Forums of the Megaverse®

NPC is wearing near Full Enviormental Armor.

NPC casts Armor of Ithan on himself.

Will it cover the Armor as well as the NPC or just the NPC ?

Please explain your answer ?

Lenwen wrote:NPC is wearing near Full Enviormental Armor.

NPC casts Armor of Ithan on himself.

Will it cover the Armor as well as the NPC or just the NPC ?

Please explain your answer ?

I've always and only seen it played where it covers the NPC and the NPC's armor.

Thanks KC, your a life saver .. this time litterally ..

While consensus does not equal accuracy, I agree with Killer Cyborg on this.

Still, I haven't actually read the spell description in a very long time. Doing so might cause me to reconsider. Unfortunately I don't have my books with me to check.

I'm thinking next book that gets printed (with either all basic rules or all spells) needs to seriously reword that spell description. WAAYY too many questions on it.

Anyway I will repeat my assessment of the spell from other threads.
There are 3 general types of protection magic: Skin tight or form-fitting. Ovoid or Egg-shaped. Spherical. You can have one of each type of spell active at any given time.
-Form fitting spells only protect the user and whatever they are wearing. This does NOT include really huge body armor, power armor or large exoskeletons. While you can activate these spells in a robot or vehicle, it wont do you much good unless the hull and pilots compartment get breached.
-Ovoid shaped protection spells cover a little bit more and covers bulky body armor & perhaps small exoskeletons and really small power armor, like the Terrain Hopper.
-Spherical protection spells can cover a skinny person huddled next to you OR most power armor you are wearing. They either cannot be cast inside of a vehicle or damage the vehicle the second they are created (GM's choice).

Each spell is of one type and frankly the choice is up to the GM's whim. When I decide what one is I write it next to the spell name in pencil to help me remember. I decided (based on the description) that Armor of Ithan is form-fitting. I also made up some new protection spells and they all have a category.
I also did the same with force-fields and such in Phase World.

Lenwen wrote:NPC is wearing near Full Enviormental Armor.

NPC casts Armor of Ithan on himself.

Will it cover the Armor as well as the NPC or just the NPC ?

Please explain your answer ?

The answer is right in the spell description.

"creates an invisible, weightless, noiseless, full suit of mystic armour"

As you cannot wear two suits of armour, you cannot expect this suit of armour to stack with EBA, PA, or other suits of armour. Unless otherwise stated in the description of said armour (like the Glitterboys' pilot suit), you cannot wear this armour and another suit - as it is a suit of armour itself.

I don't think I've ever seen a rule that says you can't wear two suits of armour.

Pretty much everyone wouldn't allow anyone to wear two sets of huntsman armour, I'm sure. But that doesn't make it a rule. Just a recurring rifts gamer habit. One I practice myself as well - but that doesn't make me think it's a rule either. Also, when it comes to armour of ithan, this habit doesn't apply. Atleast in my case.

edit: And if wearing two suits of full armour seems unrealistic...FIREBALL!

Magic armor spells, like AoI, form over everything the mage is wearing.

It forms over everything.

Proof: The sheer number of Techno-wizard devices that cast Armor of ithan OVER the armor that generated it.

Heck, in phase world they have Space Crusers that use Armor of Ithan to greate a giant forcefeild over mile long ships.

Nekira Sudacne wrote:It forms over everything.

Proof: The sheer number of Techno-wizard devices that cast Armor of ithan OVER the armor that generated it.

Heck, in phase world they have Space Crusers that use Armor of Ithan to greate a giant forcefeild over mile long ships.

That only proves magic doesn't discriminate between the size and shape of casters. Otherwise it'd be a useless spell if it only affected human-shaped humanoids between 5'8" and 6'1" (well, useless for anyone outside of these dimentions).

The spell goes into such specifics as to state that this suit of armour is noiseless, weightless, and invisible. This only goes to prove that if you can see the invisible, then you can see an actual suit of armour over the caster.

If it were meant as more of a body-field, then its description would be similar to the psionic power psychic body field (a form-fitting field of force).

Besides this, it's not uncommon for the game to offer that powers such as Armour of Ithan create tangible objects; psi-sword and psi-shield are perfect examples of this. It's not like you can hold an extra sword and shield (assuming two limbs) when you use these powers, why then assume an armour-creating spell that says it creates a suit of armour is exempt?

Well, we'd assume it's exempt for a bunch of fictional reasonings, just like you'd assume it isn't exempt for a bunch of fictional reasonings.

No ones fiction is somehow higher than the other, so it's a mexican stand off.

I'd definitely allow it to cover normal body armor, power armor included, but I also use armor interference rules, which can hamper that choice for some, creating (in my mind) a fairer balance between over protection.

Noon wrote:Well, we'd assume it's exempt for a bunch of fictional reasonings, just like you'd assume it isn't exempt for a bunch of fictional reasonings.

No ones fiction is somehow higher than the other, so it's a mexican stand off.

My reasoning isn't fictional.

My reasoning is entirely logical. Fiction needn't be logical, sure. But reason (and reasoning) must be logical, otherwise its unreasonable.

Dog_O_War wrote:

Lenwen wrote:NPC is wearing near Full Enviormental Armor.

NPC casts Armor of Ithan on himself.

Will it cover the Armor as well as the NPC or just the NPC ?

Please explain your answer ?

The answer is right in the spell description.

"creates an invisible, weightless, noiseless, full suit of mystic armour"

As you cannot wear two suits of armour, you cannot expect this suit of armour to stack with EBA, PA, or other suits of armour. Unless otherwise stated in the description of said armour (like the Glitterboys' pilot suit), you cannot wear this armour and another suit - as it is a suit of armour itself.

Then all those B.W.W.'s out there are breaking the Rifts rules ...

Thier MDC Rubber suits .. are covered by thier Armor of Ithan Medallion's .. otherwise they would be figting nekked .. (not that I would personally mind .. mind you )

Lenwen wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:

Lenwen wrote:NPC is wearing near Full Enviormental Armor.

NPC casts Armor of Ithan on himself.

Will it cover the Armor as well as the NPC or just the NPC ?

Please explain your answer ?

The answer is right in the spell description.

"creates an invisible, weightless, noiseless, full suit of mystic armour"

As you cannot wear two suits of armour, you cannot expect this suit of armour to stack with EBA, PA, or other suits of armour. Unless otherwise stated in the description of said armour (like the Glitterboys' pilot suit), you cannot wear this armour and another suit - as it is a suit of armour itself.

Then all those B.W.W.'s out there are breaking the Rifts rules ...

Thier MDC Rubber suits .. are covered by thier Armor of Ithan Medallion's .. otherwise they would be figting nekked .. (not that I would personally mind .. mind you )

Note that the padded suit is form-fitting (ie: can be worn under most other armour, as other form-fitting armour is also described as such - and I already stated this catch). Also note that the amulet only provides a field of force in the style of an armour of ithan spell, not the exact spell (as stated in the description).

No where under the Blind Warrior Woman description does it state that their form-fitting body-suit is as bulky as EBA, or that their magic amulet provides exactly the same effect as the armour of ithan spell.

Dog_O_War wrote:

Noon wrote:Well, we'd assume it's exempt for a bunch of fictional reasonings, just like you'd assume it isn't exempt for a bunch of fictional reasonings.

No ones fiction is somehow higher than the other, so it's a mexican stand off.

My reasoning isn't fictional.

My reasoning is entirely logical. Fiction needn't be logical, sure. But reason (and reasoning) must be logical, otherwise its unreasonable.

Your making the mistake of thinking logic makes truth. This isn't the case. Logic can extend from whimsical and make believe principles. Observe; If cats drop 10 diamonds and you kill a cat, it's logical that you have 10 diamonds. Does that being logically correct make it true that cats drop 10 diamonds?

Being able to build up a logical case from certain principles doesn't mean those principles are the actual facts of the matter. As I said before, I don't remember any rules that say you can't wear two suits of armour. Your logical case on not wearing two suits doesn't mean that rule suddenly springs into existance.

Noon wrote:Being able to build up a logical case from certain principles doesn't mean those principles are the actual facts of the matter.

And yet....

Noon wrote:As I said before, I don't remember any rules that say you can't wear two suits of armour. Your logical case on not wearing two suits doesn't mean that rule suddenly springs into existance.

...This statement seems to lack credibility due to its illogical premise.

Basically, you sound like a crazy person. I mean, by your "logical conclusion" here, I can wear infinite suits of armour, there-by I become limited only by my ability to aquire this item.

I mean, by your "logical conclusion" that because if the book doesn't say what humans can and cannot do, I can fly, shoot laser beams from my eyes (without aid of magic or bionics), etc...

Basically you aren't fooling anyone with your very weak "arguement". We (and the other posters here) aren't that stupid; no one really believes that you can wear as many suits of armour as you wish, because that's absurd. Otherwise people would just cast this spell over and over, or find some other way to infinitely loop it and just wear multiple suits of armour of ithan spells.


And as I said previously, for lack of a better word - that's dumb.

Dog_O_War wrote:

Lenwen wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:

Lenwen wrote:NPC is wearing near Full Enviormental Armor.

NPC casts Armor of Ithan on himself.

Will it cover the Armor as well as the NPC or just the NPC ?

Please explain your answer ?

The answer is right in the spell description.

"creates an invisible, weightless, noiseless, full suit of mystic armour"

As you cannot wear two suits of armour, you cannot expect this suit of armour to stack with EBA, PA, or other suits of armour. Unless otherwise stated in the description of said armour (like the Glitterboys' pilot suit), you cannot wear this armour and another suit - as it is a suit of armour itself.

Then all those B.W.W.'s out there are breaking the Rifts rules ...

Thier MDC Rubber suits .. are covered by thier Armor of Ithan Medallion's .. otherwise they would be figting nekked .. (not that I would personally mind .. mind you )

Note that the padded suit is form-fitting (ie: can be worn under most other armour, as other form-fitting armour is also described as such - and I already stated this catch). Also note that the amulet only provides a field of force in the style of an armour of ithan spell, not the exact spell (as stated in the description).

No where under the Blind Warrior Woman description does it state that their form-fitting body-suit is as bulky as EBA, or that their magic amulet provides exactly the same effect as the armour of ithan spell.

Well said. And True no less ..

Dog, you make this a hard case .. to allow in my games

Lenwen wrote:Well said. And True no less ..

Dog, you make this a hard case .. to allow in my games

I calls it likes I sees it

Dog_O_War wrote:

Noon wrote:Being able to build up a logical case from certain principles doesn't mean those principles are the actual facts of the matter.

And yet....

Noon wrote:As I said before, I don't remember any rules that say you can't wear two suits of armour. Your logical case on not wearing two suits doesn't mean that rule suddenly springs into existance.

...This statement seems to lack credibility due to its illogical premise.

Basically, you sound like a crazy person. I mean, by your "logical conclusion" here, I can wear infinite suits of armour, there-by I become limited only by my ability to aquire this item.

I mean, by your "logical conclusion" that because if the book doesn't say what humans can and cannot do, I can fly, shoot laser beams from my eyes (without aid of magic or bionics), etc...

Basically you aren't fooling anyone with your very weak "arguement". We (and the other posters here) aren't that stupid; no one really believes that you can wear as many suits of armour as you wish, because that's absurd. Otherwise people would just cast this spell over and over, or find some other way to infinitely loop it and just wear multiple suits of armour of ithan spells.


And as I said previously, for lack of a better word - that's dumb.

Put words in my mouth, then call the words you put in my mouth dumb. Bit of an old internet classic that one. Did I say you can wear unlimited suits, or did I say there is no rule on wearing only one suit? Reading the latter into the former is dumb. Your the only one between us that's jumped to a 'logical conclusion'.

There's an abscence of a rule on the matter of how many suits you can wear. Unless you feel you actually are Kevin Siembieda, no, you don't know how it works. None of us do, unless the person we happen to be is Kevin Siembieda. You can fill it in for your own game how you want, obviously. Telling other people what the rules in their rifts game book are...again, none of us are qualified to do that unless we happen to be Kevin Siembieda. Where he left gaps, he's the only one that can fill in what the rule in the book is. Quit telling me I'm pimping a million suits and keep your own words for your own mouth.

Noon wrote:Put words in my mouth, then call the words you put in my mouth dumb. Bit of an old internet classic that one. Did I say you can wear unlimited suits, or did I say there is no rule on wearing only one suit?

Your arguement was just that; "because I don't see a limitor on the amount of suits of armour a person can wear, there is none! (or atleast 2, even though I don't see that either!)"

Or, to put it in the context of the arguement, I stated that you can only wear one suit of armour (unless otherwise noted in the armour's description) because that's the logical conclusion.

Then you post that "logical conclusions are not good because of X" as a counter-arguement to my own interpretation and view of the rules.

And while you didn't say that - your logical conclusion inferred it (that you can wear infinite suits).

Noon wrote:Reading the latter into the former is dumb. Your the only one between us that's jumped to a 'logical conclusion'.

While I would say that emphasizing the bolded portion here is taking your quote out of context, you did leave open your interpretation to be completely illogical and absurd. So you're right; of the two of us, I am the only one to make a logical conclusion here.

Noon wrote:There's an abscence of a rule on the matter of how many suits you can wear.

So then it means that you can wear more than one?
How many then?
2?
3?
infinite?
Or should we assume a logical conclusion that there is no rule because there is assumed to be some common sense here on how much clothing a person can wear.

Noon wrote:Unless you feel you actually are Kevin Siembieda, no, you don't know how it works. None of us do, unless the person we happen to be is Kevin Siembieda.

You're reaching. And you're not gaining any credibility to your arguement here by posting this.

Noon wrote:You can fill it in for your own game how you want, obviously. Telling other people what the rules in their rifts game book are...again, none of us are qualified to do that unless we happen to be Kevin Siembieda.

Well, given that a rules question was asked for board-members to answer only makes your statement hypocritical as you answered this question as well.

Noon wrote:Where he left gaps, he's the only one that can fill in what the rule in the book is. Quit telling me I'm pimping a million suits and keep your own words for your own mouth.

If you bothered to read what I said, I stated that your illogical conclusion leaves it open for this. I never put words in your mouth, I only stated that where your words were leading would take us down that road.

Besides this, on a personal note; what makes this suit of armour so different? (armour of ithan that is)
Is it because it's magical? There are lots of magic armours out there, why then can't you wear two suits of Battle Magus armour?
Or is it because it's magic-spell armour? If that's the case, then why not just cast it a couple of times and stack on the magical spell-suits; I mean two actions to double your MDC via spell protection seems a trivial price to pay, and you also double-up on your G.I.Joe rule as well.

I would like to know how and why you came to this conclusion.

I phrased my answer the way I did because Dog of War is indeed correct, and I didn't want to get into all that.

-The spell description clearly states that AoI is a "full suit" of armor.
-It is Invisible, Noiseless and Weightless, but these are both basic alchemical enchantments from PFRPG, where I believe the spell originated.
-It is common sense that one cannot wear two suits of armor, except in special cases where one can fit under the other (like a BWW's swimsuit, for example).
-There are TW devices that incorporate AoI into existing armor or into a vehicle, but TW items often do not work the way the spell normally would.

Logically, going by all of the above, Armor of Ithan does not work if you are already wearing armor.

The best counter-argument that I could make would be going off of a few things that Thinyser posted in another thread a while back, about the stacking of magical armor in general.
-He pointed out that there are a number of armors that can be stacked with other armor (Triax Plain Clothes, a kind of Naruni Stealth suit, etc).
-He pointed out that the description of Armor Bizarre (BoM 104) states "Like the Armor of Ithan spell, Armor bizarre creates a suit of magical form-fitting force to serve as armor."
My guess is that this is a kind of accidental retcon, that this spell was written up by somebody other than Kevin, and that this person mistook how AoI worked, but this description is arguably still canon- meaning that AoI is not actually armor, but rather "form-fitting force."
This would leave its interactive status unknown as far as other armor (and armor spells) go- it might go over armor, it might go under armor, or it might not work in conjunction with armor at all.

I had thought that we received an official answer at some point, but if so I was not able to find it in my search through old posts.

Iron Manticore wrote:As far as I'm concerned, Nekira solved this debate a few posts up quite clearly and succinctly: There are several suits of TW Armor which have Armor of Ithan as an option. This implies, or is rather clear actually in indicating that Armor of Ithan stacks on top of any armor being worn.

I agree. Armor of Ithan does in fact in canon books alotta books ... that stats it stacks OVER the armor being worn wether it was built into a PA or not the Damage does not come off of both Armors at the same time. It in fact gets taken off of the Armor of Ithan first, THEN.. it takes it off of the PA.

Iron Manticore wrote:As far as I'm concerned, Nekira solved this debate a few posts up quite clearly and succinctly: There are several suits of TW Armor which have Armor of Ithan as an option. This implies, or is rather clear actually in indicating that Armor of Ithan stacks on top of any armor being worn.

Nope.
TW spells often have effects that are not possible under the normal spell.

Killer Cyborg wrote:-He pointed out that the description of Armor Bizarre (BoM 104) states "Like the Armor of Ithan spell, Armor bizarre creates a suit of magical form-fitting force to serve as armor."

I was going to mention this as well, but then again - both state what they clearly are; what does muddle the matter is the opening statement "Like the Armour of Ithan spell..."

I have no doubt that armour of ithan is a force effect that's weightless and noiseless, but unlike armour bizarre it is apparently not form-fitting (like psychic body-field is) nor is it invisible.

Either way, I wouldn't let a person stack armour simply because it gets rediculous, but a TW effect seems right on the mark.

EDIT: mistake

Keldane wrote:Aside: I may be misinterpreting your comment, Dog_O_War, and it seems you're implying that Armor of Ithan is not invisible. While this has been discussed in another topic, I feel it is more suitable to simply point out that at the start of the description of the Armor of Ithan spell, on page 96 of the Book of Magic, that the spell creates "an invisible, weightless, noiseless, full suit of mystic armor". If I was mistaken about your comment, please forgive me - I'm a little sleepy at the moment.

You're right; I was implying that armour of ithan was visible, when I meant that it's not visible (I was thinking of armour bazarre when I wrote that). It's fixed in my post.

1. Nothing will happen, since the player is wearing full EBA (stupid armor rule).

2. Ignoring the rule stated in #1, then the EBA and character is cover with AoI.

Iron Manticore wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Iron Manticore wrote:As far as I'm concerned, Nekira solved this debate a few posts up quite clearly and succinctly: There are several suits of TW Armor which have Armor of Ithan as an option. This implies, or is rather clear actually in indicating that Armor of Ithan stacks on top of any armor being worn.

Nope.
TW spells often have effects that are not possible under the normal spell.

Then, in your opinion, please explain how a suit of armor that has been modified by a techno-wizard to be able to use Armor of Ithan works.

Uh.... I just did:
TW spells often have effects that are not possible under the normal spell.

You can use Carpet of Adhesion, for example, built into a TW vehicle to allow the vehicle to drive up vertical surfaces.
You can have Speed Weapon built into a TW weapon, even though the spell cannot target magic weapons normally.
You can do all sorts of things through techno-wizardry that are not normally possible with the spell being used.

In short, spells cast through TW items often have effects that are not possible under the normal spell.

Therefore, the fact that a spell acts a certain way when built into a TW device has no real bearing no how the spell normally works.

Am I being unclear somehow?

Lenwen wrote:NPC is wearing near Full Enviormental Armor.

NPC casts Armor of Ithan on himself.

Will it cover the Armor as well as the NPC or just the NPC ?

Please explain your answer ?

Emphasis mine.

Ice Dragon wrote:1. Nothing will happen, since the player is wearing full EBA (stupid armor rule).

2. Ignoring the rule stated in #1, then the EBA and character is cover with AoI.

Again, emphasis mine.

Having nearly full EBA is the same as being almost pregnant. Either it forms it's own environment or it does not. It seems likely that Lenwen put in that 'near' to indicate that the rule regarding full EBA was not in effect.

Cybermancer wrote:

Lenwen wrote:NPC is wearing near Full Enviormental Armor.

NPC casts Armor of Ithan on himself.

Will it cover the Armor as well as the NPC or just the NPC ?

Please explain your answer ?

Emphasis mine.

Ice Dragon wrote:1. Nothing will happen, since the player is wearing full EBA (stupid armor rule).

2. Ignoring the rule stated in #1, then the EBA and character is cover with AoI.

Again, emphasis mine.

Having nearly full EBA is the same as being almost pregnant. Either it forms it's own environment or it does not. It seems likely that Lenwen put in that 'near' to indicate that the rule regarding full EBA was not in effect.

You are right.

But near full EBA has the full effect on magic IIRC the rules.

So we agree it is not partial EBA, but how many percent is near full EBA - 80%?, 90%?, 95%? or 99,9%?

Ice Dragon wrote:

Cybermancer wrote:

Lenwen wrote:NPC is wearing near Full Enviormental Armor.

NPC casts Armor of Ithan on himself.

Will it cover the Armor as well as the NPC or just the NPC ?

Please explain your answer ?

Emphasis mine.

Ice Dragon wrote:1. Nothing will happen, since the player is wearing full EBA (stupid armor rule).

2. Ignoring the rule stated in #1, then the EBA and character is cover with AoI.

Again, emphasis mine.

Having nearly full EBA is the same as being almost pregnant. Either it forms it's own environment or it does not. It seems likely that Lenwen put in that 'near' to indicate that the rule regarding full EBA was not in effect.

You are right.

But near full EBA has the full effect on magic IIRC the rules.

So we agree it is not partial EBA, but how many percent is near full EBA - 80%?, 90%?, 95%? or 99,9%?

Right- assuming that the armor is made of enough artificial materials to interfere with spellcasting, then it doesn't matter if the armor is EBA or not.

But assuming that's the case (a fair assumption), you're wrong about the result.
It's not that the mage can't cast spells, but that they cost 20% more PPE and have a chance for reduced range, effect/damage, or duration.
Since range doesn't matter with AoI, there's a 40% chance that the only bad effects from wearing the armor is that the spell will cost you 12 PPE instead of 10 PPE.

Cybermancer wrote:

Lenwen wrote:NPC is wearing near Full Enviormental Armor.

NPC casts Armor of Ithan on himself.

Will it cover the Armor as well as the NPC or just the NPC ?

Please explain your answer ?

Emphasis mine.

Ice Dragon wrote:1. Nothing will happen, since the player is wearing full EBA (stupid armor rule).

2. Ignoring the rule stated in #1, then the EBA and character is cover with AoI.

Again, emphasis mine.

Having nearly full EBA is the same as being almost pregnant. Either it forms it's own environment or it does not. It seems likely that Lenwen put in that 'near' to indicate that the rule regarding full EBA was not in effect.

That's like saying, "well, my glass of water isn't full up to the rim, therefore I can accept another full glass in this same cup!"

Also known as fooling ones' self.

Even if you were wearing half-armour, the spell wouldn't work (as intended) as you still can't fill a glass any fuller than the cup will allow. What form-fitting suits are akin to is a flavored powder; barely noticeable with a solubility that won't overflow the glass.

Dog_O_War wrote:

Cybermancer wrote:

Lenwen wrote:NPC is wearing near Full Enviormental Armor.

NPC casts Armor of Ithan on himself.

Will it cover the Armor as well as the NPC or just the NPC ?

Please explain your answer ?

Emphasis mine.

Ice Dragon wrote:1. Nothing will happen, since the player is wearing full EBA (stupid armor rule).

2. Ignoring the rule stated in #1, then the EBA and character is cover with AoI.

Again, emphasis mine.

Having nearly full EBA is the same as being almost pregnant. Either it forms it's own environment or it does not. It seems likely that Lenwen put in that 'near' to indicate that the rule regarding full EBA was not in effect.

That's like saying, "well, my glass of water isn't full up to the rim, therefore I can accept another full glass in this same cup!"

Also known as fooling ones' self.

Even if you were wearing half-armour, the spell wouldn't work (as intended) as you still can't fill a glass any fuller than the cup will allow. What form-fitting suits are akin to is a flavored powder; barely noticeable with a solubility that won't overflow the glass.

Not the point I was making at all. In this particular segment of the conversation I'm not arguing over whether or not Armor of Ithan will fit over environmental armor or not. I'm discussing whether the armor already worn will prevent spell casting at all.

Editted for clarification.

Ice Dragon wrote:

Cybermancer wrote:

Lenwen wrote:NPC is wearing near Full Enviormental Armor.

NPC casts Armor of Ithan on himself.

Will it cover the Armor as well as the NPC or just the NPC ?

Please explain your answer ?

Emphasis mine.

Ice Dragon wrote:1. Nothing will happen, since the player is wearing full EBA (stupid armor rule).

2. Ignoring the rule stated in #1, then the EBA and character is cover with AoI.

Again, emphasis mine.

Having nearly full EBA is the same as being almost pregnant. Either it forms it's own environment or it does not. It seems likely that Lenwen put in that 'near' to indicate that the rule regarding full EBA was not in effect.

You are right.

But near full EBA has the full effect on magic IIRC the rules.

So we agree it is not partial EBA, but how many percent is near full EBA - 80%?, 90%?, 95%? or 99,9%?

It seems pretty clear that Lenwen's original post was worded specifically to circumvent the "can't cast while in full environmental armor" problem. Therefore discussions of percentage are irrelevant. The intent is to see if Armor of Ithan can be cast over top of existing armor.

Iron Manticore wrote: I'm still not seeing the answer to the question over how we are simply discarding the ability of a suit of armor to be modified by a Techno-Wizard to have Armor of Ithan as one of its upgrades. These particular suits are in the book.

So, if these suits are in the book, and I can wear the armor, and use the TW power to cast Armor Ithan upon myself while wearing this TW-modified armor, how will those who think the two don't stack rectify this obvious issue with that idea? None of the detractors have answered this basic question.

It's been answered at least three times by me, not counting anything points that anybody else made.

viewtopic.php?p=2071619#p2071619

Killer Cyborg wrote:-There are TW devices that incorporate AoI into existing armor or into a vehicle, but TW items often do not work the way the spell normally would.

viewtopic.php?p=2071859#p2071859

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Iron Manticore wrote:As far as I'm concerned, Nekira solved this debate a few posts up quite clearly and succinctly: There are several suits of TW Armor which have Armor of Ithan as an option. This implies, or is rather clear actually in indicating that Armor of Ithan stacks on top of any armor being worn.

Nope.
TW spells often have effects that are not possible under the normal spell.

viewtopic.php?p=2072317#p2072317

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Iron Manticore wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Iron Manticore wrote:As far as I'm concerned, Nekira solved this debate a few posts up quite clearly and succinctly: There are several suits of TW Armor which have Armor of Ithan as an option. This implies, or is rather clear actually in indicating that Armor of Ithan stacks on top of any armor being worn.

Nope.
TW spells often have effects that are not possible under the normal spell.

Then, in your opinion, please explain how a suit of armor that has been modified by a techno-wizard to be able to use Armor of Ithan works.

Uh.... I just did:
TW spells often have effects that are not possible under the normal spell.

You can use Carpet of Adhesion, for example, built into a TW vehicle to allow the vehicle to drive up vertical surfaces.
You can have Speed Weapon built into a TW weapon, even though the spell cannot target magic weapons normally.
You can do all sorts of things through techno-wizardry that are not normally possible with the spell being used.

In short, spells cast through TW items often have effects that are not possible under the normal spell.

Therefore, the fact that a spell acts a certain way when built into a TW device has no real bearing no how the spell normally works.

Am I being unclear somehow?

Note that in that last one, I'm all but pleading at you to indicate where exactly your confusion lies- what part of the repeated point you are still unclear on.

Claiming that nobody has addressed the point is a lie- it's been addressed at least three times, including to you specifically.
Try a different approach if you are still somehow confused on the issue.

Can I have them both on at the same time?

With the TW items, it's really unclear.
Perhaps the MDC protection is simply a temporary upgrade of the MDC armor, perhaps it's a force-field effect around the armor, perhaps it works some other way.
The books never say.

And if not, how do these suits of armor with this upgrade operate? From my point of view, as these suits are presented in the book, it appears to be the assumption that the Armor of Ithan becomes, in effect, essentially a force field over the existing armor. Barring Palladium having the d20 "no stacking of same-type bonus" rule, I'm not sure what the counter-argument is.

At risk of repeating myself:

1. Spells cast through TW items often have effects that are not possible under the normal spell.
Therefore, the fact that a spell acts a certain way when built into a TW device has no real bearing no how the spell normally works.

2. Spells cast through TW items often have effects that are not possible under the normal spell.
Therefore, the fact that a spell acts a certain way when built into a TW device has no real bearing no how the spell normally works.

3. Spells cast through TW items often have effects that are not possible under the normal spell.
Therefore, the fact that a spell acts a certain way when built into a TW device has no real bearing no how the spell normally works.

4. Spells cast through TW items often have effects that are not possible under the normal spell.
Therefore, the fact that a spell acts a certain way when built into a TW device has no real bearing no how the spell normally works.

5. Spells cast through TW items often have effects that are not possible under the normal spell.
Therefore, the fact that a spell acts a certain way when built into a TW device has no real bearing no how the spell normally works.

Capiche...?

If NOT, then by all means explain what part you don't get.

Iron Manticore wrote:It's not that I don't get it. And while I may have sounded unclear and while I apologize, I don't really feel the need to get an answered underlined repeatedly five times, but thanks.

If I'm unclear, it's because even reading that five times, you are essentially stating that to you is no clear answer. Hence my unclear.

No.
You said, "I'm still not seeing the answer to the question over how we are simply discarding the ability of a suit of armor to be modified by a Techno-Wizard to have Armor of Ithan as one of its upgrades. None of the detractors have answered this basic question."

The answer is very clear: We are discarding that ability because it has no meaning in the context of this conversation.
There is a very clear answer to your question, and that is it.

Question: "How are we simply discarding the ability of a suit of armor to be modified by a Techno-Wizard to have Armor of Ithan as one of its upgrades?"
Answer: "Because that ability does not indicate anything about the actual workings of the spell itself."

Question and answer.
The fact that TW items often twist the abilities of spells into nothing else means that TW items that use Armor of Ithan do not reflect on the normal workings of the spell, and therefore are not evidence of anything, and must be discarded from logical discussion about how the spell normally works.

You are stating that a TW spell does not function like a non-TW spell. So, there is no answer.

That actually IS the answer to the question you asked, of how we are discarding TW devices from evidence of how the spell normally works.
If you were looking for the answer to a different question, like the question of whether or not Armor of Ithan officially works over armor when cast normally, there may well be an answer, but you simply cannot glean any indication from looking at TW items, and so I direct you to the rest of the conversation.

That makes no sense to me, but I'm not going to argue it anymore because these discussions always take decidedly nast turns and I neither want it to go that way. You can have your answers of no and I will have mine.

Feel free not to argue it any more.
Just don't try to claim that your question has not been answered, or that you have not seen any answers to it, because it has been and you have.

Otherwise Emperor Lasar's (sp?) argument of being able to take far more damage than other people because he has an Armor of Ithan talisman (and wears body armor) and isn't actually a Dragon in disguise just wouldn't make sense to any magic-user followers he has who would know that such things don't stack. But who am I to question such things. Yes, I know that the talisman is not TW, but the stacking armor idea still applies.

I have no idea what you are talking about here.

Iron Manticore wrote:

Otherwise Emperor Lasar's (sp?) argument of being able to take far more damage than other people because he has an Armor of Ithan talisman (and wears body armor) and isn't actually a Dragon in disguise just wouldn't make sense to any magic-user followers he has who would know that such things don't stack. But who am I to question such things. Yes, I know that the talisman is not TW, but the stacking armor idea still applies.

I have no idea what you are talking about here.

Lone Star...Emperor Sabre Lasar (sp?)...a Fire Dragon who has taken Human form and is attempting to unify the Pecos Empire under his control. He is pictured wearing a suit of Coalition Body Armor. When in combat, he often takes far more damage than a Human wearing body armor could possibly take and survive. He brushes it off and claims it is because he is wearing an Armor of Ithan talisman (which is listed in other Rifts books and you can buy and wear). Of course, the truth is that he can survive because he is a Dragon and not a Human. This is all in his NPC description.

Now, if as some posters have suggested, Armor of Ithan can not stack...then we can assume that the people of Rifts Earth would know this as well, having tried to cast it numerous times and it failing. If this were the case, than any magic user who paid attention would know that the Emperor was full of beans and he could not have on both his talisman and his armor and would call Shenanigans. But since such is not the case it can be assumed that they stack.

If he takes more damage than a human could possibly take and survives, then it's because his armor gets destroyed in the battle and his dragon MDC takes up the slack.
Once your armor is destroyed, then it might be more reasonable to put up Armor of Ithan.

The OP simply asked can the armors stack. I agreed with Nekira when she used the TW examples as proof positive that armors can stack.

Right- and that's the part that I'm telling you doesn't work.
It's not proof of anything, because TW examples don't matter for normal spell use.

(See below)

Those who disagree are using the description of the spell (but not a specific ruling - and as has been said, descriptions have errors all there own from book to book translations, slight interpretations by other authors) that it creates a form-fitting suit of armor to say that it can not stack.

More or less the situation, yes.

Or there are those who say that techno-wizardry operates differently and therefore we can not assume that anything TW can be logically thought about. Where is this listed in the book?

There are TW items that can use Carpet of Adhesion to allow a vehicle to drive up walls, but this is not proof positive that Carpet of Adhesion can normally allow a vehicle to drive up walls- it's a special function of that item.
What would actually happen if you cast the spell directly on the wheels of a vehicle is that it would be stuck in one place.

Likewise, the spell Speed Weapon is utilized in a certain TW Sword to double the attacks of the wielder, but this is not proof positive that the spell can actually normally target magic weapons- it clearly states in the spell description that it can NOT.

The spell Superhuman Strength can be added into TW vehicles to make the engine work harder.
The spell Energy Bolt can be added into a TW laptop as a power source.
The Communications Band uses Globe of Daylight as a power source.
The Mystic Portable Generator uses Call Lightning to generate electricity suitable for plugging electronic devices into.
The Psionic Mind Shield uses Invulnerability, Befuddle, Energy Bolt, Globe of Silence, and Mind Blast to render the wearer impervious to psionic attacks- something that NONE of those spells can actually do. If you add Life Drain, then it can turn your HP into PPE- something that the Life Drain spell cannot do.
A TW Flaming Sword uses Fire Bolt to create a flaming sword that lasts for 10 minutes.
And the list goes on, and on.

Using spells to do things that they were not originally intended is a basic function of techno-wizardry. If it wasn't, then pretty much none of the items would work.

Check out the Mystic Power Armor in the original Rifts book: you can use Armor of Ithan to repair the MDC of that armor.
This doesn't mean that the spell can normally be used to repair armor, though.

I'm not sure where I read anything rules-wise stating that a TW operates on another level of physics than a Wizard, hence my confusion and continual statement that the question is not answered.

RUE, 139

The true power of Techno-Wizardry is taking the twin sciences of magic and technology and fusing them into something different and unique. Magic and science working together, symbiotically, each supporting and improving upon the other to create something that defies convention.

Key phrases: "something different and unique" and "something that defies convention."
Meaning something that you can't get through magic or science alone.
Meaning something that is not a normal result.

Unless you are suggesting that a fireball shot from a shotgun (see New West) is somehow vastly different than the spell of the same name from which the item originated.

Actually, it is pretty different, though I'm not sure if it counts as "vastly" different.
The Fire Ball spell inflicts 1d4 MD per level of the caster.
The TW Hellfire Shotgun's fire ball inflicts 6d6 MD- a damage impossible to get using the normal spell.
The spell is self-guided, the gun has to be aimed.
The spell has a range of 90', the gun has a range of 300'.
The spell costs 10 PPE per fire ball, the gun costs 16 PPE per fire ball.

No one has pointed something out in a book or otherwise where it shows 100% that the two cannot stack.

Correct.
Likewise, nobody has pointed out something in a book or otherwise where it shows 100% that the two CAN stack.
And logic says that you can't wear two suits of full armor as a rule.

There are those who are stating that magic users have a difficult time casting spells in armor. This is totally out of left field.

Agreed.

Iron Manticore wrote:I do find it weird Killer Cyborg that you and I both agree with the OP and are both stating that the armor's stack....

And yet you seem to keep telling me I'm wrong...

See your post...it's the very first one to answer Lenwen.

What I said was I've only ever seen people play it that way, not that that's how it actually works according to the rules.
Big difference.

Also, if you're right for the wrong reasons, I'll point that out to you, even if I agree with your conclusion. I'm funny like that.

Ultimately, I play it that they stack, but I think the better logic is currently on the side of them NOT stacking- though I suspect that Kev intends for them to stack, there is no real evidence that I can find to support that belief.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Iron Manticore wrote: There are those who are stating that magic users have a difficult time casting spells in armor. This is totally out of left field.

Agreed.

The pair of you need to take a gander then at R:UE page 188, where it directly states that armour covering more than 1/2 the casters' body, and/or made of metal/man-made materials disrupts and interferes with the mages' ability to cast spells. They have to spend additional PPE to cast the spell, and have to roll on a chart for an additional negative effect.

And to Cybermancer, the answer to your question is any EBA worn will mess up spell-casting, as EBA always covers 100% of your body. Otherwise it isn't really environmental body armour.

Dog_O_War wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Iron Manticore wrote: There are those who are stating that magic users have a difficult time casting spells in armor. This is totally out of left field.

Agreed.

The pair of you need to take a gander then at R:UE page 188, where it directly states that armour covering more than 1/2 the casters' body, and/or made of metal/man-made materials disrupts and interferes with the mages' ability to cast spells. They have to spend additional PPE to cast the spell, and have to roll on a chart for an additional negative effect.

Oh, I get that it's a rule- it's just that the rule doesn't really have anything to do with this conversation. It's a tangent spawned off of an off-hand comment by one poster (Ice Dragon) that doesn't really have anything to do with the main issue.

And to Cybermancer, the answer to your question is any EBA worn will mess up spell-casting, as EBA always covers 100% of your body. Otherwise it isn't really environmental body armour.

True enough.

Other arguments (not relevent to the intent of the OP's question) aside.

IMO MDC armor in Rifts is too damned expensive to not have whatever protective field you're using protect it as well. If we could not protect our armor with spells of armoring and Naruni force fields then we would need the resources of the CS to outfit the group with new armor after each encounter.

To say that magic armor and techno force fields were skin tight would be an interesting (and very expensive) way to play.

Thinyser wrote:Other arguments (not relevent to the intent of the OP's question) aside.

IMO MDC armor in Rifts is too damned expensive to not have whatever protective field you're using protect it as well. If we could not protect our armor with spells of armoring and Naruni force fields then we would need the resources of the CS to outfit the group with new armor after each encounter.

To say that magic armor and techno force fields were skin tight would be an interesting (and very expensive) way to play.

LONG ago I realized the economy in Rifts was borked and I changed the price for armor repair and most types of ammo.
In my campaigns force fields are nice but not essential.