Stacking Magical Armor

[Killer Cyborg]

If this is true, and the Spells listed create Objects made of PHYSICAL matter, then why can't you repair the material that's left after the Spell Duration elapses??

Because the armor vanishes when the spell duration elapses.
Just like most physical objects created by spells.

MORE IMPORTANTLY, IF THESE ARMOURS ARE MADE OF PHYSICAL ARMOR, THEN WHAT, PRAY TELL, ARE THEY MADE OF???

Good question.
Originally it wouldn't matter, but with the Mage/Armor rules I'd guess that the armor isn't made of metal...

WHAT'S THAT, LASSIE??

Asking dead TV dogs for help is a sign of immense desperation.

YOU SAY THAT NO TYPE OF PHYSICAL MATERIAL WHATSOEVER IS EVER LISTED???

WELL, GEE, THEN I GUESS THAT WITH A LACK OF EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, THEY MUST BE COMPOSED OF MYSTICAL FORCE/ENERGY AFTER ALL......

Nice try.
As I have pointed out, the spells that create objects of mystical energy/force say so in the text.

B]] As stated in a previous Post, when you dispel a Armor Spell, you're left with.....NOTHING!! You can't magically dispel Physical matter out of existence. ergo, yu dispelled the MAGICAL Forces/Energies that the Suit was composed of.

Same thing applies to Throwing Stones, Wall of Not, and other spells that create physical objects on a temporary basis.

Nice Try (again with the Sarcasm from me!).
You didn't read the Spell Descriptions.
"Wall of Not" makes EXISTING Matter invisible.

Yup.
I was wrong there.

"Throwing Stones" pulls earth together to make Stones that are apparently enchanted to cause more damage.

NO indication whatsoever that a Throwing Stone itself goes away at the end of the Spell Duration; apparently, you're left with a pile of unenchanted Stones after the Spell elapses.

Actually, after the stone hits, it crumbles into dirt.
This supports your theory that the stones are made from magically affected dirt.
So that's two points for you.

-Cloud of Steam -Conjures Steam. NO mention of the Steam INSTANTLY vanishing if the Spell is dispelled; presumably, new Steam would stop being generated.

That's your presumption.
The spell doesn't say that it constantly creates steam for the entire duration of the spell.. it just says that it creates a cloud of steam.

-Miasma -essentially same as "Cloud of Steam," above.

Agreed, although I have a different take on things than you do.

-Orb of Cold -Summons PHYSICAL Ice, magically supercharges it. NO indication whatsoever that the Water/Ice in question goes away at Spell's end, just the enchantment.

Except for the part that says, "The orb disappears in one melee round (15 seconds) if it is not thrown."
If it IS thrown, then it shatters.
There is no reason to believe that any leftover shards do not disappear.

-Invisible Wall -ALL Elemental Walls, even those of Physical Matter, may be dispelled, "destroying" or "un-conjuring" the Physical Matter (BoM, page 79 and others). An exception to the "rule."

No, it is proof of the rule.
Any physical matter created by a spell with a time limit reacts the same way. It disappears when the spell ends or is canceled/negated.

Unless you can find mention in the books of those spells being exceptions...

-Wall of Clay -same as "Invisible Wall," above
-Wall of Stone -same as "Invisible Wall," above
-Wall of Thorns -same as "Invisible Wall," above

Yup.
They all prove the same thing; that magically created physical matter disappears when the duration ends or the spell is cancelled.

-River of Lava -Absolutely NO indication that the Lava, once conjured, would vanish at Spell's end or with a Dispel Magic. Presumably, the Lava Pool would cool down and harden afterwards..

The fact that the spell has a duration means that the effect ends afterward.
Why else would there be a duration? Just to keep the lava hot?
If that were the case, then there would be mention of the fact that the lava stayed and likely some mention of how quickly it takes to cool/harden.

-Wall of Iron -same as "Invisible Wall," above
-Cloud of Ash -same as "Cloud of steam" and "Miasma," above
-Wall of Ice -same as "Invisible Wall," above
-Create Fog -same as "Cloud of steam" and "Miasma," above
-Purple Mist -same as "Cloud of steam" and "Miasma," above
-Sheet of Ice -Absolutely NO indication that the Ice, once conjured, would vanish at Spell's end or with a Dispel Magic. Wet puddle on the floor once the Magic fails..

There is no mention of the ice melting when the spell ends. The duration is for the existence of the created material, just like with Wall of Ice and other spells.

-Hail -Inconclusive.

No reason to believe that the hail sticks around, but I'll admit that this spell is vaguer than the rest.

-Shards of Ice -The ONLY PHYSICAL Object in your List apart from the Elemental Walls, made of PHYSICAL Matter, that can be dispelled.

Really?
And where does it say that?

-Encase in Ice -similar to "Invisible Wall," above. ONLY the Warlock can make the Ice Block disappear and it apparently CANNOT be dispelled.

Sure it can, with a Negate Magic spell.
Just like most spells.

-Ten Foot Ball of Ice [color=blue]-the ONLY Spell in your List, involving PHYSICAL Matter, in which the Physical Matter vanishes once the Spell elapses.

Except for all the others, that is...

By the way, NONE of these PHYSICAL Objects created by these Spells seem to "go away" at Spell's end (not dispelled) EXCEPT for the 10-foot Ball of Ice.

Yes, they do.
That's what the duration is for.
You are desperately grasping at the fact that the spells do not specifically say, "Disappears when the spell ends"... but virtually no spells actually say that.
Globe of Daylight, for example, doesn't specifically say that the globe disappears when the duration ends, but it's safe to assume that it does.
That's the point of having a duration.

Invincible Armor has encumberance penalties.

[color=blue]That's fine.

You found ONE Magical Armor that has encumbrance Penalties.

You could say that.
Or you could say that one third of the Armor spells have encumberance penalties.

But wait....if you're trying to say that Encumbrance Penalties are the mark of a PHYSICAL Object, then by reverse inference, those Armor Spells that DON'T have those Penalties are made of MYSTICAL Energies...which, again, would not necesarily be subject to Physical Laws and therefore could co-exist in the same space (stacked together)....if necessary.

Nope.
As I already mentioned, Armor Bizzare is clearly a force creation.
That leaves Armor of Ithan, which is clearly enchanted to be Weightless and Noiseless... hence, no encumberance or prowl penalties.

E]] One other Area that ALL of us forgot: How is it that Magically enchanted Mages can cast the Spell onto others in the first place?? If the Armor in question is subject to normal Physical laws, and is COMPLETELY tangible, then why doesn't the Armor chop off the Fingers of the Casting Mage (has to touch the Target) once the Armor comes into existence??

That's like asking why casting Fireball doesn't scorch the mage's hand.

Magic spells have built in safety features to avoid that sort of thing.
You could run it however you want:
-The mage briefly touches the recipient, then pulls his hand away and the guy is in armor.
-The mage grabs ahold of the recipient's arm, and is suddenly holding onto the guy's armor once the spell goes off.
-Or any number of other special effects that you like, depending on whim and circumstance.

Or how about THIS Special Effect: The Armor is 'solid' to Attacks but 'intangible' to most everything else, depending on how the Armor's Spell is crafted??

Nope. Doesn't work that way... I think that the encumberance penalties, and the fact that only one of the spells creates armor made out of force clearly show that.

For that matter, how does ANY Character draw a Weapon once ensorcelled by an Armor Spell (if it was in a Scabard or holster, say, at his side), not to mention a whole host of possible Non-Combat Actions once the Spell came into effect UNLESS the Armor has the MAGICAL properties of being effectively intangible to the wearer but SOLID to attack??

It's magic.
One second you aren't wearing armor, the next second you are wearing armor. Your holster and ammo belts were strapped over your chest, now they're strapped over your chest plate.

Now THIS is rich.
You say that I am wrong to assume that a Wizard can make multiple Magical Armors stack on his person because the Armor in question doesn't necessarily follow Physical Laws..

...but you say that the Wizard's Items can appear ABOVE the Armor after Spell casting...because of Magic??? And with NO evidence whatsoever to back your Claim that said Items/Weapons change position??

Hey, make up whatever explanations that you want.
The real answer is probably that KS never really bothered to wonder about that sort of thing.
The fact that you have unresolved technical questions does not negate the fact that AoI and IA both create physical suits of armor.

And this is BEFORE one realizes that said Items/Weps MUST remain under the Magical Protection anyways, lest they become vulnerable to attack!! Ever heard of a Wizard's personal posessions taking damage whilst (s)he is fully protected by Magical Protections of ANY sort??? No, I didn't, either.

Really?
Huh. Happens all the time when I game.
But you probably use funky house-rules.
It's the same problem that tech guys have... either you wear something under your armor and cannot get it easily, or you wear it over your armor and it can be stolen/destroyed.

Of course, mages do have an advantage in that they can create force-fields and walls that protect them and all their gear.

If you have anything canon saying otherwise, feel free to quote it.

Quit while you're behind......

Again, I have to ask...
Has that tactic EVER worked...?

[RainOfSteel]

There is nothing on BoM p.22 about a "classic definition of stacking".

You don't say, "Hey, X," and then say, "Hey, you need to find where it says X."

There is no such definition.

I've been saying the same thing.

[RainOfSteel]

This is TRULY idiotic on your part, Doom.

I don't know if this request will do any good, but could you please stop with the irrelevant commentary? It gains you nothing. Really.

The Create Spells for "Mummy," "Golem" and "Zombie," would you say that THEY are the same Spell???

They aren't all the same spell, they are all the same type of spell, Animation spells.

And if these Armor Spells are THE SAME, as you put it, then why do you need to cast DIFFERENT Spells to get different types of Protection???

They also aren't all the same spell, they are all the same type of spell, Magical Armor spells. (Although this is a much narrower category than the ultra-broad category referred to above.)


That is one of the main points. The discussion is about categories of spells, and the operative category is Magical Armor. All Magical Armor spells are, of course, different; but at the same type, parts of each of those spells are similar to all the others. You even listed those similarities yourself.

However, that's still not my main position. Mine main position is two-fold:

A: If you can cast and stack different Magical Armor spells, then I can see no reason why you could not cast and stack the same Magical Armor spell. If one works, the other obviously works. Since I don't want the later to happen, I cannot see any way to allow the first to happen.

B: Game balance. The problem is not at the low end, it's at the high end. A 15th level mage on a nexus can toss up 2250 MDC for 45 minutes for just 50 PPE and 5 AoI spells. And he can get most of it back fairly easily. Even if we somehow wrap ourselves past A, then we still get inventing and stacking an unlimited number of same-type spells to the same purpose (which is why I can see no way around A). Also, the example of Tannhauser under this also remains relevant.

C: The other arguments: Can't occupy the same effectively location/slot, doesn't seem "right" in terms of PB's overall system and rules, etc., I all see them as valid, but simply less important than A and B.

[Killer Cyborg]

This is TRULY idiotic on your part, Doom.

I don't know if this request will do any good, but could you please stop with the irrelevant commentary? It gains you nothing. Really.

I second this motion.

[RainOfSteel]

Let's examine things a bit closer.

[...snippage of many excellent and well-reasoned points...]

Thanks for expanding on the previous lists.

It's magic.
One second you aren't wearing armor, the next second you are wearing armor. Your holster and ammo belts were strapped over your chest, now they're strapped over your chest plate.

Oh! I like that, never having quite envisioned it in that manner. Yup, the armor just suddenly grows up under the other equipment, but over clothing. And of course the spellcaster's hand is forced away from it as it materializes.

[RainOfSteel]

Hey Rain. Read my sig

I have read your new sig, in fact, I've read most of your sigs (if I missed one, it was because I blinked) since I started monitoring the board again.

Doom's position is one of basic logic. Really . . . I'm not talking about balonium "Star Trek Imaginary Vulcan Logic" here, either. I'm talking about actual logic, there really is such a science. The science of well-reasoned thoughts based on assertions of facts, etc. All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares, are a pair of simple assertions. They can be proven by geometric math. Other things can be treated in the same manner. The trouble is, they require grounding in how to think that way (and it's not a short course, either), and further, require agreement on the foundations (if you don't agree with the mathematics of geometry, there is little point in attempting to hold a logical discussion about it, as the assertions will never be proven to your satisfaction).

I don't exactly agree with every usage Doom has put his minimalistic approach to, but the general thrust is correct, so I haven't bothered to say anything.

Oh, and how is it that I read Doom's "position"?

Basically, he's saying that there is no reason to "invent" facts about spells or the magic system, that aren't specifically mentioned by the rules, unless absolutely necessary. And while vexing, this problem probably doesn't qualify.

Technically, he's correct. Practically, this doesn't get us out of our problems of the main rules having holes in them the size of the Andromeda Galaxy.

From all I can determine, URMB will not present much in the way of new systems. A revised OCC list, the FoM spells, etc., will take up most of the space.

This means the various rules gaps, like the one under discussion, will remain. We're going to have to hash out something. If we stick 100% by Doom's position, we won't get there, ever.

However, along the way, I'll stick far closer to the minimalist approach.

Oh, and I'll just extend my position a little further.

My position, as mentioned just a short time ago, is entirely mine. I realize it's not canon, and effectively amounts to my house-rule (as did my post on how I was going to work armor stacking from much earlier).

[cornholioprime]

This is TRULY idiotic on your part, Doom.

I don't know if this request will do any good, but could you please stop with the irrelevant commentary? It gains you nothing. Really.

The Create Spells for "Mummy," "Golem" and "Zombie," would you say that THEY are the same Spell???

They aren't all the same spell, they are all the same type of spell, Animation spells.

You're a day late and a dollar short, Rain. The rest of us have ALREADY verified the obvious. But thanks for playing.

And if these Armor Spells are THE SAME, as you put it, then why do you need to cast DIFFERENT Spells to get different types of Protection???

They also aren't all the same spell, they are all the same type of spell, Magical Armor spells. (Although this is a much narrower category than the ultra-broad category referred to above.)


That is one of the main points. The discussion is about categories of spells, and the operative category is Magical Armor. All Magical Armor spells are, of course, different; but at the same type, parts of each of those spells are similar to all the others. You even listed those similarities yourself.

See the above on observing the Obvious...HOURS after everyone else has moved on.

However, that's still not my main position. Mine main position is two-fold:

A: If you can cast and stack different Magical Armor spells, then I can see no reason why you could not cast and stack the same Magical Armor spell. If one works, the other obviously works. Since I don't want the later to happen, I cannot see any way to allow the first to happen.

There is NO Canon Statement saying that one is prohibited from stacking THE EXACT SAME SPELL upon oneself, repeatedly. HOWEVER, most everyone here (in the Forums at least), based on our INDIVIDUAL 'observations' of Magic (in Rifts/Palladium) in action -whether in Game Play, Spell Descriptions, etc., over the years -are of the consensus (read: yes, Opinion) that if you attempt to cast the exact same spell on the exact same target, then all you'll do is "reset" the Meter as it were, and will end up with only a NEW Casting of that Spell, nothing more. Personally, I have NEVER come across a single person, in Forum or in Game, who thinks otherwise.

Therefore, trying to link Multiple Castings of the SAME Spell with Multiple Casting of DIFFERENT Spells as an Argument is probably a non-starter even with those folks in your camp.

B: Game balance. The problem is not at the low end, it's at the high end. A 15th level mage on a nexus can toss up 2250 MDC for 45 minutes for just 50 PPE and 5 AoI spells. And he can get most of it back fairly easily. Even if we somehow wrap ourselves past A, then we still get inventing and stacking an unlimited number of same-type spells to the same purpose (which is why I can see no way around A). Also, the example of Tannhauser under this also remains relevant.

This last Statement of yours seems to imply that you don't even want Mages to be able to cast even the same TYPE of Spells (and we're not just talking about Magical Armors here).
While that may be fine for you, that is NOT a Universal Rule, and you are as far as I know the ONLY one (and maybe SH@RKEY as well) holding that view. Do you really mean to say with a striaght face that a Mage can't cast "Impervious to Fire," then "Impervious to Energy," then Impervious to Cold," and so on, onto himself?? After all, they ARE Magics of the same type.
Even IF you think that Mages can't do that, what Canon References do you have to say so??

(You'll notice that Killer is basing his "no" Argument on his belief that the Armors exist in the exact same physical space and therefore cannot be stacked. Even he is not saying that a Mage is prohibited from casting Similar Magics in sucession, just that they can't be stacked in the case of Magical Armors.)

C: The other arguments: Can't occupy the same effectively location/slot, doesn't seem "right" in terms of PB's overall system and rules, etc., I all see them as valid, but simply less important than A and B.

Actually, the "It doesn't seem right for Palladium; I think that Kevin would say 'no' " and "Magical Armors can't all exist in the same Physical Space" Arguments are the by far best Arguments going for those folks on your side of the Debate, and pretty good ones at that even though neither side has Canon to back them up as far as one of them goes (the Space between the Armor and the person and whether or not it stays at a uniform distance for ALL Magical Armor Spells); the rest of the Arguments presented in the entire Thread from your camp were actually pretty weak.

[RainOfSteel]

You're [...]
See [...]
There [...]
This [...]
Actually [...]

Please do not place your text in a quote-block with my name on it.

[cornholioprime]

You're [...]
See [...]
There [...]
This [...]
Actually [...]

Please do not place your text in a quote-block with my name on it.

Actually, Rain, I believe that I'll continue to use Quotes -yours or others -as I see fit.

[Thinyser]

Children! Don't make me come back there!

If I have to stop this car your NOT gonna like it!

[cornholioprime]

Are we there yet???



(Just ONE of the smart-aleck Kid Questions I could never ask my Parents too many times..... my Dad would STOP the Car, if necessary, in order to get the smack on. Pain is often an excellent teacher.....)

[RainOfSteel]

You're [...]
See [...]
There [...]
This [...]
Actually [...]

Please do not place your text in a quote-block with my name on it.

Actually, Rain, I believe that I'll continue to use Quotes -yours or others -as I see fit.

You can violate netiquette as much as you wish. You are so completely in the wrong on this that it is, literally, beyond imagination.

[cornholioprime]

You're [...]
See [...]
There [...]
This [...]
Actually [...]

Please do not place your text in a quote-block with my name on it.

Actually, Rain, I believe that I'll continue to use Quotes -yours or others -as I see fit.

You can violate netiquette as much as you wish. You are so completely in the wrong on this that it is, literally, beyond imagination.

If you are the veteran you say you are, then perhaps you'll understand this:

*plonk*

Who cares?? Get back to the Discussion at hand or remove yourself from it (your choice) and, frankly, stop whining.

[Nekira Sudacne]

You're [...]
See [...]
There [...]
This [...]
Actually [...]

Please do not place your text in a quote-block with my name on it.

Actually, Rain, I believe that I'll continue to use Quotes -yours or others -as I see fit.

You can violate netiquette as much as you wish. You are so completely in the wrong on this that it is, literally, beyond imagination.

If you are the veteran you say you are, then perhaps you'll understand this:

*plonk*

Who cares?? Get back to the Discusion at hand or remove yourself from it (your choice) and, frankly, stop whining.

quit being insulting or you can just shut up. argue the facts - keep opinions of fellow posters out of it.

[cornholioprime]

You're [...]
See [...]
There [...]
This [...]
Actually [...]

Please do not place your text in a quote-block with my name on it.

Actually, Rain, I believe that I'll continue to use Quotes -yours or others -as I see fit.

You can violate netiquette as much as you wish. You are so completely in the wrong on this that it is, literally, beyond imagination.

If you are the veteran you say you are, then perhaps you'll understand this:

*plonk*

Who cares?? Get back to the Discusion at hand or remove yourself from it (your choice) and, frankly, stop whining.

quit being insulting or you can just shut up. argue the facts - keep opinions of fellow posters out of it.

And what 'opinion' was that???

[Nekira Sudacne]

You're [...]
See [...]
There [...]
This [...]
Actually [...]

Please do not place your text in a quote-block with my name on it.

Actually, Rain, I believe that I'll continue to use Quotes -yours or others -as I see fit.

You can violate netiquette as much as you wish. You are so completely in the wrong on this that it is, literally, beyond imagination.

If you are the veteran you say you are, then perhaps you'll understand this:

*plonk*

Who cares?? Get back to the Discusion at hand or remove yourself from it (your choice) and, frankly, stop whining.

quit being insulting or you can just shut up. argue the facts - keep opinions of fellow posters out of it.

And what 'opinion' was that???

you've made several disparaging comments about doom in the past thread

[cornholioprime]

You're [...]
See [...]
There [...]
This [...]
Actually [...]

Please do not place your text in a quote-block with my name on it.

Actually, Rain, I believe that I'll continue to use Quotes -yours or others -as I see fit.

You can violate netiquette as much as you wish. You are so completely in the wrong on this that it is, literally, beyond imagination.

If you are the veteran you say you are, then perhaps you'll understand this:

*plonk*

Who cares?? Get back to the Discusion at hand or remove yourself from it (your choice) and, frankly, stop whining.

quit being insulting or you can just shut up. argue the facts - keep opinions of fellow posters out of it.

And what 'opinion' was that???

you've made several disparaging comments about doom in the past thread

Yeah. I keep forgetting. SOME Barbs are "acceptable" to be bandied about, and SOME are not..........

[Killer Cyborg]

Yeah. I keep forgetting. SOME Barbs are "acceptable" to be bandied about, and SOME are not..........

If somebody makes a barb at you, call them on it.

[Killer Cyborg]

Since Cornholio has not made a response to my last (on-topic) post, I'm assuming that he is stumped for the time being.
Anybody else see any flaws in my reasoning?

[Guest]

The PB Magic System doesn't say much, or I've overlooked where it does, about stacking spells of similar functionality.

10th Level Ley Line Walker, Avg 175 PPE

Armor of Ithan: 100 MDC: 10 PPE
Invulnerability: 50 MDC: 25 PPE
Invincible Armor: 250 MDC: 30 PPE

400 MDC: 55 PPE

Doesn't seem like too bad a deal.

I know about Armor Bizzare . . . but I left it out. <ick, shudder />

Does anyone allow this sort of stacking? Am I nuts for thinking it might be a problem?

I'm gonna ignore the something 17 pages before this post, and just say this.

I'm pretty sure if Kevin S. wanted to have magical armor stacking, the mainbook would have said so. This another example of players trying to abuse the system. Lower level mages have little armor to use, because of their lack of experience. That's part of the challenge. If you chose to be a mage, you take the vulnerability with the power. I would allow invulnerability to be mixed in with another armor spell, but not two armor spells together. You can't hold two different swords in the same hand, so a player shouldn't be able to to have an armor on top of an armor. Imagine trying to move with two different layers of armor. Even if it is magical, they're two different forces on collision. A GM with any sense should realize this.

[Thinyser]

The NG Stalker suit in Merc Ops P 87-88 says it can be worn under regular clothes or other armor.

So as a canon example some, (read: form fitting) physical armor CAN be layered.

I see no reason why a mystically created form fitting suit of armor couldn't do the same...that it may or may not be a physical construct such as the "create" spells no longer matters as Palladium has stated that physical armor CAN stack...so if its a physica form fitting suit there you go its stackable...if its simply a force rather than a physical construct it should always have been stackable as it would not have need to occupy the same physical space to offer its magical protection.

[demos606]

Merc Ops strikes again, ty Thinyser This answers the question brought up by the Triax plain clothes armor as well, though my personal belief is it's just not cost effective to pay 50k for 12MD.

[Thinyser]

Merc Ops strikes again, ty Thinyser This answers the question brought up by the Triax plain clothes armor as well, though my personal belief is it's just not cost effective to pay 50k for 12MD.

ah but the Merc Ops out fit is 12 md (no head protection) for a measly 11,100 CR yes thats only 11 thousand 1 hundred credits!

[demos606]

Still more cost effective than the Triax offering

[cornholioprime]

Since Cornholio has not made a response to my last (on-topic) post, I'm assuming that he is stumped for the time being.
Anybody else see any flaws in my reasoning?

I don't know, exactly, WHAT you're talking about as regards re-sponses to your last Online Post.

Refusing to argue in circles on a topic for which NEITHER side has Canon support is not, in my mind, being "stumped."

To me, it's simply finding a Circular Argument boring after a while, and gradually opting out. (Kinda like what you did in the "Non-Supernatural Creature/Supernatural Strength" Thread..although in that Thread me and mine supplied ample, Canon Evidence to prove our point).

Since others seem to be coming to this Thread Late, I'll recap:

Killer's Arguments:

A]] Magical Armors may have been brought into existence by Spell, but they are PHYSICAL objects subject to Physical Laws.

B]] ALL Magical Armors manifest at the EXACT SAME DISTANCE FROM THE SKIN OF THE CASTER.

C]] Therefore, and for those reasons, mages CANNOT stack Magical Armors on top of one another because they would occupy the same Physical space...which is impossible.

Cornholioprime's Arguments:

A]] Magical Armors are constructed of Mystical Energies/Force. As such, they are NOT subject to Physical Laws as we know them, and therefore can be stacked by a Mage casting sucessive Armor Spells on himself.

B]] Even if one believes that Magical Armors ARE physical Objects, the Spell Descriptions of the various Spells indicate that Magical Armors are hindered neither by Shape nor size. Therefore, even IF a Mage has already cast an Armor Spell on himself or another, and even IF one considers the Magical Armor to be a Physical Object, the LATEST Armor Spell Cast can merely adjust to "fit over" the previous Spell Armor cast.

*************************************

Neither one of us has Canon Evidence to himself up, especially not in the Statements presented; and BOTH of us are taking what INDIRECT evidence we can find, and shaping said indirect evidence to further our arguments.

And NEITHER of us will yield on the Issue because for the reasons above and the "evidence" we have gathered for our respective Arguments, we both believe ourselves to be right.

Sounds like a circular Argument that will go on forever to me.

Sorry, but I don't do "Teleport into sealed vehicle" type Arguments...at least not for very long........

[cornholioprime]

The NG Stalker suit in Merc Ops P 87-88 says it can be worn under regular clothes or other armor.

So as a canon example some, (read: form fitting) physical armor CAN be layered.

I see no reason why a mystically created form fitting suit of armor couldn't do the same...that it may or may not be a physical construct such as the "create" spells no longer matters as Palladium has stated that physical armor CAN stack...so if its a physica form fitting suit there you go its stackable...if its simply a force rather than a physical construct it should always have been stackable as it would not have need to occupy the same physical space to offer its magical protection.

Carry on the battle, if you wish, Thinny, but I don't think that either side will yield on this particular Issue.

Even though you and Gelidus made PERFECTLY valid Arguments with your observation of even PHYSICAL Armor Objects stacking over one another...

[Dr. Doom III]

The NG Stalker suit in Merc Ops P 87-88 says it can be worn under regular clothes or other armor.

So as a canon example some, (read: form fitting) physical armor CAN be layered.

I see no reason why a mystically created form fitting suit of armor couldn't do the same...that it may or may not be a physical construct such as the "create" spells no longer matters as Palladium has stated that physical armor CAN stack...so if its a physica form fitting suit there you go its stackable...if its simply a force rather than a physical construct it should always have been stackable as it would not have need to occupy the same physical space to offer its magical protection.

One type can.
It doesn't mean every kind can.

[Guest]

The NG Stalker suit in Merc Ops P 87-88 says it can be worn under regular clothes or other armor.

So as a canon example some, (read: form fitting) physical armor CAN be layered.

I see no reason why a mystically created form fitting suit of armor couldn't do the same...that it may or may not be a physical construct such as the "create" spells no longer matters as Palladium has stated that physical armor CAN stack...so if its a physica form fitting suit there you go its stackable...if its simply a force rather than a physical construct it should always have been stackable as it would not have need to occupy the same physical space to offer its magical protection.

I'm assuming that the NG Stalker suit is small. Invincincible Armor isn't. Armor Bizzarre isn't. Armor of Ithan, that point could be argued. Yes, you could put something like that on. Then fit another on. And so another one. Hey, why not one more? Oh, and one after that too. What the heck. One more. That's what you're saying is magically legal.

[Dr. Doom III]

Cornholioprime's Arguments:

A]] Magical Armors are constructed of Mystical Energies/Force. As such, they are NOT subject to Physical Laws as we know them, and therefore can be stacked by a Mage casting sucessive Armor Spells on himself.

So you contend but you have nothing printed in a book to support this in even the slightest way.

B]] Even if one believes that Magical Armors ARE physical Objects, the Spell Descriptions of the various Spells indicate that Magical Armors are hindered neither by Shape nor size. Therefore, even IF a Mage has already cast an Armor Spell on himself or another, and even IF one considers the Magical Armor to be a Physical Object, the LATEST Armor Spell Cast can merely adjust to "fit over" the previous Spell Armor cast.

Again that is your contention but you have nothing to support this one either.

Neither one of us has Canon Evidence to himself up, especially not in the Statements presented; and BOTH of us are taking what INDIRECT evidence we can find, and shaping said indirect evidence to further our arguments.

And as I have said without any corroborating evidence it is far more logical to assume the negative because in assuming the negative you are not giving abilities where there is nothing to warrant it.

[cornholioprime]

Cornholioprime's Arguments:

A]] Magical Armors are constructed of Mystical Energies/Force. As such, they are NOT subject to Physical Laws as we know them, and therefore can be stacked by a Mage casting sucessive Armor Spells on himself.

So you contend but you have nothing printed in a book to support this in even the slightest way.

B]] Even if one believes that Magical Armors ARE physical Objects, the Spell Descriptions of the various Spells indicate that Magical Armors are hindered neither by Shape nor size. Therefore, even IF a Mage has already cast an Armor Spell on himself or another, and even IF one considers the Magical Armor to be a Physical Object, the LATEST Armor Spell Cast can merely adjust to "fit over" the previous Spell Armor cast.

Again that is your contention but you have nothing to support this one either.

Neither one of us has Canon Evidence to himself up, especially not in the Statements presented; and BOTH of us are taking what INDIRECT evidence we can find, and shaping said indirect evidence to further our arguments.

And as I have said without any corroborating evidence it is far more logical to assume the negative because in assuming the negative you are not giving abilities where there is nothing to warrant it.

Of course, Doom, it is ONLY you that is giving Magical Armor the "ability" to stack in the first place.

Those of us who think that you CAN cast Multiple Armor Spells assign it no such "ability."

We just say that either

A]] They can co-exist in the same place at the same time, not being composed of Physical matter

OR

B]] Newer Armor Castings would merely shape themselves around the existing Armors (Magical or otherwise) beneath them IN MUCH THE SAME WAY ARMOR SPELLS DO IN CANON TO FIT BEINGS OF VAROUS SIZES AND SHAPES.

I don't see any real "stacking" going on there; if anything, the more correct term would be "layering."

Taking your own views/interpretations of what others are attempting to do, and then argiung from there is really poor form and makes for even poorer Arguments.

Try harder.

[Dr. Doom III]

Of course, Doom, it is ONLY you that is giving Magical Armor the "ability" to stack in the first place.

Those of us who think that you CAN cast Multiple Armor Spells assign it no such "ability."

Really?
Then I guess you can point me to the book and page number where I can find this ability.
If it's not in the book then you must give it for it to be possible.

We just say that either

A]] They can co-exist in the same place at the same time, not being composed of Physical matter

OR

B]] Newer Armor Castings would merely shape themselves around the existing Armors (Magical or otherwise) beneath them IN MUCH THE SAME WAY ARMOR SPELLS DO IN CANON TO FIT BEINGS OF VAROUS SIZES AND SHAPES.

Based on nothing.
I know that already.

I don't see any real "stacking" going on there; if anything, the more correct term would be "layering."

Taking your own views/interpretations of what others are attempting to do, and then argiung from there is really poor form and makes for even poorer Arguments.

Try harder.

Sorry but pointing out that you have no evidence is a valid argument like it or not.

[cornholioprime]

Of course, Doom, it is ONLY you that is giving Magical Armor the "ability" to stack in the first place.

Those of us who think that you CAN cast Multiple Armor Spells assign it no such "ability."

Really?
Then I guess you can point me to the book and page number where I can find this ability.
If it's not in the book then you must give it for it to be possible.

A-mazing.

YOU'RE the one that assigning this "Ability" in the first place. No one else is; but if you want to repeatedly set up a Straw Dog so that you can knock it down, then carry on.

We just say that either

A]] They can co-exist in the same place at the same time, not being composed of Physical matter

OR

B]] Newer Armor Castings would merely shape themselves around the existing Armors (Magical or otherwise) beneath them IN MUCH THE SAME WAY ARMOR SPELLS DO IN CANON TO FIT BEINGS OF VAROUS SIZES AND SHAPES.

Based on nothing.
I know that already.

So come on, Victor. Tell us EXACTLY what in Canon would stop sucessive Magical Armors from shaping themselves around the Spell-created Suit of Armor cast before them.

Magical Armors can shape them selves to fit everything from Humans to Octomen (shapes), and Creatures from Faerie Folk to Dragons (size), but now you tell us with a straight face that they CAN'T shape themselves around another Suit of Armor beneath them (Magical or otherwise)??

You need better Logic Skills, even if for an Argument about a imaginary Role-Playing Game.

At least Killer's Arguments about Armors not occupying the same Physical Space held SOME weight and some measure of logic.

I don't see any real "stacking" going on there; if anything, the more correct term would be "layering."

Taking your own views/interpretations of what others are attempting to do, and then argiung from there is really poor form and makes for even poorer Arguments.

Try harder.

Sorry but pointing out that you have no evidence is a valid argument like it or not.

No, assiging "abilities" where no one else has, and then saying that there is no evidence of those selfsame Abilities that YOU claim WE say exist is not a valid Argument.

[Dr. Doom III]

A-mazing.

YOU'RE the one that assigning this "Ability" in the first place. No one else is; but if you want to repeatedly set up a Straw Dog so that you can knock it down, then carry on.

You know just saying that will never make it true no matter how many times you repeat it.

So come on, Victor. Tell us EXACTLY what in Canon would stop sucessive Magical Armors from shaping themselves around the Spell-created Suit of Armor cast before them.

Magical Armors can shape them selves to fit everything from Humans to Octomen (shapes), and Creatures from Faerie Folk to Dragons (size), but now you tell us with a straight face that they CAN'T shape themselves around another Suit of Armor beneath them (Magical or otherwise)??

You need better Logic Skills, even if for an Argument about a imaginary Role-Playing Game.

At least Killer's Arguments about Armors not occupying the same Physical Space held SOME weight and some measure of logic.

I don't have to prove a negative.
It's up to you to prove that it can do something when nothing ever says that it can.

No, assiging "abilities" where no one else has, and then saying that there is no evidence of those selfsame Abilities that YOU claim WE say exist is not a valid Argument.

I'd address this part but it makes no sense.

[cornholioprime]

No, assiging "abilities" where no one else has, and then saying that there is no evidence of those selfsame Abilities that YOU claim WE say exist is not a valid Argument.

I'd address this part but it makes no sense.

It does to those who understand Plain English.

[Dr. Doom III]

No, assiging "abilities" where no one else has, and then saying that there is no evidence of those selfsame Abilities that YOU claim WE say exist is not a valid Argument.

I'd address this part but it makes no sense.

It does to those who understand Plain English.

Apparently not.

[cornholioprime]

No, assiging "abilities" where no one else has, and then saying that there is no evidence of those selfsame Abilities that YOU claim WE say exist is not a valid Argument.

I'd address this part but it makes no sense.

It does to those who understand Plain English.

Apparently not.

"Those who understand Plain English" doesn't apply to you, Doom.

[Dr. Doom III]

Those who understand Plain English" doesn't apply to you, Doom.

Must be some form of newspeak then.
Apparently your idea of "Plain English" is gibberish.

[cornholioprime]

Those who understand Plain English" doesn't apply to you, Doom.

Must be some form of newspeak then.
Apparently your idea of "Plain English" is gibberish.

If it is, then I must have learned well from you, O Gibberish Jedi......

[Jesterzzn]

[Rimmer]

:sleep:

Hey wake up ! it's not that bad.

Wait a minute....................just read some of this thread...................................yes it is that bad.............

Hey roll over, make some room for me..........

[Killer Cyborg]

Since Cornholio has not made a response to my last (on-topic) post, I'm assuming that he is stumped for the time being.
Anybody else see any flaws in my reasoning?

I don't know, exactly, WHAT you're talking about as regards re-sponses to your last Online Post.

Refusing to argue in circles on a topic for which NEITHER side has Canon support is not, in my mind, being "stumped."

To me, it's simply finding a Circular Argument boring after a while, and gradually opting out. (Kinda like what you did in the "Non-Supernatural Creature/Supernatural Strength" Thread..although in that Thread me and mine supplied ample, Canon Evidence to prove our point).

Right.

I thought that we basically came to the same conclusion there... that Supernatural Strength was originally intended to apply only to supernatural creatures, but this concept is being eroded over time.
Sure, we disagree about when exactly the erosion began, and the extent of it, but is it that important?
If so, we can revive that thread...

[Killer Cyborg]

Neither one of us has Canon Evidence to himself up, especially not in the Statements presented; and BOTH of us are taking what INDIRECT evidence we can find, and shaping said indirect evidence to further our arguments.

And NEITHER of us will yield on the Issue because for the reasons above and the "evidence" we have gathered for our respective Arguments, we both believe ourselves to be right.

Yup.

Although I think that I have blown your "spell created armor is made out of energy" out of the water.

Sounds like a circular Argument that will go on forever to me.

Sounds to me like you are giving up, but pretending that you are declaring a draw.
It has been clear since page 1 of this thread that there was no direct canon answer... why didn't you leave then?

Sorry, but I don't do "Teleport into sealed vehicle" type Arguments...at least not for very long........

That's okay... I do.

[Killer Cyborg]

Of course, Doom, it is ONLY you that is giving Magical Armor the "ability" to stack in the first place.

Those of us who think that you CAN cast Multiple Armor Spells assign it no such "ability."

Really?
Then I guess you can point me to the book and page number where I can find this ability.
If it's not in the book then you must give it for it to be possible.

A-mazing.

YOU'RE the one that assigning this "Ability" in the first place. No one else is; but if you want to repeatedly set up a Straw Dog so that you can knock it down, then carry on.

"Stacking" is a gaming term that refers to being able to use different, similar abilities at the same time, gaining the bonuses from each.

It is fully applicable to using multiple armor spells, and Doom did not make the term up.

[RainOfSteel]

:sleep:

Hey wake up ! it's not that bad.

Wait a minute....................just read some of this thread...................................yes it is that bad.............

Hey roll over, make some room for me..........

Have no fears. This is but the Second Incarnation of: "This is the thread that never ends, it goes on and on..."

[cornholioprime]

Of course, Doom, it is ONLY you that is giving Magical Armor the "ability" to stack in the first place.

Those of us who think that you CAN cast Multiple Armor Spells assign it no such "ability."

Really?
Then I guess you can point me to the book and page number where I can find this ability.
If it's not in the book then you must give it for it to be possible.

A-mazing.

YOU'RE the one that assigning this "Ability" in the first place. No one else is; but if you want to repeatedly set up a Straw Dog so that you can knock it down, then carry on.

"Stacking" is a gaming term that refers to being able to use different, similar abilities at the same time, gaining the bonuses from each.

It is fully applicable to using multiple armor spells, and Doom did not make the term up.

First Doom, now you.

Doom is INSISTING that those of us on the "yes, you can make multiple Castings of Magical Armors at the same time" side of the Issue are attributing some mythical Ability of Armors to "stack," however you want to define the term.

If you'll look back on our individual Posts, NONE of us EVER did.

The other main Argument for MY side (apart from the "Magical Armors" don't conform to the Laws of Physics and therefore can exist in the exact same Physical Space if need be" Argument) was that the Armors in question would merely come into existence one over another, creating a sort of Layered effect. We claimed that this could be so because Magical Armors ALREADY adjust themselves to the Size, and Shape of the Caster/Target, as well as an undefined space/distance from the skin of the Target (to protect valuables as well as the clothing on one's person), while at the same time becoming "form fitting."

Therefore, sucessive Castings of Magical Armor woud alter themselves to fit whatever it was that they were cast on. This would include a Caster/Target that has Armor on ALREADY --even if the Armor is a Physical Suit or is one made of Mystic Energy that already exists from a previous Casting.

Unless you want to say that Magical Armor Spells cannot be cast on a Character that already has a Suit of Armor on -Physical or otherwise.

And I figure that even you didn't want to try and make such a claim.

Hence, the reason while you pooh-poohed MY side's stance as a Theory while simultaneously offering a Theory of your own: The "Magical Armors ARE Physical Objects AND they are ALL created at THE EXACT SAME DISTANCE from the Caster, therefore you cannot make sucessive Castings" Argument.

No matter WHAT term you want to use for multiple suits of Armor -Physical or otherwise -"stacking" (again referring to the Gaming term) is HARDLY the correct term.

A person in a Triax Light Armor Suit, with an MDC Poncho, and a Naruni Force-Field, isn't STACKING the effects per se, nor does he have one ONE item of X total amount of MDC; he merely has on one Item with its own protection, AND another Item with its own protection, and so on, and so forth.

"Layering" is perhaps more apropos.......and EXACTLY what we are talking about when we are discussing Multiple Castings of different Magical Armors.

But hey, have fun arguing Semantics, if it's what lifts your leg.......

[Killer Cyborg]

Of course, Doom, it is ONLY you that is giving Magical Armor the "ability" to stack in the first place.

Those of us who think that you CAN cast Multiple Armor Spells assign it no such "ability."

Really?
Then I guess you can point me to the book and page number where I can find this ability.
If it's not in the book then you must give it for it to be possible.

A-mazing.

YOU'RE the one that assigning this "Ability" in the first place. No one else is; but if you want to repeatedly set up a Straw Dog so that you can knock it down, then carry on.

"Stacking" is a gaming term that refers to being able to use different, similar abilities at the same time, gaining the bonuses from each.

It is fully applicable to using multiple armor spells, and Doom did not make the term up.

First Doom, now you.

Doom is INSISTING that those of us on the "yes, you can make multiple Castings of Magical Armors at the same time" side of the Issue are attributing some mythical Ability of Armors to "stack," however you want to define the term.

If you'll look back on our individual Posts, NONE of us EVER did.

The other main Argument for MY side (apart from the "Magical Armors" don't conform to the Laws of Physics and therefore can exist in the exact same Physical Space if need be" Argument) was that the Armors in question would merely come into existence one over another, creating a sort of Layered effect. We claimed that this could be so because Magical Armors ALREADY adjust themselves to the Size, and Shape of the Caster/Target, as well as an undefined space/distance from the skin of the Target (to protect valuables as well as the clothing on one's person), while at the same time becoming "form fitting."

Therefore, sucessive Castings of Magical Armor woud alter themselves to fit whatever it was that they were cast on. This would include a Caster/Target that has Armor on ALREADY --even if the Armor is a Physical Suit or is one made of Mystic Energy that already exists from a previous Casting.

Unless you want to say that Magical Armor Spells cannot be cast on a Character that already has a Suit of Armor on -Physical or otherwise.

And I figure that even you didn't want to try and make such a claim.

Hence, the reason while you pooh-poohed MY side's stance as a Theory while simultaneously offering a Theory of your own: The "Magical Armors ARE Physical Objects AND they are ALL created at THE EXACT SAME DISTANCE from the Caster, therefore you cannot make sucessive Castings" Argument.

No matter WHAT term you want to use for multiple suits of Armor -Physical or otherwise -"stacking" (again referring to the Gaming term) is HARDLY the correct term.

A person in a Triax Light Armor Suit, with an MDC Poncho, and a Naruni Force-Field, isn't STACKING the effects per se, nor does he have one ONE item of X total amount of MDC; he merely has on one Item with its own protection, AND another Item with its own protection, and so on, and so forth.

"Layering" is perhaps more apropos.......and EXACTLY what we are talking about when we are discussing Multiple Castings of different Magical Armors.

But hey, have fun arguing Semantics, if it's what lifts your leg.......

Uh, Corny... YOU were the one who started debating the semantics of the term "stacking"...

[cornholioprime]

Of course, Doom, it is ONLY you that is giving Magical Armor the "ability" to stack in the first place.

Those of us who think that you CAN cast Multiple Armor Spells assign it no such "ability."

Really?
Then I guess you can point me to the book and page number where I can find this ability.
If it's not in the book then you must give it for it to be possible.

A-mazing.

YOU'RE the one that assigning this "Ability" in the first place. No one else is; but if you want to repeatedly set up a Straw Dog so that you can knock it down, then carry on.

"Stacking" is a gaming term that refers to being able to use different, similar abilities at the same time, gaining the bonuses from each.

It is fully applicable to using multiple armor spells, and Doom did not make the term up.

First Doom, now you.

Doom is INSISTING that those of us on the "yes, you can make multiple Castings of Magical Armors at the same time" side of the Issue are attributing some mythical Ability of Armors to "stack," however you want to define the term.

If you'll look back on our individual Posts, NONE of us EVER did.

The other main Argument for MY side (apart from the "Magical Armors" don't conform to the Laws of Physics and therefore can exist in the exact same Physical Space if need be" Argument) was that the Armors in question would merely come into existence one over another, creating a sort of Layered effect. We claimed that this could be so because Magical Armors ALREADY adjust themselves to the Size, and Shape of the Caster/Target, as well as an undefined space/distance from the skin of the Target (to protect valuables as well as the clothing on one's person), while at the same time becoming "form fitting."

Therefore, sucessive Castings of Magical Armor woud alter themselves to fit whatever it was that they were cast on. This would include a Caster/Target that has Armor on ALREADY --even if the Armor is a Physical Suit or is one made of Mystic Energy that already exists from a previous Casting.

Unless you want to say that Magical Armor Spells cannot be cast on a Character that already has a Suit of Armor on -Physical or otherwise.

And I figure that even you didn't want to try and make such a claim.

Hence, the reason while you pooh-poohed MY side's stance as a Theory while simultaneously offering a Theory of your own: The "Magical Armors ARE Physical Objects AND they are ALL created at THE EXACT SAME DISTANCE from the Caster, therefore you cannot make sucessive Castings" Argument.

No matter WHAT term you want to use for multiple suits of Armor -Physical or otherwise -"stacking" (again referring to the Gaming term) is HARDLY the correct term.

A person in a Triax Light Armor Suit, with an MDC Poncho, and a Naruni Force-Field, isn't STACKING the effects per se, nor does he have one ONE item of X total amount of MDC; he merely has on one Item with its own protection, AND another Item with its own protection, and so on, and so forth.

"Layering" is perhaps more apropos.......and EXACTLY what we are talking about when we are discussing Multiple Castings of different Magical Armors.

But hey, have fun arguing Semantics, if it's what lifts your leg.......

Uh, Corny... YOU were the one who started debating the semantics of the term "stacking"...

Like I said, have fun debating Semantics all day long if you want.

We say use the term "Layering" as a more correct term if need be......

[Dr. Doom III]

We say use the term "Layering" as a more correct term if need be......

I neither care nor used any of these terms.
You can call it whatever you want.

I'm saying that there is no evidence that you can use two or more magic armor spells at the same time.
That is the ability that you are giving without foundation.

Now it's your turn to not read that and start arguing a non sequitur.

[Jesterzzn]

Don't you guys know that its impossible to prove a positively negative?

[Dr. Doom III]

There are also no evidence to prove that you can't either. Like i've stated in the other post. Its all open to interpretation. Neither one is wrong and more right than the other. Both sides have valid points.

And if you understood, if you even read, what I have been saying then you would know that with no evidence one way or the other the logical conclusion is that it can't.

Of course you can be illogical if you want to.