Stacking Magical Armor

[RainOfSteel]

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

Just because a PC might be limited by overall PPE, many NPCs aren't. Tannhauser from SoT 6: 2000 personal PPE, plus 600 PPE he can yank out of his nexus, and if he's smart, he does it at noon/midnight for 1000 PPE.

Let's see. I do not the think the following is at all unreasonable (except maybe the one ability in the 15th level spell, and that can be deleted by those who go bug-eyed over it).

Sorcerer's Armor (11th)
Range: Touch
Area of Effect: 1 target
Duration: 10 minutes per level of the caster
Saving Throw: None
P.P.E.: 150 PPE
An invocation. Creates a suit of invisible and weightless mystical armor. Provides 35 MDC per level of the caster. Provides the advantages of Invincible Armor, except as follows. Regeneration is at 2d6 MDC per melee round. Provides a +1 on Saving Throws. Note: Uses up the Magical Armor slot in the Armor Stacking rules.

Sorcerer's Advanced Armor (13th)
Range: Touch
Area of Effect: 1 target
Duration: 30 minutes per level of the caster
Saving Throw: None
P.P.E.: 300 PPE
An invocation. Creates a suit of invisible and weightless mystical armor. Provides 50 MDC per level of the caster. Provides the advantages of Invincible Armor, except as follows. Regeneration is at 4d6 MDC per melee round. Provides a +2 on Saving Throws. Note: Uses up the Magical Armor slot in the Armor Stacking rules.

Sorcerer's Final Armor (15th) (Spell of Legend?)
Range: Touch
Area of Effect: 1 target
Duration: 1 hour per level of the caster
Saving Throw: None
P.P.E.: 500 PPE
An invocation. Creates a suit of invisible and weightless mystical armor. Provides 75 MDC per level of the caster. Provides the advantages of Invincible Armor, except as follows. If the armor is destroyed, the caster may decide to allow the spell’s dissolution to automatically trigger its own recasting (drawing the requisite PPE immediately). Regeneration is at 6d6 MDC per melee round. Provides a +3 on Saving Throws. Note: Uses up the Magical Armor slot in the Armor Stacking rules.


So, for 950 PPE (leaving Tannhauser at either 1650 PPE or 2050 PPE, depending on the time of day), Tannhauser gets 3200 MDC ((35 x 20) + (50 x 20) + (75 x 20)).

And let's not forget those ranges, durations, and damages are tripled (so the spells will be lasting a while, even the 11th level spell will last 10 hours).

This, of course, brings up the direct implication that the damage capacity of defense spells is also tripled, so that would be 9600 MDC. Tannhauser is now 400 MDC short of doubling his amazing 10,000 MDC personal capacity. For 950 PPE.

We haven't even tossed in AoI or InAr yet, but they add another 700 MDC or 2100 MDC for the cost of 40 more PPE.

Oh boy! 11,700 MDC for 990 PPE!

Tannhauser probably will not fight the PCs. But what about supernatural intelligences with their own nexi and big giant spell lists and lots to do with their huge intellects and copious immortal lifespans? They're already pretty heavily stated, do they really need to be given the above advantage? I don't think so.

[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.

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.

And?? You STILL haven't refuted my Main Points.

A]] Magical Armors alter themselves to fit the size of the Wearer/Caster, be he Titan, Human, or Faerie.

B]] While Magical Armours INTERACT with the Physical World, they do not themselves necessarily CONFORM to the Laws of Physics, as indeed many if not most Magical/Supernatural Effects tend to behave.

C]] Magical Armors, once created, ALSO apparently fit themselves to cover/extend to Items and Objects that the Caster is carrying on his or her person.

***

Either way, the "Logic" holds, even if the resulting Effect is "cheesy" or "munchkin" to you.

If as you contend, Magical Armors are PHYSICAL objects -albeit ones made of Magical Force -then sucessive Magical Armor Spells, once cast, would simply fit themselves over the Previous Suit of Armor as per the Spell Description and "understanding" of how Magic Armors work (protects both the Mage/Target and Items on his person at time of casting).

And the previously cast Magical Armor, if it is a PHYSICAL Object as you say it is, is now an Object on the Mage's/Target's person. Therefore also protected by a sucessive Spell Casting.

If you can prove IN CANON that a person with a Suit of Armor, Full or Partial, CANNOT also cast any Magical Armor Spell on himself for additional protection, then you've sucessfully refuted this Argument. And if I'm not mistaken, TW Armours -Full or partial -are often enchanted with Armor of Ithan or some such, correct??

On the other hand, if the Suits of Armor are nevertheless Magical Constructs of pure Magical Energy -not Atomic particles -that do NOT follow the Laws of Physics even though they INTERACT with the Physical World, then it doesn't matter if any or all of the Spells (and the Armours that they create) cast co-exist simultaneously in the exact same point in Spacetime or not.

[cornholioprime]

I'll reiterate.

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

And that's where YOU'RE off base in this regard.

Nobody's "mixing" Spells when they're casting Additional Armor Spells, nor are they assigning "extra" Abilities to Sucessive Castings of Magical Armors.

They're simply casting one Magical Armor Spell after the other.

NOT a complicated Concept.

[Killer Cyborg]

You STILL haven't refuted my Main Points.

A]] Magical Armors alter themselves to fit the size of the Wearer/Caster, be he Titan, Human, or Faerie.

Yes.

B]] While Magical Armours INTERACT with the Physical World, they do not themselves necessarily CONFORM to the Laws of Physics, as indeed many if not most Magical/Supernatural Effects tend to behave.

They don't necessarily break the laws of physics either.
The spell descriptions refer to the spells as creating Armor.
Why would they do that, if the armor doesn't conform with the standard functions and forms of normal armor (with the noted exceptions of weight and noise)?

C]] Magical Armors, once created, ALSO apparently fit themselves to cover/extend to Items and Objects that the Caster is carrying on his or her person.

Some objects, but not others.
And really, the spell description never actually says that it covers anything other than the wearer.

If as you contend, Magical Armors are PHYSICAL objects -albeit ones made of Magical Force -then sucessive Magical Armor Spells, once cast, would simply fit themselves over the Previous Suit of Armor as per the Spell Description and "understanding" of how Magic Armors work (protects both the Mage/Target and Items on his person at time of casting).

Not necessarily.
Perhaps the mystic armor can only fit over 1 suit of other armor.
Or perhaps any number of other explanations.
You're trying to reduce the equation down to only one option, but there are more than that.

And the previously cast Magical Armor, if it is a PHYSICAL Object as you say it is, is now an Object on the Mage's/Target's person. Therefore also protected by a sucessive Spell Casting.

Not really.
As I said, not all items on a person are protected... and really not necessarily any.

If you can prove IN CANON that a person with a Suit of Armor, Full or Partial, CANNOT also cast any Magical Armor Spell on himself for additional protection, then you've sucessfully refuted this Argument.

If you can prove in canon that a person with a suit of magical armor CAN cast further armor spells on himself, then you will have won this argument.
(what about about it?)

On the other hand, if the Suits of Armor are nevertheless Magical Constructs of pure Magical Energy -not Atomic particles -that do NOT follow the Laws of Physics even though they INTERACT with the Physical World, then it doesn't matter if any or all of the Spells (and the Armours that they create) cast co-exist simultaneously in the exact same point in Spacetime or not.

No, under those circumstances it may or may not matter.
Best case scenario, your argument ends up as "it could go either way."

[cornholioprime]

If you can prove in canon that a person with a suit of magical armor CAN cast further armor spells on himself, then you will have won this argument.
(what about about it?)

Really, you're TOO easy.

FIRST you tell us that multiple Magical Armor Spells CANNOT be stacked over one another because they take up PHYSICAL Space.

NOW you imply that they CANNOT stack because of their Magical nature (when you ask us to prove whether or not Characters can stack Magical Armour Spells).

Which is it now, Killer? Want to change your mind and now tell us that Magical Armors are constructs of pure Magical Energy (as my "side" has claimed)??

And by the way, we asked YOU first: prove to us that you can't IN CANON stack Magical Armour Spells on top one another. We were also able to find that you CAN cast Armor of Ithan on Items as large as EBA and Power Armor.

So I'm going to guess that you'll drop the "You can't cast magical Armor over other PHYSICAL Armours" Argument...since you told us yourself that you believe Magical Armors to be magically created, PHYSICAL Objects.......

[Killer Cyborg]

If you can prove in canon that a person with a suit of magical armor CAN cast further armor spells on himself, then you will have won this argument.
(what about about it?)

Really, you're TOO easy.

FIRST you tell us that multiple Magical Armor Spells CANNOT be stacked over one another because they take up PHYSICAL Space.

NOW you imply that they CANNOT stack because of their Magical nature (when you ask us to prove whether or not Characters can stack Magical Armour Spells).

Which is it now, Killer? Want to change your mind and now tell us that Magical Armors are constructs of pure Magical Energy (as my "side" has claimed)??

My position has not changed. It is and has always been that you cannot stack magical armor spells.

Instead of ignoring the rest of my post and trying to go after me by claiming that I am changing my mind, why not just address my post?

And by the way, we asked YOU first: prove to us that you can't IN CANON stack Magical Armour Spells on top one another.

That's your argument...?
"We asked you first"!?


Hmmm.... Let me think back to debate team and remember the counter to this sort of logic... Oh, yeah...

"I'm rubber, you're glue..."

We were also able to find that you CAN cast Armor of Ithan on Items as large as EBA and Power Armor.

Uh, where is that again...?

So I'm going to guess that you'll drop the "You can't cast magical Armor over other PHYSICAL Armours" Argument...since you told us yourself that you believe Magical Armors to be magically created, PHYSICAL Objects.......

Nope.
Really, there isn't a problem.

[cornholioprime]

We were also able to find that you CAN cast Armor of Ithan on Items as large as EBA and Power Armor.

Uh, where is that again...?

Try the RMB.

So I'm going to guess that you'll drop the "You can't cast magical Armor over other PHYSICAL Armours" Argument...since you told us yourself that you believe Magical Armors to be magically created, PHYSICAL Objects.......

Nope.
Really, there isn't a problem.

Good.

'Cause that means that since you apparently believe Magical Armor Spells to be PHYSICAL Objects, and since Armor of Ithan (and maybe other Armor Spells since the Main Book) has already been shown to be able to be cast on other, PHYSICAL Armours like Body and Power Armour, then there's no reason to assume that it can't be cast on yet another PHYSICAL Object like, say, an existing Magically created Suit of Armor.......

[Killer Cyborg]

We were also able to find that you CAN cast Armor of Ithan on Items as large as EBA and Power Armor.

Uh, where is that again...?

Try the RMB.

Nope, not in there that I can find.
The only thing like that is building it into EBA/PA, but built-in TW spells often do things differently than the actual spells.

since you apparently believe Magical Armor Spells to be PHYSICAL Objects, and since Armor of Ithan (and maybe other Armor Spells since the Main Book) has already been shown to be able to be cast on other, PHYSICAL Armours like Body and Power Armour, then there's no reason to assume that it can't be cast on yet another PHYSICAL Object like, say, an existing Magically created Suit of Armor.......

1. Magic armor spells do not cover all physical items carried by the person.
2. You still haven't shown that armor spells can be cast over EBA and PA.
3. Even if they stack with armor (which is admittedly how everybody plays it), there is no indication that if can be cast over multiple layers of armor.

[cornholioprime]

We were also able to find that you CAN cast Armor of Ithan on Items as large as EBA and Power Armor.

Uh, where is that again...?

Try the RMB.

Nope, not in there that I can find.
The only thing like that is building it into EBA/PA, but built-in TW spells often do things differently than the actual spells.

since you apparently believe Magical Armor Spells to be PHYSICAL Objects, and since Armor of Ithan (and maybe other Armor Spells since the Main Book) has already been shown to be able to be cast on other, PHYSICAL Armours like Body and Power Armour, then there's no reason to assume that it can't be cast on yet another PHYSICAL Object like, say, an existing Magically created Suit of Armor.......

1. Magic armor spells do not cover all physical items carried by the person.**A**
2. You still haven't shown that armor spells can be cast over EBA and PA.**B**
3. Even if they stack with armor (which is admittedly how everybody plays it), there is no indication that if can be cast over multiple layers of armor.**C**

A]] Understood. Weapons have been shown NOT to be covered by Protective Magics/Armours unless otherwise noted, but at the same time, VERY few Spells or Protective Magics "stop" at the Mage's naked Flesh, correct?? So the Answer is that the Protection is somehwere in between the two extremes.

B]]What part of "Features that can be added to Power and Body Armor (RMB, page 93)" don't you understand?? And the early TW Creations were straightforward; in fact, Armor of Ithan, incorporated into Armour in the RMB, is said to work "same as Spell" (also, page 93).

C]] Show us at how many layers you CAN cast Magical Armours or are forced to stop, in Canon.

Page and Book Number, please.

Armor of Ithan can be cast over ONE Layer of Armour at least (and again, I'll have to pore over the TW Items in other Books to see if even more Spells have been made eligible for incorporation into TW Armour, but not at this time), what IN CANON stops us from adding on even more??

[Killer Cyborg]

A]] Understood. Weapons have been shown NOT to be covered by Protective Magics/Armours unless otherwise noted, but at the same time, VERY few Spells or Protective Magics "stop" at the Mage's naked Flesh, correct?? So the Answer is that the Protection is somehwere in between the two extremes.

And there is no indication of what exactly the mystic armor does or does not cover.

B]]What part of "Features that can be added to Power and Body Armor (RMB, page 93)" don't you understand?? And the early TW Creations were straightforward; in fact, Armor of Ithan, incorporated into Armour in the RMB, is said to work "same as Spell" (also, page 93).

I apparently understand it better than you do.
Built in powers can do things that the original spell cannot.
Take the spell "Impervious to Energy" for example. It only protects the caster when it is cast as a spell, but it can be built into a robot vehicle as a feature and it covers the vehicle (not the passengers).

C]] Show us at how many layers you CAN cast Magical Armours or are forced to stop, in Canon.

As we both know, there seem to be no canon references supporting either side of the debate.

Armor of Ithan can be cast over ONE Layer of Armour at least (and again, I'll have to pore over the TW Items in other Books to see if even more Spells have been made eligible for incorporation into TW Armour, but not at this time), what IN CANON stops us from adding on even more??

What, IN CANON, allows it?

[Thinyser]

P.121 BoM Invincible Armor has a note that says it cannot be "placed on giant Automotons, power armor, or robots."
Neither Armor of Ithan or Armor Bizarre have this restriction so by default I would say it is safe to assume that they can be placed on these things...or Palladium would have noted it within each spell description.

Note: this is not a size thing as it says nothing about giant sized casters, so a 40 ft tall mage could protect himself with the spell but not a 10.5 ft tall glitterboy power armor. Why this would be this way is anybody's guess but evidntly Palladium saw fit to place the restriction on this armor and not the AoI or ABizarre.

[cornholioprime]

As we both know, there seem to be no canon references supporting either side of the debate.

Armor of Ithan can be cast over ONE Layer of Armour at least (and again, I'll have to pore over the TW Items in other Books to see if even more Spells have been made eligible for incorporation into TW Armour, but not at this time), what IN CANON stops us from adding on even more??

What, IN CANON, allows it?

Hey, feel free to go around in circles as many times as you want.

You and Doom are are of the Opinion that if nothing is said, then you must automatically say "No, you can't do that."

Apparently, the rest of us here (or almost all of the rest of us here) are of the Opinion that if nothing is said, then you judge the situation on a case-by-case basis. Which I and those on my side did.

To wit:

A]] I (and others) have shown that Magical Armors change size to fit the Character -as well as his clothing and (an apparently undefined) space around him so that the Items that (s)he carries are not vulnerable to attack.

B]] I (and others) have reminded you that even Supernatural Effects that MANIFEST themselves as solid objects in the Physical World are not necessarily subject to the Laws of Physics; hence, noiseless suits of armour that have NO mass whatsoever, and which are immune to some Physical Effects, depending on the Spell cast, while AT THE EXACT SAME TIME vulnerable -and effectively intangible to others, allowing those Physical Forces to pass through. Physical Matter as we know it simply doesn't behave in the same manner.

C]] I (and others), for the reasons outlined in B]] above, reasoned that therefore, even if you cast ALL of the Magical Armors available in sucession, they wouldn't "interfere" with one another, nor would they, as constructs of Magical Energy, be subject to Physical Laws that prevent PHYSICAL Objects from existing in the same place at the same time.

D]] When you attempted to say that Armor of Ithan could not be cast onto other Magical Armors because they would interrupt each other's Physical Space, I (and others) pointed out that Armor of Ithan (and perhaps other Magical Armor Spells) can be incorporated into Body and Power Armor -and was said to be able to work the same as Spell. We further reasoned that if Armor of Ithan can be cast onto THAT Physical Object -another suit of Armor -then it could be cast onto other Physical Objects like the Suits of Armor created by other Magical Spells.
Likewise Invincible Armor.
Likewise Armor Bizarre.

****ADDENDUM****

This came up as an insight while I was typing this Response, and is addressed SPECIFICALLY to Doom.

Doom: IF your Argument is that No, you can't create ONE uber-protective Suit of Magical Armor by casting different Spells in sucession that is protected against multiple forms of Attack, then WE AGREE 100% (and don't try to sig this if we do ). My personal position is that you would create a Character in Layers of Magical Suits, like an Onion, that each protect a different type of Attack according to the Spell Description.

IF, on the other hand, you're arguing that a Mage CANNOT cast sucessive Magical Suits of Armor on his or herself, then WE DISAGREE.

Let me know what you're arguing...because I somehow sense/think that you MAY be making a somewhat different argument than Killer is...

****END ADDENDUM****

[Dr. Doom III]

I've said it once, and I'll say it again, but pay attention for this will be the last time I say this...

Show me where it says that if you cast 2 different armor spells that the 2nd one cancels the first... It doesn't... when the most recently activated spell is depleated in MDC, the first one (if still active) is still providing the MDC protection and therefore the affects STACK.

I don't believe anyone is saying that.

We are saying that there is no evidence to support that casting the second spell would work.

[Dr. Doom III]

P.121 BoM Invincible Armor has a note that says it cannot be "placed on giant Automotons, power armor, or robots."
Neither Armor of Ithan or Armor Bizarre have this restriction so by default I would say it is safe to assume that they can be placed on these things...or Palladium would have noted it within each spell description.

Nice use of selective quoting.
I'll give you a 9 out of 10.

The full quote is this.
"Magical Armor cannot be placed on giant Automatons, power armor, or robots."

That of course means the exact opposite of what you said.
Armor of Ithan and Armor Bizarre both have this restriction since they are magical armor.

[Dr. Doom III]

You and Doom are are of the Opinion that if nothing is said, then you must automatically say "No, you can't do that."

Apparently, the rest of us here (or almost all of the rest of us here) are of the Opinion that if nothing is said, then you judge the situation on a case-by-case basis. Which I and those on my side did.

While I am arrogant enough to speak for KC I will just speak for myself this time.

You are half right.
I am of the opinion that if nothing is said, then you must automatically say, "No, you can't do that." unless there is evidence that you can. Directly or indirectly.
You cannot and should not arbitrarily give something an ability without an actual logical reason.

[Dr. Doom III]

A]] I (and others) have shown that Magical Armors change size to fit the Character -as well as his clothing and (an apparently undefined) space around him so that the Items that (s)he carries are not vulnerable to attack.

Actually they don't change size. They are one size. The size of the person they are being cast on and what he is wearing. Whatever that size may be.
Cast a giant spell and the armor spell is gone.

B]] I (and others) have reminded you that even Supernatural Effects that MANIFEST themselves as solid objects in the Physical World are not necessarily subject to the Laws of Physics; hence, noiseless suits of armour that have NO mass whatsoever, and which are immune to some Physical Effects, depending on the Spell cast, while AT THE EXACT SAME TIME vulnerable -and effectively intangible to others, allowing those Physical Forces to pass through. Physical Matter as we know it simply doesn't behave in the same manner.

Not necessarily is not the same as always do not. Once again we are left with needing evidence for something. Being magic is not sufficient.

C]] I (and others), for the reasons outlined in B]] above, reasoned that therefore, even if you cast ALL of the Magical Armors available in sucession, they wouldn't "interfere" with one another, nor would they, as constructs of Magical Energy, be subject to Physical Laws that prevent PHYSICAL Objects from existing in the same place at the same time.

Where does it say that magical armor is considered clothes for the purposes of the spell. Remember magic doesn't follow the laws of physics.

D]] When you attempted to say that Armor of Ithan could not be cast onto other Magical Armors because they would interrupt each other's Physical Space, I (and others) pointed out that Armor of Ithan (and perhaps other Magical Armor Spells) can be incorporated into Body and Power Armor -and was said to be able to work the same as Spell. We further reasoned that if Armor of Ithan can be cast onto THAT Physical Object -another suit of Armor -then it could be cast onto other Physical Objects like the Suits of Armor created by other Magical Spells.
Likewise Invincible Armor.
Likewise Armor Bizarre.

Actually they cannot.
Invincible armor
"Magical Armor cannot be placed on giant Automatons, power armor, or robots."
TW enhancements do not follow the regular rules.
Besides you can't wear normal armor in power armor either. Their is a nice picture in Triax illustrating this.

****ADDENDUM****

This came up as an insight while I was typing this Response, and is addressed SPECIFICALLY to Doom.

Doom: IF your Argument is that No, you can't create ONE uber-protective Suit of Magical Armor by casting different Spells in sucession that is protected against multiple forms of Attack, then WE AGREE 100% (and don't try to sig this if we do ). My personal position is that you would create a Character in Layers of Magical Suits, like an Onion, that each protect a different type of Attack according to the Spell Description.

IF, on the other hand, you're arguing that a Mage CANNOT cast sucessive Magical Suits of Armor on his or herself, then WE DISAGREE.

Let me know what you're arguing...because I somehow sense/think that you MAY be making a somewhat different argument than Killer is...

****END ADDENDUM****

We disagree.

[Dr. Doom III]

Why wouldn't it? What would prevent it from happening?

The first spell being where the second would normally go.

[Thinyser]

P.121 BoM Invincible Armor has a note that says it cannot be "placed on giant Automotons, power armor, or robots."
Neither Armor of Ithan or Armor Bizarre have this restriction so by default I would say it is safe to assume that they can be placed on these things...or Palladium would have noted it within each spell description.

Nice use of selective quoting.
I'll give you a 9 out of 10.

The full quote is this.
"Magical Armor cannot be placed on giant Automatons, power armor, or robots."

That of course means the exact opposite of what you said.
Armor of Ithan and Armor Bizarre both have this restriction since they are magical armor.

This quote applying to all armor is contradicted by the fact that AoI CAN be cast on PA as a TW addon. This is a form of spell casting and I see no reason why it could not also be cast in the normal manner on top of a PA.

Also if the Writers wanted it to apply to the other armors they would not have noted it in ONLY that ONE particular spell they would either have noted it in EACH (which thye did not) or they would have noted it in a completely seperate entry and labled the rule as applicable to ALL of the magical armoring spells (again which they did not).

To say that just because it says "Magical armor" in one spell that all of the magical armoring spells work the same is silly. That is like saying that all guns work the same and have the same restrictions and penalties or all mundane armor works the same and has all the same restrictions and penalties...you are generalizing a statemet that is obviously meant to be specific to this one and only spell and applying it to others just because they all give the recipiant an MDC body covering.

I feel it obviously means what I said it mean (for the above reasons) but feel free to take it out of the context it was printed in and twist it to your meaning.

[Dr. Doom III]

This quote applying to all armor is contradicted by the fact that AoI CAN be cast on PA as a TW addon. This is a form of spell casting and I see no reason why it could not also be cast in the normal manner on top of a PA.

Also if the Writers wanted it to apply to the other armors they would not have noted it in ONLY that ONE particular spell they would either have noted it in EACH (which thye did not) or they would have noted it in a completely seperate entry and labled the rule as applicable to ALL of the magical armoring spells (again which they did not).

To say that just because it says "Magical armor" in one spell that all of the magical armoring spells work the same is silly. That is like saying that all guns work the same and have the same restrictions and penalties or all mundane armor works the same and has all the same restrictions and penalties...you are generalizing a statemet that is obviously meant to be specific to this one and only spell and applying it to others just because they all give the recipiant an MDC body covering.

I feel it obviously means what I said it mean (for the above reasons) but feel free to take it out of the context it was printed in and twist it to your meaning.

I'm generalizing because it is a general statement.
I'm taking it in the context it was written.
If I was reading a description of a laser and it said laser fire red beams that that is what they would fire, all of them unless one said different.
You can ignore it or change the meaning in your mind but that's how it is.

And as we all know the spell effects of TW enchantments are often different from the actual spell.
So what you can do with Techno-wizardry is irrelevant.

[Dr. Doom III]

Maybe it gets suplanted, and the most recently cast armor is active, once depleated, the first one reappear... Again you are trying to apply the laws of Physics to it when they are exempt from them... It's called magic for a reason... It doesn't make sense...

Magic adj.
1. Of, relating to, or invoking the supernatural: “stubborn unlaid ghost/That breaks his magic chains at curfew time” (John Milton).
2. Possessing distinctive qualities that produce unaccountable or baffling effects.

Don't believe me? Click here (you have to scroll down a little...)

Who cares?

I can say Armor of Ithan allows me to fly since it defies the laws of physics. Apparently it can do anything. Teleportation? Yep that defies the laws of physics so I can do that too. Just slap any old spell on me and I can do anything I can think of.

That doesn't pass the smell test.

So we are left with needing evidence of something before we allow it.

We seem to be in two camps.
The one who thinks it can do whatever they want it to do and the one that needs evidence first.

[Thinyser]

A]] I (and others) have shown that Magical Armors change size to fit the Character -as well as his clothing and (an apparently undefined) space around him so that the Items that (s)he carries are not vulnerable to attack.

Actually they don't change size. They are one size. The size of the person they are being cast on and what he is wearing. Whatever that size may be.
Cast a giant spell and the armor spell is gone.

ONLY because the Giant spell specifically negates it...you really have to stop this generalization thing Doom...change of size doesn't mater or else the ability of dragons to change from human to dragon would negate armoring spells as well...but it doesn't. The giant spell is stating a specific effect of the Giant spell nothing more...certainly not a limitation of the armor spells.

B]] I (and others) have reminded you that even Supernatural Effects that MANIFEST themselves as solid objects in the Physical World are not necessarily subject to the Laws of Physics; hence, noiseless suits of armour that have NO mass whatsoever, and which are immune to some Physical Effects, depending on the Spell cast, while AT THE EXACT SAME TIME vulnerable -and effectively intangible to others, allowing those Physical Forces to pass through. Physical Matter as we know it simply doesn't behave in the same manner.

Not necessarily is not the same as always do not. Once again we are left with needing evidence for something. Being magic is not sufficient.

Magic is sufficient to bypass physics and thats how it can stack.

C]] I (and others), for the reasons outlined in B]] above, reasoned that therefore, even if you cast ALL of the Magical Armors available in sucession, they wouldn't "interfere" with one another, nor would they, as constructs of Magical Energy, be subject to Physical Laws that prevent PHYSICAL Objects from existing in the same place at the same time.

Where does it say that magical armor is considered clothes for the purposes of the spell. Remember magic doesn't follow the laws of physics.

*Sigh* Twisting words again...cornholio is not saying they act as clothes he is saying that either they fit over each other (which certain clothes can) or they (being magical) can occupy the same physical point in time and space (some thing that clothes cannot do)...Either way he is not saying they are "considered cothes".

D]] When you attempted to say that Armor of Ithan could not be cast onto other Magical Armors because they would interrupt each other's Physical Space, I (and others) pointed out that Armor of Ithan (and perhaps other Magical Armor Spells) can be incorporated into Body and Power Armor -and was said to be able to work the same as Spell. We further reasoned that if Armor of Ithan can be cast onto THAT Physical Object -another suit of Armor -then it could be cast onto other Physical Objects like the Suits of Armor created by other Magical Spells.
Likewise Invincible Armor.
Likewise Armor Bizarre.

Actually they cannot.
Invincible armor
"Magical Armor cannot be placed on giant Automatons, power armor, or robots."
TW enhancements do not follow the regular rules.
Besides you can't wear normal armor in power armor either. Their is a nice picture in Triax illustrating this.

That quote is not applying to AoI or Abizarre it is in the context of the Invincible Armor spell itself not in each spell or as a general rule that applies to all armoring spells...quit taking it out of context.

****ADDENDUM****

This came up as an insight while I was typing this Response, and is addressed SPECIFICALLY to Doom.

Doom: IF your Argument is that No, you can't create ONE uber-protective Suit of Magical Armor by casting different Spells in sucession that is protected against multiple forms of Attack, then WE AGREE 100% (and don't try to sig this if we do ). My personal position is that you would create a Character in Layers of Magical Suits, like an Onion, that each protect a different type of Attack according to the Spell Description.

IF, on the other hand, you're arguing that a Mage CANNOT cast sucessive Magical Suits of Armor on his or herself, then WE DISAGREE.

Let me know what you're arguing...because I somehow sense/think that you MAY be making a somewhat different argument than Killer is...

****END ADDENDUM****

We disagree.

I agree With Cornholio it works in a layer effect "like an onion".
If the mage if smart would cast their longest running armor first and then the shorter and shorter duration ones on the out side so that if they naturaly expire or are "beaten down" they would still have the longer duration ones underneath...

[gelidus]

So I woke up this morning to go to work...

Put on 1 white t-shirt
1 button up shirt
1 suit coat
And because it was raining I put in a trench coat...

Wow and they all fit over each other with no problems.....

Logic and common sense says that it should work

[Thinyser]

So I woke up this morning to go to work...

Put on 1 white t-shirt
1 button up shirt
1 suit coat
And because it was raining I put in a trench coat...

Wow and they all fit over each other with no problems.....

Logic and common sense says that it should work

But wait! since you did that and its not stated as possible "by the book" you must now be able to fly too by Doom's logic

[gelidus]

Hmmmm by Dr.DOOMs logic if it does not say they/you can then you can't correct?

Well someone feel free to correct me if I am wrong but did'nt he say that cosmo knights could re-grow limbs?

[gelidus]

A Was just giving an exampel

B Magic armour has no weight(feel free to correct me if I am wrong)

C Skin tight? So if I am wearing new style dead boy armour...It goes thorugh the armour and hugs my skin? Or does it just layer on top of that?

D So then after you try to put the leather on over the breast plate I tell you that your doing it wrong. I put on leather, Then chainmail, Then the breast plate. Will it be heavy oh ya....Is it magic...Prolly not

[Dr. Doom III]

ONLY because the Giant spell specifically negates it...you really have to stop this generalization thing Doom...change of size doesn't mater or else the ability of dragons to change from human to dragon would negate armoring spells as well...but it doesn't. The giant spell is stating a specific effect of the Giant spell nothing more...certainly not a limitation of the armor spells.

Perhaps it does? What evidence can we find for and against?

Magic is sufficient to bypass physics and thats how it can stack.

In your opinion. What is it based on?

*Sigh* Twisting words again...cornholio is not saying they act as clothes he is saying that either they fit over each other (which certain clothes can) or they (being magical) can occupy the same physical point in time and space (some thing that clothes cannot do)...Either way he is not saying they are "considered cothes".

Again what is this based on?
I'll tell you. Idle speculation.

That quote is not applying to AoI or Abizarre it is in the context of the Invincible Armor spell itself not in each spell or as a general rule that applies to all armoring spells...quit taking it out of context.

It's in the description for Invincible Armor but it says magical armor and that's what it means. Try reading what it says instead of ignoring it because it doesn't say what you want it to.

I agree With Cornholio it works in a layer effect "like an onion".
If the mage if smart would cast their longest running armor first and then the shorter and shorter duration ones on the out side so that if they naturaly expire or are "beaten down" they would still have the longer duration ones underneath...

Good for you.
Is it based on anything?

[cornholioprime]

... so then I put on your full plate, then your studded leather armor on top of that, then your class4 hard armor, too.

Then I fell over because the studded leather had to be 5 sizes too big to fit over the plate, and the class 4 stuff had to be 9 sizes too big to fit over both, resulting in me being blind from too much crap over my face, immobilized by over a foot of junk splinting my joints till they cant bend. Being blind and unable to move, it was hard to balance.

Never mind the fact that the analogy you were using was clothes, alot of which is designed to fit over each other. My understanding is that the magic armor is magical, skin-tight constructs (armor). Can't have more than one skin-tight magical construct in the same place. Heck, can't have any 2 of the same trype of objects in the same space.

If you don't dig that, feel free to cry me a river. Until you kidnap me and brainwash me into agreeing with you, that's how I see it because the logic fits. The only questionable thing is allowing psychic and magic protection fields/constructs to coexist in the same space (due to the fact that they're sort of on different "sub-dimensional levels" kinda thing)... but I allow it as a gesture of generosity to my players.

Again, AND FOR THE FIFTIETH TIME:

The laws that state that two objects cannot be in the same Place at the same time are A]] In Real Life, not an RPG, and B]] Apply to PHYSICS.

Pardon me for saying so, Malignor, but the INSTANT you found out that you had a suit of Full Armor that has NO WEIGHT/MASS to it, a small bell should have gone off inside your head saying, "Physics don't seem to apply here...."

[cornholioprime]

So I woke up this morning to go to work...

Put on 1 white t-shirt
1 button up shirt
1 suit coat
And because it was raining I put in a trench coat...

Wow and they all fit over each other with no problems.....

Logic and common sense says that it should work

But wait! since you did that and its not stated as possible "by the book" you must now be able to fly too by Doom's logic

Thinny's got a point.

I'll wager that the Instructions on your undershirt did NOT specifically say that you could put on extra Clothing over them.....

By Doomlogic™, YOU HAVE JUST THEREFORE PERFORMED THE IMPOSSIBLE.....

[Dr. Doom III]

So I woke up this morning to go to work...

Put on 1 white t-shirt
1 button up shirt
1 suit coat
And because it was raining I put in a trench coat...

Wow and they all fit over each other with no problems.....

Logic and common sense says that it should work

But wait! since you did that and its not stated as possible "by the book" you must now be able to fly too by Doom's logic

Thinny's got a point.

I'll wager that the Instructions on your undershirt did NOT specifically say that you could put on extra Clothing over them.....

By Doomlogic™, YOU HAVE JUST THEREFORE PERFORMED THE IMPOSSIBLE.....

More proof that none of you read and/or understood a thing I wrote.

[cornholioprime]

So I woke up this morning to go to work...

Put on 1 white t-shirt
1 button up shirt
1 suit coat
And because it was raining I put in a trench coat...

Wow and they all fit over each other with no problems.....

Logic and common sense says that it should work

But wait! since you did that and its not stated as possible "by the book" you must now be able to fly too by Doom's logic

Thinny's got a point.

I'll wager that the Instructions on your undershirt did NOT specifically say that you could put on extra Clothing over them.....

By Doomlogic™, YOU HAVE JUST THEREFORE PERFORMED THE IMPOSSIBLE.....

More proof that none of you read and/or understood a thing I wrote.

No.

We understand you PLENTY.

By your Logic, since an Undershirt specifically does NOT say that you can add other Layers of clothing over them, you simply MUST assume that they can't.

What YOU'RE doing is attempting (badly) to try to apply ONE Rule to ALL Situations at ALL times ("if it doesn't say that you can...")

What WE'RE doing is taking a specific example (Magical Armors, in this Case), and examining it, as we might any other Questions that might occur about a given Subject, ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS.

.....I guess that Rules Lawyers don't/can't think "outside the box," as it were.

Oh well.......

[Dr. Doom III]

No.

We understand you PLENTY.

By your Logic, since an Undershirt specifically does NOT say that you can add other Layers of clothing over them, you simply MUST assume that they can't.

What YOU'RE doing is attempting (badly) to try to apply ONE Rule to ALL Situations at ALL times ("if it doesn't say that you can...")

What WE'RE doing is taking a specific example (Magical Armors, in this Case), and examining it, as we might any other Questions that might occur about a given Subject, ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS.

.....I guess that Rules Lawyers don't/can't think "outside the box," as it were.

Oh well.......

Some advice.

When you find yourself in a hole quit digging.

You're just proving me right more and more with every word you type.
That is clearly not what I'm saying. That is merely a portion of what I am saying. But only taking part of something and ignoring the rest seems to be how you all do things.

[cornholioprime]

Some advice.

When you find yourself in a hole quit digging.
.

You're giving advice to yourself now???

Wow, that really IS Hubris...............

[cornholioprime]

Hmmmm by Dr.DOOMs logic if it does not say they/you can then you can't correct?

Well someone feel free to correct me if I am wrong but did'nt he say that cosmo knights could re-grow limbs?

Yeah, I think I remember what you were talking about.

It was a whole Thread on the Subject,and Doom was one of those who took the Position that Cosmo-Knights can regrow Limbs.

But after I read your Post just now, G (I had somehow missed it earlier), I went to Rifts: Phase World and re-read the Description of the Cosmo-Knight.

It does NOT say that they can regrow Limbs.

Yet, if I remember Doom correctly, he LOGICALLY EXTRAPOLATED that Cosmo-Knights can regorw Limbs. In fact, I think that I'll search for that Post to see what he said about it; it can't be more than 5-10 Forum Pages back.

GOOD point, Gelidus.

More to follow once I locate that Forum Thread, perhaps as an Addendum to this Response........

****ADDENDUM****

I can't find that Post; I think that it got moved to the "Topic Closed" Forum and was summarily deleted after 7 days or wahtever.

But the more that I think about and remember it, the more I am SURE that Doom said/argued that Cosmo-Knights DO regrow Limbs, EVEN THOUGH THE TEXT IN THE COSMO-KNIGHTS DOES NOT SAY THAT THEY CAN.

Hmmm....

[demos606]

Perhaps http://forums.palladium-megaverse.com/viewtopic.php?t=29920&postdays=0&postorder=asc&&start=0 is what you had in mind?

[cornholioprime]

Perhaps http://forums.palladium-megaverse.com/viewtopic.php?t=29920&postdays=0&postorder=asc&&start=0 is what you had in mind?

No that's not the one.

I think that two or more of the Posters to the Thread in question got into a shouting match and the Mods locked the Thread, which would then eventually auto-delete.....

In fact, I think that the EXACT name of the Thread was "Can a Cosmo-Kinght regrow Limbs??"

[Nekira Sudacne]

Actually, what Cornholio says does make a kind of sense.

See, it says it's weightless armor, yet real.

now, to be weightless, and real, it has to have no mass.


to have no mass, means that the armor made is 2 dimensional.


now, 2 dimensional is still real and can be form fitting, and block attacks.

on the other hand, you can stack an infinate number of 2 dimensional armors on top of each-other and never take up any more space than a single one.







that said, no way would I allow it in my games

[Nekira Sudacne]

on the other hand, you can stack an infinate number of 2 dimensional armors on top of each-other and never take up any more space than a single one

Actually stacking 2 dimensional planes would create a 3rd dimension. So you wouldn't be able to stack infinite number of them that way.

that defies the logic of hte second dimension. a new factor entirely must be made.


I could stack an infiante number of 3 dimensional cubes on top of each-other, i'll never reach the 4th dimension.

[cornholioprime]

on the other hand, you can stack an infinate number of 2 dimensional armors on top of each-other and never take up any more space than a single one

Actually stacking 2 dimensional planes would create a 3rd dimension. So you wouldn't be able to stack infinite number of them that way.

that defies the logic of hte second dimension. a new factor entirely must be made.


I could stack an infiante number of 3 dimensional cubes on top of each-other, i'll never reach the 4th dimension.

Agreed....sort of (they say that we in the Real World live/exist in a 4th Dimension: Time).

Stacking a bunch of 2-D Objects together does NOT create a 3-D Object.

It just creates a pile of 2-D Objects; that third Dimension simply doesn't exist.

To put it another way, 2-D Objects aren't X-width and Y-height and Z-depth. There's NO 3rd Measurement to make (whether it is the Height, Weight, or the Depth that you wish to exclude). If one could look at an actual 2-D Object, two of the Dimesnions would be seen to exist; the Third Dimension of the 2-D Object wouldn't exist at all.....

[Nekira Sudacne]

on the other hand, you can stack an infinate number of 2 dimensional armors on top of each-other and never take up any more space than a single one

Actually stacking 2 dimensional planes would create a 3rd dimension. So you wouldn't be able to stack infinite number of them that way.

that defies the logic of hte second dimension. a new factor entirely must be made.


I could stack an infiante number of 3 dimensional cubes on top of each-other, i'll never reach the 4th dimension.

Agreed....sort of (they say that we in the Real World live/exist in a 4th Dimension: Time).

I'm aware of the 4th dimension commonly being thought of as time, I'm speaking of a 4th Spacial dimension that has nothing to do with the seperation of events, mearly another scientific mesurement of matter

[cornholioprime]

If you don't dig that, feel free to cry me a river. Until you kidnap me and brainwash me into agreeing with you, that's how I see it because the logic fits. The only questionable thing is allowing psychic and magic protection fields/constructs to coexist in the same space (due to the fact that they're sort of on different "sub-dimensional levels" kinda thing)... but I allow it as a gesture of generosity to my players.

Again, AND FOR THE FIFTIETH TIME:

The laws that state that two objects cannot be in the same Place at the same time are A]] In Real Life, not an RPG, and B]] Apply to PHYSICS.

Pardon me for saying so, Malignor, but the INSTANT you found out that you had a suit of Full Armor that has NO WEIGHT/MASS to it, a small bell should have gone off inside your head saying, "Physics don't seem to apply here...."

Well in addressing [[A]], the fact that 2 things can't be in the same space is what allows for things like punches, collisions, and all kinetic attacks... not to mention little things like friction and the structure of all things in the universe, which, if denied in-game would mean there are no nuclear reactors (and therefore no power armor or robots) or nuclear weapons (like warheads for missiles or the CS navy big-boys). This is covered when I said "implied by definition". Humans are defined already so we don't have to write in the stats things like "usually have 2 arms, 2 legs" etc. Humans have already been defined. For humans to exist biology must exist, as well as a near infinite number of other prerequisites. Just invoking the word "human" to describe a character automatically implies (by definition of the term "human") a whole bunch of stuff.

As for [] I agree that magic defies physics. However, how does armor stop physical attacks from harming the recipient of the spell? Does it send invisible microscopic smurfs who run at light speed to jump kick the offending attack, one atom at a time? Or does it do something like [gasp] prevent things from existing within its space, just like real armor? Can you knock on AoI and not hit the person beneath? It's armor, right? Armor has this nasty tendency to intercept attacks made against the person wearing it as a means of protection. It gets in the way and prevents the attack from entering its space, thus rendering the wearer unharmed. It's armor. In order for it to be armor and provide protection it must prevent things from coxisting in the same space. That's what armor is designed to do.

That's why I don't allow more than 1 armor. Armor's very reason to exist is to prevent penetration, infiltration and/or coexistence. AoI and InvincArmor are both made of the same root "thing" (PPE), are designed for the same reason (to stop stuff fomr getting through them) and exist in the same space on the target (skin/clothes tight). 1+1=2, therefore you can't wear 2 armors in the same space.

Really, this is truly amusing.

You STILL try to assign the PHYSICAL Laws of the Universe to Magical Forces.

To paraphrase a famous Religious Quote, Magical Forces are often IN the WORLD but not OF the world.

Magical Forces explain how a person can touch a Vampire's skin and feel normal, soft skin (albeit cold and clammy) AND at the exact same time NOT be able to damage them even with Nukes AND at the exact same time be able to harm them with a simple piece of wood.

Magical Forces allow Faerie Folk like Nymphs to be COMPLETELY intangible AND at the exact same time be able to attack Objects in the Physical World.

And in this case, Magical Forces allow constructs made of pure Magical Energy that:

[b]A]] Have absolutey no Mass/Weight, whereas ALL Physics-based objects do;
B]] Are COMPLETELY noiseless even though a solid construct of Magical Force is present;
C]] Provide Brethable air to its Caster/Target WITHOUT Oxygen apparatus of any kind (depending on the Armor Spell);
D]] Don't interfere with additional Spell Casting even though many of these Armor Spells create an environmentally-sealed Compartment for the Caster/Target;

and

E]] Allows the Bearer of the Armor to withstand Physical Energies no matter HOW intense, from small bonfires to the output of Stars (again, depending on the Armor Spell used).

Again, as objects made of pure Magical Force, they can be completely Solid to attacks AND at the same time allow other Magical Objects to inhabit the exact same Space that they exist in, unlike PHYSICAL Matter...

[RainOfSteel]

on the other hand, you can stack an infinate number of 2 dimensional armors on top of each-other and never take up any more space than a single one

Actually stacking 2 dimensional planes would create a 3rd dimension. So you wouldn't be able to stack infinite number of them that way.

A two-dimensional object has no height (or is missing one of the three normal dimensions). If you move two of them across each other, they are still two-dimensional.

[RainOfSteel]

[...] they say that we in the Real World live/exist in a 4th Dimension: Time).

Yes, the Theory of General Relativity.

[RainOfSteel]

E]] Allows the Bearer of the Armor to withstand Physical Energies no matter HOW intense, from small bonfires to the output of Stars (again, depending on the Armor Spell used).

I'd like to know which Armor spell allows a defense against Stellar contact (and I'd like to know which form of stellar contact you were thinking of; i.e. from the shell of a red giant or the core of a neutron star (there is an impressively large scale between the two).

Again, as objects made of pure Magical Force, they can be completely Solid to attacks AND at the same time allow other Magical Objects to inhabit the exact same Space that they exist in, unlike PHYSICAL Matter...

That's a perfectly valid extrapolation of a set of rules for your use from the available information.

However, for game balance, I decided otherwise for the purposes of my game.

[Nekira Sudacne]

E]] Allows the Bearer of the Armor to withstand Physical Energies no matter HOW intense, from small bonfires to the output of Stars (again, depending on the Armor Spell used).

I'd like to know which Armor spell allows a defense against Stellar contact (and I'd like to know which form of stellar contact you were thinking of; i.e. from the shell of a red giant or the core of a neutron star (there is an impressively large scale between the two).

one of Invincible Armor's listed powers, is that no matter how much MDC the armor is struck with in one attack, NONE of it goes though and hits the wearer...THAT attack.

the next one will hit of course.

so Invincible Armor would let you survive stellar contact for one second before you die.

[Dr. Doom III]

Some advice.

When you find yourself in a hole quit digging.
.

You're giving advice to yourself now???

Wow, that really IS Hubris...............

Yet another shovel full.
I again tell you what I am really saying and you ignore it.

"I know! We'll dig our way out!" - Homer Simpson

[Dr. Doom III]

Yet, if I remember Doom correctly, he LOGICALLY EXTRAPOLATED that Cosmo-Knights can regorw Limbs. In fact, I think that I'll search for that Post to see what he said about it; it can't be more than 5-10 Forum Pages back.

And if you knew what I was saying then you would know that your example is not a contradiction at all.

In fact it is completely consistent.

[RainOfSteel]

one of Invincible Armor's listed powers, is that no matter how much MDC the armor is struck with in one attack, NONE of it goes though and hits the wearer...THAT attack.

the next one will hit of course.

so Invincible Armor would let you survive stellar contact for one second before you die.

Thank you, I understand the context of that statement now.

Although, IMO, in those circumstances, that particular ability of InAr is less than useful.

[Killer Cyborg]

Actually, what Cornholio says does make a kind of sense.

See, it says it's weightless armor, yet real.

now, to be weightless, and real, it has to have no mass.

Not true.
In Rifts, there are plenty of ways to make things that have mass but no weight.

[Killer Cyborg]

So I woke up this morning to go to work...

Put on 1 white t-shirt
1 button up shirt
1 suit coat
And because it was raining I put in a trench coat...

Wow and they all fit over each other with no problems.....

Logic and common sense says that it should work

But wait! since you did that and its not stated as possible "by the book" you must now be able to fly too by Doom's logic

Thinny's got a point.

I'll wager that the Instructions on your undershirt did NOT specifically say that you could put on extra Clothing over them.....

By Doomlogic™, YOU HAVE JUST THEREFORE PERFORMED THE IMPOSSIBLE.....

More proof that none of you read and/or understood a thing I wrote.

Doom is right.
The instructions on an undershirt are not the rules to our reality.
The rules for the game of Rifts ARE the rules to that reality.

[RainOfSteel]

Doom is right.
The instructions on an undershirt are not the rules to our reality.

The only instructions on an undershirt I have ever found were for how to wash them.


I also find the attempt to use the wearing and layering of clothing as an analogy to further one version of how the stacking of magical armor works to be off-target. Wearing clothing <> being the recipient of a magical spell.


I'll also agree with Doom, TW-enchantments allow for spells to work on things, via the TW-conversion accomplished by the Techno-Wizard, that the spell itself does not normally allow.


I would also like to point out that although "Magic" does not follow the RW "Laws of Physics", "Magic" most certainly does follow its own set of rules (I'm not going to try, here, to pin down what those rules are, only that they exist).

The rules for the game of Rifts ARE the rules to that reality.

. . . or rather, the confusion of a distinct lack of reality . . .