its effects.

It doesn't make sense to me. 100 MDC from an AoI Talisman that costs a ton of credits doesn't mean that a mage should be able to stack up another couple hundred on top of that from another similar spell.

Yet you just listed Invulnerabilty (with its extra armor) as a protective spell, what's the difference? As for the talisman costing lots of credits, thats a nonfactor in this debate. AoI can be (and regularly is) cast over physical power armor, so wheres the problem with it being cast over another spell that grants armor? Somehow its ok to mix magic and tech to get even more protection but its not ok to mix magic and magic for the same goal?

[Killer Cyborg]

Yes, Invulnerability, protective spell worth 50MDC as one of its effects.

It doesn't make sense to me. 100 MDC from an AoI Talisman that costs a ton of credits doesn't mean that a mage should be able to stack up another couple hundred on top of that from another similar spell.

Yet you just listed Invulnerabilty (with its extra armor) as a protective spell, what's the difference?

Invulnerability does not provide extra armor, only extra MDC.

As for the talisman costing lots of credits, thats a nonfactor in this debate.

Can I just declare everything you say as being a nonfactor..?

AoI can be (and regularly is) cast over physical power armor, so wheres the problem with it being cast over another spell that grants armor?

Other than AoI being built into power armor, when is it cast over power armor?

Somehow its ok to mix magic and tech to get even more protection but its not ok to mix magic and magic for the same goal?

It's not okay to mix magical suits of armor and other magical suits of armor over it.

[demos606]

Can I just declare everything you say as being a nonfactor..?

AoI talisman being expensive doesnt change its function - provide magical protection in addition to whatever physical protection may already be there.

Other than AoI being built into power armor, when is it cast over power armor?

Being built into PA as an activated ability is effectively the same as casting it over the PA later.

It's not okay to mix magical suits of armor and other magical suits of armor over it.

Yet somehow a magical suit and a physical suit of armor makes more sense?

[Natalya]

Also I agree that this tanget is not even appllicable to the topic of the thread...its magic armor not physical armor.

Of Armor of Ithan, Armor bizzare, Invulnerability, Invincible Armor, ONLY invincable armor creates a cumbursome suit of plate armor, all the rest are armor "fields" or "auras".

I am of the opinion that each spell may not stack with itself but may be combined with the others...so long as they don't create a cumbersome suit of actual armor I see no reason why they would interfere with each other.

Book of Magic, P. 104, Armor Bizarre:

"Like the Armor of Ithan spell, Armor Bizarre createsa suit of magical form-fitting force to serve as armor."

P. 96, Armor of Ithan:

"This powerful spell instantly creates an invisible, weightless, noiseless, full suit of mystic armor upon the spell caster."

So, these two definitely do make suits of armor. Real, tangible armor. Invulnerability doesn't, it has some funky field going on. but the fact that they definitely create physical suits doesn't mean you cann't wear one suit over another. On the other hand, it doesn't mean you can.

...I'd just never allow it in my game.

Both AoI and A Bizarre are formfitting (Unencumbering) Weightless, & silent. While the AoI is invisable the A Bizarre has an illusion of writhing snake/worms/mucus... ONLY the Invincable armor creates "armor" the other two as you pointed out are either a "form fitting force" or a "mystic armor" . From this I read that they are just form fitting suits of intangable force not a cumbersome physical construct like Invincable armor....IMO

It also doesn't say exactly what form it's fitting. We've always interpreted it that one form-fitting spell will be snug to the mage, and the second will be snug over the first spell, and the third will be snug over the second, and so on....

So yeah, you'll end up with multiple layers of forcefields totalling 3 inches or so thick around your body, but (since nothing in the book specifically forbids it) it's considered a legitimate usage of spells. We figure the limiting factor is whether the player wants to use the PPE in that regard, or save it (with less or no armor spells). It does kinda suck when you need PPE for a huge, expensive offensive or escape spell, but you don't have enough because you used it on unnecessary layering of armor. Then again, it's kinda nice to do this when you realize the bad guys you are facing are robots with energy swords that do 4D6 times 6 plus PS, paired. Ouch!

[Thinyser]

From this I read that they are just form fitting suits of intangable force not a cumbersome physical construct like Invincable armor....IMO

Intangible armor?
What does it stop? Intangible weapons?

It has to be tangible to stop anything.

No its magic.

[Thinyser]

Also I agree that this tanget is not even appllicable to the topic of the thread...its magic armor not physical armor.

Of Armor of Ithan, Armor bizzare, Invulnerability, Invincible Armor, ONLY invincable armor creates a cumbursome suit of plate armor, all the rest are armor "fields" or "auras".

I am of the opinion that each spell may not stack with itself but may be combined with the others...so long as they don't create a cumbersome suit of actual armor I see no reason why they would interfere with each other.

Book of Magic, P. 104, Armor Bizarre:

"Like the Armor of Ithan spell, Armor Bizarre createsa suit of magical form-fitting force to serve as armor."

P. 96, Armor of Ithan:

"This powerful spell instantly creates an invisible, weightless, noiseless, full suit of mystic armor upon the spell caster."

So, these two definitely do make suits of armor. Real, tangible armor. Invulnerability doesn't, it has some funky field going on. but the fact that they definitely create physical suits doesn't mean you cann't wear one suit over another. On the other hand, it doesn't mean you can.

...I'd just never allow it in my game.

Both AoI and A Bizarre are formfitting (Unencumbering) Weightless, & silent. While the AoI is invisable the A Bizarre has an illusion of writhing snake/worms/mucus... ONLY the Invincable armor creates "armor" the other two as you pointed out are either a "form fitting force" or a "mystic armor" . From this I read that they are just form fitting suits of intangable force not a cumbersome physical construct like Invincable armor....IMO

It also doesn't say exactly what form it's fitting. We've always interpreted it that one form-fitting spell will be snug to the mage, and the second will be snug over the first spell, and the third will be snug over the second, and so on....

So yeah, you'll end up with multiple layers of forcefields totalling 3 inches or so thick around your body, but (since nothing in the book specifically forbids it) it's considered a legitimate usage of spells. We figure the limiting factor is whether the player wants to use the PPE in that regard, or save it (with less or no armor spells). It does kinda suck when you need PPE for a huge, expensive offensive or escape spell, but you don't have enough because you used it on unnecessary layering of armor. Then again, it's kinda nice to do this when you realize the bad guys you are facing are robots with energy swords that do 4D6 times 6 plus PS, paired. Ouch!

agreed

[cornholioprime]

The Law of Physics that states that no two objects can occupy the same place at the same time would almost definitely NOT apply to Magical Constructs (as in, composed of pure Magical ENERGY/FORCE) in most cases, yet many people seem to forget that "fact...."

So you would argue that a mage could weild multiple spell-created swords in the same hand, at the same time?

Maybe.

Maybe not.

Depends on the situation and the what the Spell says that it does.

In the case of Magical Swords, I (were I GM) would probably say no.

Why?? The Swords are always constructed a certain size, in the Caster's hand. Magical Armors, by Spell Description, are form-fitting constructs of Magical Force that apparently alter themselves upon creation to fit the Caster and, apparently, everything on his person, since no one ever heard of a Sorceror's Bag of Spell Components, for example, being exposed to the enemy once a Protective Spell/Armor was put in place (obviously, this last Statement clearly excludes those Protective Spell Effects that specifically state that they cover only the Caster's Body; there is at least one Spell of that type in the Rifts: Book of Magic).

If the Magical Armour can adapt to the size/shape of the individual (Faeries to Dragons) AND/OR objects on his/her person (Spell Components, Fallback Weapons, Talismans, etc.), then why can't the Spell also "adjust" to cover/complement/co-locate with Spell Protections or even Magical Armors that are already in effect??


Again, dislikng a Concept, even a cheesy one, is not necessarily a barrier to that Concept potentially happening......

[cornholioprime]

[Where does it say that it is not bound by the same physics?
Sure, it's invisible and weightless, but does that mean that all rules of physics go right out the window? No.

Oh, really??

A]] Depending on the Magical Armor, it filters Oxygen -and in some cases, even provides it -without Breathing Apparatus.

B]] It has NO weight/mass. The Spell Description is NOT "a tiny bit of weight/mass," or "next to no weight/mass," but NO weight/mass. In Quantum Physics, even Photons and Quarks have some Mass/Weight.

C]] Depending on the Magical Armor type, you could walk into the Sun's Core (good luck on escaping the Gravity Well and withstanding the crushing Pressures, though, without teleporting ), and not singe a single hair on your head. Know of any Molecular, Physical Matter that can do that without getting literally reduced to atoms??

So...you STILL want to attach Physics to Magical Armor, KC??

It INTERACTS with the Physical World...but that doesn't mean that it is itself physical...kinda like Rifts Vampires...

[Thinyser]

The Law of Physics that states that no two objects can occupy the same place at the same time would almost definitely NOT apply to Magical Constructs (as in, composed of pure Magical ENERGY/FORCE) in most cases, yet many people seem to forget that "fact...."

So you would argue that a mage could weild multiple spell-created swords in the same hand, at the same time?

Maybe.

Maybe not.

Depends on the situation and the what the Spell says that it does.

In the case of Magical Swords, I (were I GM) would probably say no.

Why?? The Swords are always constructed a certain size, in the Caster's hand. Magical Armors, by Spell Description, are form-fitting constructs of Magical Force that apparently alter themselves upon creation to fit the Caster and, apparently, everything on his person, since no one ever heard of a Sorceror's Bag of Spell Components, for example, being exposed to the enemy once a Protective Spell/Armor was put in place (obviously, this last Statement clearly excludes those Protective Spell Effects that specifically state that they cover only the Caster's Body; there is at least one Spell of that type in the Rifts: Book of Magic).

If the Magical Armour can adapt to the size/shape of the individual (Faeries to Dragons) AND/OR objects on his/her person (Spell Components, Fallback Weapons, Talismans, etc.), then why can't the Spell also "adjust" to cover/complement/co-locate with Spell Protections or even Magical Armors that are already in effect??


Again, dislikng a Concept, even a cheesy one, is not necessarily a barrier to that Concept potentially happening......

just like only one layer of armor takes damage until it expires only one of the swords (most damaging?, largest?) would cause damage untill it expires...I see no reason why it is not possible...though what the possible benifits would be has me at a loss...maybe they have different durations and the mages wants to cast them both doing more damage with the shorter duration and already have the other one inhand when the more powerfull one expires? I'd allow it though I would never do it my self as I feel it would be a total waste of PPE. Stacking armor to me is not a waste of PPE as armor is your life in Rifts...if it is taken out I want another layer already up...giving me time to escape if necessary.

[SirTenzan]

Heya!

Though no rules exist in the books pertaining to stacking protective spells, I know in our campaign it is permissible. (Then again when you have a player who's played a Chiang-Ku hatchling for nearly ten years, achieving 25 levels of experience, AND who happens to have the heart encircled in chains tatoo, which provides 75 M.D.C. per level of experience, the other characters need all they can get to keep up!)

'Nuff Said.

Nuff said? Yeah, I know, it's a ridiculous amount. I've LONG lamented that tattoo's power. BUT, you think that's bad, imagine when she uses it near a Ley Line Nexus ... and this player is cunning enough to lure enemies towards these locations. With her experience, she's attained more power in her short life than many dragons three times her age...

[Killer Cyborg]

Can I just declare everything you say as being a nonfactor..?

AoI talisman being expensive doesnt change its function - provide magical protection in addition to whatever physical protection may already be there.

Does it say that in the description?
Maybe there's a reason why Altarians wear those skimpy MDC swimsuits...

Other than AoI being built into power armor, when is it cast over power armor?

Being built into PA as an activated ability is effectively the same as casting it over the PA later.

Nope.
The spell effects of TW enchantments is often different from the actual spell.

It's not okay to mix magical suits of armor and other magical suits of armor over it.

Yet somehow a magical suit and a physical suit of armor makes more sense?

Kind of, but not much.

[Killer Cyborg]

The Law of Physics that states that no two objects can occupy the same place at the same time would almost definitely NOT apply to Magical Constructs (as in, composed of pure Magical ENERGY/FORCE) in most cases, yet many people seem to forget that "fact...."

So you would argue that a mage could weild multiple spell-created swords in the same hand, at the same time?

Maybe.

Maybe not.

Depends on the situation and the what the Spell says that it does.

In the case of Magical Swords, I (were I GM) would probably say no.

Why?? The Swords are always constructed a certain size, in the Caster's hand.

Where does it say that?

Magical Armors, by Spell Description, are form-fitting constructs of Magical Force that apparently alter themselves upon creation to fit the Caster and, apparently, everything on his person, since no one ever heard of a Sorceror's Bag of Spell Components, for example, being exposed to the enemy once a Protective Spell/Armor was put in place (obviously, this last Statement clearly excludes those Protective Spell Effects that specifically state that they cover only the Caster's Body; there is at least one Spell of that type in the Rifts: Book of Magic).

Spell effects are not something that people physically carry on them.

[Killer Cyborg]

[Where does it say that it is not bound by the same physics?
Sure, it's invisible and weightless, but does that mean that all rules of physics go right out the window? No.

Oh, really??

A]] Depending on the Magical Armor, it filters Oxygen -and in some cases, even provides it -without Breathing Apparatus.

B]] It has NO weight/mass. The Spell Description is NOT "a tiny bit of weight/mass," or "next to no weight/mass," but NO weight/mass. In Quantum Physics, even Photons and Quarks have some Mass/Weight.

C]] Depending on the Magical Armor type, you could walk into the Sun's Core (good luck on escaping the Gravity Well and withstanding the crushing Pressures, though, without teleporting ), and not singe a single hair on your head. Know of any Molecular, Physical Matter that can do that without getting literally reduced to atoms??

So...you STILL want to attach Physics to Magical Armor, KC??

It INTERACTS with the Physical World...but that doesn't mean that it is itself physical...kinda like Rifts Vampires...

Yet there ARE still physical laws that apply to the magic armor.
Otherwise it wouldn't be able to take any damage from incoming attacks.
And it wouldn't be able to be worn.
And it just might suddenly turn into a butterfly for no reason.

[Dr. Doom III]

I'll reiterate.

Assigning abilities to anything with no evidence makes no sense at all.
Ever.

[RainOfSteel]

The Law of Physics that states that no two objects can occupy the same place at the same time would almost definitely NOT apply to Magical Constructs (as in, composed of pure Magical ENERGY/FORCE) in most cases, yet many people seem to forget that "fact...."

In regards to the above, to which "Law of Physics" are you referring? The Pauli Exclusion Principle, perhaps?

[RainOfSteel]

Show me a mage with the PPE for tens of thousands of magical armor worth of properly designed protective spells. For that matter, show me tens of thousands of points worth of properly designed protective spells.

You have perceived the essential nature of my concern. There is no example of stacking exact-same-type magical defenses in an unlimited manner in 15 odd years of Rifts books in production.

Although the lack of an example may not be certainty, the lack of an example is suggestive.

It is suggestive of it not being possible.

You're gonna have to do better than this when the books make direct comparisons between power armor and modern tanks but it somehow bothers you that mages might reach the same protective levels at some cost to their ability to cast other spells.

It doesn't "bother" me in the way you seem to be suggesting. I simply forsee great munchkin-exploitation resulting from allowing it. So I head the muchkinsim off at the pass.

You also seem to have mistinterpreted my statement regarind a mage equalling a 20th Century tank, which was a reference to the current Tanks! (your welcome) topic running at the moment, which in turn is an outgrowth of Giant Humanoid Robots, which in turn is an outgrowth of Prices of equipment.

It's my fault, I should have phrased what I was talking about in less metaphorical/comedy/sarcasm terms.

Basically, what I was talking about was: The statement in Rifts claiming that an MDC armor and MD weapon equipped soldier was the equivalent of a 20th Century tank is, basically, bunk, because they don't even seem to have the real firepower or defenses of a 20th Century tank (see the tank topic link above for more info).

By mentioning a mage maybe becoming the equivalent of a 20th Century tank, I was parodying the above statement by implying that in the case of the mage substituted for the soldier, the case might actually be true.

Like I said, I was being way too obscure, and I should have know better, my apologies.

With the existing armor spells as guidelines, at level 15 its going to take 800+ PPE [...] 1375 PPE if new spells have the same PPE effeciency.

Never underestimate the power of a PC to get ahold of extra PPE.

[RainOfSteel]

[...]
Most (all?) magical armor spells are invisible and weightless, making it quite plausable that they can be cast in conjunction with one another. There's even been a Canon example given to support that belief.

I do not understand how "invisible and weightless" equivocate to the suggestion of "intangiblility".