Forums of the Megaverse®

Illithid13 wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but arn't you the one argueing that the armors cannot occupy the same space? that sounds like a fundimental law of Physics right there...

No I am not arguing that.
I am arguing that there is no evidence it is possible so you can't.
I'm not arguing the reason. The reason is irrelevant.

You wanted a reason and I pulled that one out of my backside. It could have just as easily been because the magic pixie god decided he didn't like it. But I decided to pick something that sounded good and plausible.

Illithid13 wrote:So now you are saying that a mage is just a high volum PPE battery?

You know you are the second person that walked into that.
Pg. 84 RMB
"Like all men of magic, the ley line walker is a living battery of mystic energy..."

Illithid13 wrote:Re read that statement... No where did I say it forms around magical armor... I said around the armor the person is wearing... I've helped you out...

I know you didn't say it.
That's because it doesn't exist.
But from it you and others are trying to infer it forming around magical armor.
An inference not supported by any facts.

Thinyser wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:Let me revise the question:
How many suits of plate armor can you wear at one time?

The question is irrelevent as the armor we are talking about is magical and only the Invincable Amor spell says it is "plate armor" the others are form fitting

Where does it say that?
AoI is just a suit of invisible armor.
In fact, looking at the AR in the PFRPG setting, it's even likely to be plate armor.

Thinyser wrote:

RainOfSteel wrote:

Thinyser wrote:occam's razor is not logic

I would just like to point out that Occam's Razor is a foundational feature of logic.

No its a way to eliminate assumptions nothing more. Logic is a set of rules that govern arguments....I took a course called "logic" my freshman year in college and as Occoms razor was discussed as a tool that is very usable in many situations it is not a fundamental in true "logic"....it is also net even mentioned in the text we used "The Power of Logic" by C. Stephen Layman.

P.3 of the text defines logic as the "study of methods for evauating weather the premises of an argument adequately support (provide good evidence for) its conclusion."

With Occam's Razor you have not got enough evidence that is why you are making assumptions in the first place...logic gets "messy" when based on assumptions.

A valid argument is defined as an argument "that it is impossible for its conclusion to be false while the premise is true."

The Two premise in this argument is that if the book does not say it can be done then it can't be done and that the book does not say that spells stack. The conclusion that the spells cannot stack....the proble is that first premise is not true so it is labled as a "deductivly unsound argument"...

Look up the term "Inductive Argument."

Illithid13 wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:No, we're talking about ARMOR.
How many suits of armor do you think can be worn at one time?

Actually, we are talking about MAGICAL armor...

Yes, but it IS still armor.
How many suits of TW enhanced (and therefore magical) Heavy Deaboy can a person wear?
Just one.

Magic or not, it's still armor.

Illithid13 wrote:That is not the same thing... it is magical armor that looks like plate armor, and as such we call it plate armor.

Not according to the books.
The books just call it full plate armor.

Illithid13 wrote:And I point to the false shibboleth that is your basis of reasoning: A lack of the positive implys a negitive.

A lack of a positive is just that, a lack of a positve, nothing more.

OK you find yourself on a jury.
A man is on trial for his life and you find there is no evidence either way. No evidence that he did it but also none that he didn't. Is he guilty or innocent?
Of course you have to assume the case wasn’t thrown out of court like this topic would be.

Which seems more logical to you?
No evidence either way so he's guilty or no evidence either way so he's innocent?

Using no evidence to prove something happened or proving that nothing happened?

In this case it's proving something can happen with no evidence or proving something can't happen with no evidence.

It’s no different.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Thinyser wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:Let me revise the question:
How many suits of plate armor can you wear at one time?

The question is irrelevent as the armor we are talking about is magical and only the Invincable Amor spell says it is "plate armor" the others are form fitting

Where does it say that?
AoI is just a suit of invisible armor.
In fact, looking at the AR in the PFRPG setting, it's even likely to be plate armor.

Only in the Invincible Armor text does it mention "plate armor"...none of these other spells (AoI, A.Bizarre, or invulnerability) make such a claim.

Why are you insisting that ALL magically created protection be hard/plate?

It could very well be a force, an aura, or soft armor... assuming that a physical suit of armor is created...which i DO NOT believe to be indicated by any of these spells except the Inv. Armor which specificaly states its a "suit of plate armor complete with helmet" and also list penalties for its encumbrence. The Amor Bizarre talks of a "form-fitting force to serve as armor" and indicates this is how AoI works too, and neither have any sort of encumbrance penalties.

THEY ARE DIFFERENT SPELLS so one should treat them as such and not assume that they all function the exact same way, espicially since their descriptions say how they work...."like AoI"..."form-fitting force"..."aura"...."plate armor complete with helmet".

Illithid13 wrote:Well, since the law states innocent unless proven guilty, there would be nothing that I as a jurror could say to prove otherwise.

Unfortunatly you are using logic in your arguements, and logic doesn't say that if there is a lack of evidence it is because it doesn't exits, so your example doesn't work... The innocent until proven guilty thing is an assumption... similar to the one you are basing your whole arguement upon...

It does say if there is no evidence you can't prove it exists.

I'm asking which seems more right to you not do you know about the presumption of innocence.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Illithid13 wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:No, we're talking about ARMOR.
How many suits of armor do you think can be worn at one time?

Actually, we are talking about MAGICAL armor...

Yes, but it IS still armor.
How many suits of TW enhanced (and therefore magical) Heavy Deaboy can a person wear?
Just one.

Magic or not, it's still armor.

Magically Enhanced armor is NOT Magically Created armor...There is a difference here and the rules IMO should be different for physical constructs (magically enhanced or not) vs. magical constructs. Unless it is said the magical construct acts just as its real physical object counterpart does then they may or may not....its magic, assuming that it acts the same as the physical world we know is an assumption that I am unwilling to make....I assume as it is magic it has its own rules...which in this instance are NOT clearly defined....but defaulting to real world rules is not IMO a legitimate fallback.

Illithid13 wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Illithid13 wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:No, we're talking about ARMOR.
How many suits of armor do you think can be worn at one time?

Actually, we are talking about MAGICAL armor...

Yes, but it IS still armor.
How many suits of TW enhanced (and therefore magical) Heavy Deaboy can a person wear?
Just one.

Magic or not, it's still armor.

Yes, but TW armor is magical by vertue of enchantment. taking a pre-existing armor and adding magical elements to it.

The armor spells we are talking about fabricate the actual armor out of the PPE used to invoke them... Nothing else. Can you mesure the volume of PPE?

I have already disproved the notion that the spell-created armor for AoI and IA are made up of pure magical energy.
Or, at least, I have proven that they could be made of solid material.

Thinyser wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Thinyser wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:Let me revise the question:
How many suits of plate armor can you wear at one time?

The question is irrelevent as the armor we are talking about is magical and only the Invincable Amor spell says it is "plate armor" the others are form fitting

Where does it say that?
AoI is just a suit of invisible armor.
In fact, looking at the AR in the PFRPG setting, it's even likely to be plate armor.

Only in the Invincible Armor text does it mention "plate armor"...none of these other spells (AoI, A.Bizarre, or invulnerability) make such a claim.

Why are you insisting that ALL magically created protection be hard/plate?

I don't.
Only AoI and IA... the only two that state that they create suits of armor.

It could very well be a force, an aura, or soft armor...

No, it could not.
Armor Bizarre states that is is made of force.
Invulnerability states that it is an aura.
AoI and IA state that they create armor.

Thinyser wrote:Magically Enhanced armor is NOT Magically Created armor...There is a difference here and the rules IMO should be different for physical constructs (magically enhanced or not) vs. magical constructs.

I certainly understand that this is your opinion.

Unless it is said the magical construct acts just as its real physical object counterpart does then they may or may not....its magic, assuming that it acts the same as the physical world we know is an assumption that I am unwilling to make....I assume as it is magic it has its own rules...which in this instance are NOT clearly defined....but defaulting to real world rules is not IMO a legitimate fallback.

Using your theory, you could ascribe any number of illogical attributes to any spell-created objects:
-Magically created wood is not said to be affected by gravity as normal wood is, therefore magically created wood may or may not fly.
-Magically created fog is not said to be as non-combustable as normal fog, therefore magically created fog may or may not be highly inflammable.
-Magically created armor is not said to be able to move in the way that normal armor does, therefore the armor may or may not be able to move and change its position.


The logical view would be, "Unless it is said that the magical construct acts differently from its real physical counterpart, then it is safe to assume that it does not."
-Magically created wood acts just like normal wood unless there are stated differences.
-Magically created fog acts just like normal fog unless there are stated differences.
-Magically created armor acts just like normal armor unless there are stated differences.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Thinyser wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Thinyser wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:Let me revise the question:
How many suits of plate armor can you wear at one time?

The question is irrelevent as the armor we are talking about is magical and only the Invincable Amor spell says it is "plate armor" the others are form fitting

Where does it say that?
AoI is just a suit of invisible armor.
In fact, looking at the AR in the PFRPG setting, it's even likely to be plate armor.

Only in the Invincible Armor text does it mention "plate armor"...none of these other spells (AoI, A.Bizarre, or invulnerability) make such a claim.

Why are you insisting that ALL magically created protection be hard/plate?

I don't.
Only AoI and IA... the only two that state that they create suits of armor.

It could very well be a force, an aura, or soft armor...

The rest of the post which was left out it should readIt could very well be a force, an aura, or soft armor... assuming that a physical suit of armor is created...which i DO NOT believe to be indicated by any of these spells except the Inv. Armor which specificaly states its a "suit of plate armor complete with helmet" and also list penalties for its encumbrence. The Amor Bizarre talks of a "form-fitting force to serve as armor" and indicates this is how AoI works too, and neither have any sort of encumbrance penalties.

THEY ARE DIFFERENT SPELLS so one should treat them as such and not assume that they all function the exact same way, espicially since their descriptions say how they work...."like AoI"..."form-fitting force"..."aura"...."plate armor complete with helmet".

No, it could not.
Armor Bizarre states that is is made of force.
Invulnerability states that it is an aura.
AoI and IA state that they create armor.

AoI is not created armor, In A.bizarre it states..."Like the Armor of Ithan spell, Armor Bizarre creates a suit of magical form-fitting force to serve as armor." This CLEARLY states that both of these spells create a "suit of form-fitting force". How can you say it is anything but "a suit of form-fitting force" when the author specifically says it is.

Maybe your like Doom and have the opinion "I don't care what it says, I care what it should say"

Agreed Invulnerability is an aura

BUT ONLY IA is said to create a "suit of plate armor"

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Thinyser wrote:Magically Enhanced armor is NOT Magically Created armor...There is a difference here and the rules IMO should be different for physical constructs (magically enhanced or not) vs. magical constructs.

I certainly understand that this is your opinion.

Unless it is said the magical construct acts just as its real physical object counterpart does then they may or may not....its magic, assuming that it acts the same as the physical world we know is an assumption that I am unwilling to make....I assume as it is magic it has its own rules...which in this instance are NOT clearly defined....but defaulting to real world rules is not IMO a legitimate fallback.

Using your theory, you could ascribe any number of illogical attributes to any spell-created objects:
-Magically created wood is not said to be affected by gravity as normal wood is, therefore magically created wood may or may not fly.
-Magically created fog is not said to be as non-combustable as normal fog, therefore magically created fog may or may not be highly inflammable.
-Magically created armor is not said to be able to move in the way that normal armor does, therefore the armor may or may not be able to move and change its position.


The logical view would be, "Unless it is said that the magical construct acts differently from its real physical counterpart, then it is safe to assume that it does not."
-Magically created wood acts just like normal wood unless there are stated differences.
-Magically created fog acts just like normal fog unless there are stated differences.
-Magically created armor acts just like normal armor unless there are stated differences.

Does created wood have grain/rings? can you count the rings to see how old the non exsistant tree was when the wood (and the spell says it is not created but actually scraps drawn together and molecularly bonded) was drawn together from possibly hundreds of sources by magic?

Does magically created fog leave a wet residue on cool surfaces? Perhaps but what if the fog is not watervapor maybe it is simply a magical visual imparment that has not physical properties other than to obstruct vision.

Magically created armor should act like normal armor but only the IA spell Creates armor so there is limited use for this end of the discussion.

also other things that are created are not actually created...

Created Water is also not created it is "sucked" out of the air so to speak and purified.

Create steel uses exsisting scrap steel or raw ore and adds a mear 5% to the overall amount so if you start with 100 pounds of scrap steel you get 105 lbs of usable bar/sheet stock...it "creates" some steel but it must have a base to "add on to" it can't just summon steel out of thin air.
The steel is the only one that actuall creates anything and it puts specific limitations on what you can do with the spell and all the steel not just the magically created 5%.

Magic is goofy it is not bound by normal rules it has it own rules and they are usually vague at best.

Thinyser wrote:AoI is not created armor, In A.bizarre it states..."Like the Armor of Ithan spell, Armor Bizarre creates a suit of magical form-fitting force to serve as armor." This CLEARLY states that both of these spells create a "suit of form-fitting force". How can you say it is anything but "a suit of form-fitting force" when the author specifically says it is.

Is the author of the Armor Bizarre spell the same person who created the Armor of Ithan spell...?
If not, then it is likely that the author of Armor Bizarre simply made a mistake about the nature of Armor of Ithan.

Still, this is definitely worth considering. I'll have to consult my books when I get home.

Thinyser wrote:Does created wood have grain/rings?

I don't see why not.

can you count the rings to see how old the non exsistant tree was when the wood (and the spell says it is not created but actually scraps drawn together and molecularly bonded) was drawn together from possibly hundreds of sources by magic?

Yes, although it will only give a false age... since the wood is pieced together.

Does magically created fog leave a wet residue on cool surfaces?

Yes.

Perhaps but what if the fog is not watervapor maybe it is simply a magical visual imparment that has not physical properties other than to obstruct vision.

What if magically created fog were actually stone?
It's not, so don't worry about it.
The spell creates fog, not "a fog-like illusion or magical force."

Magically created armor should act like normal armor but only the IA spell Creates armor so there is limited use for this end of the discussion.

No, Armor of Ithan also creates armor. The spell specifically states this.

also other things that are created are not actually created...

Created Water is also not created it is "sucked" out of the air so to speak and purified.

Create steel uses exsisting scrap steel or raw ore and adds a mear 5% to the overall amount so if you start with 100 pounds of scrap steel you get 105 lbs of usable bar/sheet stock...it "creates" some steel but it must have a base to "add on to" it can't just summon steel out of thin air.
The steel is the only one that actuall creates anything and it puts specific limitations on what you can do with the spell and all the steel not just the magically created 5%.

True.
And yet the steel and water actually ARE steel and water... not magical force that resembles steel and water.
And if you read the long list of creation spells that I posted earlier, you'll note that there are many spells that simply create substances out of nothing in particular.

Magic is goofy it is not bound by normal rules it has it own rules and they are usually vague at best.

Yes.
And when the rules are not spelled out, it is only logical to assume that magical constructs follow the same rules that normal constructs do.
As I spelled out in my previous post.

Illithid13 wrote:There are two sides too that coin.

To me, I see the evidence of them stacking more profound than for them to not...

in your court example, it doesn't matter what I think. The law already states the out come.

What evidence?
You actually need some for it to be "more profound".

OK in my example you are in France. There is no Presumption of Innocence in France.

Illithid13 wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:I have already disproved the notion that the spell-created armor for AoI and IA are made up of pure magical energy.
Or, at least, I have proven that they could be made of solid material.

Can you point me to the right direction? I must have missed that in all of the pages of this thread...

Try Here

Illithid13 wrote:

Thinyser wrote:RainOfSteel

Thinyser wrote:It is not logic to assume that if something is not said to be true then it is false.

See the link immediately above.

(Note: X, in the below cases, is: "Magical Armor Is Stackable".)

The above quote says, when translated: "If X is not stated to be TRUE, then X must be FALSE."

You need to check your translating devise again... what he is saying is actualy this: "Saying X is false because there is nothing saying it is true is just stupid (not logical, but stupidity is just that)"

That was not what was stated, but even if that had been what was stated, it would still be wrong.

In any event, I went over just that at great length. I'm not syaing that X is false because nothing says X is true. I'm saying that you never ever go anywhere near anything that resembles that statement. Just becuase there is no "can't" (and there isn't one), does not imply a "can" (and there isn't one). There is simply no ability to create a "can" based on the lack of a "can't".

If a "can" can be created for every lack of a "can't", then AoI can protect you against disease (because nothing says it "can't"; and hey, its Magic, so it defies the laws of physics, and nobody can really say what Magic can and can't do); but unfortunately, AoI doesn't protect you against disease.

Why doesn't AoI protect against disease? Because nothing anywhere says it can.

And that is why I believe (after a great many posts) that Magical Armor cannot be stacked.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Using your theory, you could ascribe any number of illogical attributes to any spell-created objects:
-Magically created wood is not said to be affected by gravity as normal wood is, therefore magically created wood may or may not fly.
-Magically created fog is not said to be as non-combustable as normal fog, therefore magically created fog may or may not be highly inflammable.
-Magically created armor is not said to be able to move in the way that normal armor does, therefore the armor may or may not be able to move and change its position.


The logical view would be, "Unless it is said that the magical construct acts differently from its real physical counterpart, then it is safe to assume that it does not."
-Magically created wood acts just like normal wood unless there are stated differences.
-Magically created fog acts just like normal fog unless there are stated differences.
-Magically created armor acts just like normal armor unless there are stated differences.

<sits back in admiration />

Yup, I also wish I could have said those things.

Just like firing a series of nails into a coffin.

Thinyser wrote:Created Water is also not created it is "sucked" out of the air so to speak and purified.

I wonder what happens with this spell when you're in the middle of a desert and it's 0% humidity for a hundred miles in every direction?

Does Create Water become a new "Dehydration" spell as it drags all water forcefully from nearby characters and into the air so it has something to work with? Nothing in the spell says this "can't" happen . . .

Illithid13 wrote:

Dr. Doom v.3.1.3 wrote:It does say if there is no evidence you can't prove it exists.

I'm asking which seems more right to you not do you know about the presumption of innocence.

There are two sides too that coin.

To me, I see the evidence of them stacking more profound than for them to not...

in your court example, it doesn't matter what I think. The law already states the out come.

While I'd like PB's Rifts Magic System to be a little more detailed, I really don't want it as detailed as the US Insani . . . oops, US Legal System.

RainOfSteel wrote:

Illithid13 wrote:

Dr. Doom v.3.1.3 wrote:It does say if there is no evidence you can't prove it exists.

I'm asking which seems more right to you not do you know about the presumption of innocence.

There are two sides too that coin.

To me, I see the evidence of them stacking more profound than for them to not...

in your court example, it doesn't matter what I think. The law already states the out come.

While I'd like PB's Rifts Magic System to be a little more detailed, I really don't want it as detailed as the US Insani . . . oops, US Legal System.

***Cornholioprime sees opportunity to draw Thread to Side Tangent and takes it, if only to provide a temporary Respite***

WHAT, exactly, is so "screwed up" about the U.S. Legal System????

cornholioprime wrote:

RainOfSteel wrote:

Illithid13 wrote:

Dr. Doom v.3.1.3 wrote:It does say if there is no evidence you can't prove it exists.

I'm asking which seems more right to you not do you know about the presumption of innocence.

There are two sides too that coin.

To me, I see the evidence of them stacking more profound than for them to not...

in your court example, it doesn't matter what I think. The law already states the out come.

While I'd like PB's Rifts Magic System to be a little more detailed, I really don't want it as detailed as the US Insani . . . oops, US Legal System.

***Cornholioprime sees opportunity to draw Thread to Side Tangent and takes it, if only to provide a temporary Respite***

WHAT, exactly, is so "screwed up" about the U.S. Legal System????

Everything OR nothing at all... depending on your perspective

Well, I never!!


Somebody recently accused me of Thread Necromancy by bringing up a supposedly "dead" Thread (this one).

I'm insulted. Simply insulted.



THAT wasn't Topic Necromancy; THIS is.



Rifts: Juicer Uprising, page 98:

The Bracelet of the Necromancer, Aramis Knight, SIMULTANEOUSLY stacks/layers/combines the form-fitting Spell of "Invulnerability" with the "Armor of Ithan" Spell (and don't ask me how Carella managed to squeeze 300 M.D.C out of those two Spells; 25th level "Armor of Ithan" added to "Invulnerability," perhap?? Sheesh!!).

Call it a Book not written by Kev, call it whatever you want, but I HAVE found a Canon Reference to stacking of Magical Armors AND have almost certainly guaranteed to bring down upon myself the "wrath" of Killer C.

So there.

cornholioprime wrote:Well, I never!!


Somebody recently accused me of Thread Necromancy by bringing up a supposedly "dead" Thread (this one).

I'm insulted. Simply insulted.



THAT wasn't Topic Necromancy; THIS is.



Rifts: Juicer Uprising, page 98:

The Bracelet of the Necromancer, Aramis Knight, SIMULTANEOUSLY stacks/layers/combines the form-fitting Spell of "Invulnerability" with the "Armor of Ithan" Spell (and don't ask me how Carella managed to squeeze 300 M.D.C out of those two Spells; 25th level "Armor of Ithan" added to "Invulnerability," perhap?? Sheesh!!).

Call it a Book not written by Kev, call it whatever you want, but I HAVE found a Canon Reference to stacking of Magical Armors AND have almost certainly guaranteed to bring down upon myself the "wrath" of Killer C.

So there.

Invulnerability is an aura not an armor spell.

You necroed a topic to be wrong.

Very nice find Cornholio, my "house rule" on armor spells may not be such a house rule afterall

Being the huge fan of magic that I am I say... BURN THE WITCHES.

Dr. Doom v.3.2.4 wrote:

cornholioprime wrote:Well, I never!!


Somebody recently accused me of Thread Necromancy by bringing up a supposedly "dead" Thread (this one).

I'm insulted. Simply insulted.



THAT wasn't Topic Necromancy; THIS is.



Rifts: Juicer Uprising, page 98:

The Bracelet of the Necromancer, Aramis Knight, SIMULTANEOUSLY stacks/layers/combines the form-fitting Spell of "Invulnerability" with the "Armor of Ithan" Spell (and don't ask me how Carella managed to squeeze 300 M.D.C out of those two Spells; 25th level "Armor of Ithan" added to "Invulnerability," perhap?? Sheesh!!).

Call it a Book not written by Kev, call it whatever you want, but I HAVE found a Canon Reference to stacking of Magical Armors AND have almost certainly guaranteed to bring down upon myself the "wrath" of Killer C.

So there.

Invulnerability is an aura not an armor spell.

You necroed a topic to be wrong.

Zero for THREE, Doom.

The REST of us, back when this Topic first came out, were debating ALL such Magical Spells that state that they create Armors or other "form-fitting" Constructs. The ONLY Protective Spells that we excluded over the course of our Debate were Magical "Aura" type Spells that, as described, do NOT create actual Constructs.

If you're gonna TRY to shoot me down, try getting back into the Game first....

If 'armor' spells can't stack, why would 'aura' spells be allowed to stack? oO

Qev wrote:If 'armor' spells can't stack, why would 'aura' spells be allowed to stack? oO

Because the Magical Auras don't, as described, take up Physical Space.....

cornholioprime wrote:Zero for THREE, Doom.

The REST of us, back when this Topic first came out, were debating ALL such Magical Spells that state that they create Armors or other "form-fitting" Constructs. The ONLY Protective Spells that we excluded over the course of our Debate were Magical "Aura" type Spells that, as described, do NOT create actual Constructs.

If you're gonna TRY to shoot me down, try getting back into the Game first....

And 34 pages have passed by since then.

We are talking about stacking armor spells. That is the only debate here. No one is talking about stacking auras with force fields and armor spells.
That's simply not at issue.