Forums of the Megaverse®

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

10th Level Ley Line Walker, Avg 175 PPE

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

400 MDC: 55 PPE

Doesn't seem like too bad a deal.

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

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

No reason why it should be a problem unless there's something in a specific spell to prevent it working with other protective spells. Given the multiple issues with magic and the better MDC armors, it's probably a good thing that mages have so many protective spells at their disposal or they'd be more vulnerable than they already are when **** hits the fan.

Unless the spell(s) specificly say they are incompatable, they would work with each other.

Ishtirru wrote:Just stack multiples of Armor of Ithan

That doesn't work - at least in my game. I don't know if it's canon or not, but the rule I was taught, and the way I play, is that (for example) a 4th level LLW who casts AoI gets 40 M/SDC. If he takes damage and re-casts, it gets recharged to 40, but never goes over. Multiple spells overlap in logical order, and attacks deplete one only.

Necrite wrote:

Ishtirru wrote:Just stack multiples of Armor of Ithan

That doesn't work - at least in my game. I don't know if it's canon or not, but the rule I was taught, and the way I play, is that (for example) a 4th level LLW who casts AoI gets 40 M/SDC. If he takes damage and re-casts, it gets recharged to 40, but never goes over. Multiple spells overlap in logical order, and attacks deplete one only.

While there don't appear to be any written-in-stone Rules regarding the stacking of the SAME Spell on top of itself, the many, Many, MANY NPCs throughout the Rifts Books who have Artifacts/Talismans/Enchanted Armors that do NOT have the same Spell stacked onto itself are pretty much a clear indicator that one CANNOT stack the same Spell multiple times...or at least this seems to be the Authors' intent...

Ishtirru wrote:

cornholioprime wrote:

Necrite wrote:

Ishtirru wrote:Just stack multiples of Armor of Ithan

That doesn't work - at least in my game. I don't know if it's canon or not, but the rule I was taught, and the way I play, is that (for example) a 4th level LLW who casts AoI gets 40 M/SDC. If he takes damage and re-casts, it gets recharged to 40, but never goes over. Multiple spells overlap in logical order, and attacks deplete one only.

While there don't appear to be any written-in-stone Rules regarding the stacking of the SAME Spell on top of itself, the many, Many, MANY NPCs throughout the Rifts Books who have Artifacts/Talismans/Enchanted Armors that do NOT have the same Spell stacked onto itself are pretty much a clear indicator that one CANNOT stack the same Spell multiple times...or at least this seems to be the Authors' intent...

In other words, the Authors haven't created NPCs who have stacked the same Magical Armor on top of itself multiple times, so it's probably an "illegal" Option.

When there are no hard Rules on a given subject, looking at the Rifts NPCs and/or their Equipment is a pretty good indicator of what the Authors intend their Spells to do.

No NPCs with Armor of Ithan or other protective Magicks cast multiple times upon the same NPC, means that the Authors most probably want you the Player to be only able to cast a given Protective Magic ONCE at a time.

No new Castings until the 1st Casting is depleted, runs out, or is dispelled.

A person can only wear one suit of armor at a time.
Why would this be any different for magically created armor?

Ishtirru wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:A person can only wear one suit of armor at a time.
Why would this be any different for magically created armor?

because its magic? and who says you can't wear more than one suit of armor. Pilots in large PA suits have a low md suit around the same as cheap armor. Flexy Steel under a rigid juicer suit of armor too maybe.

It's true about PA, but that doesn't really equate since the spell isn't "Power Armor of Ithan."

(Although that would be a cool spell....)

We don't use multiple versions of the same spell (our ruling is that casting it a second time simply recharges the shielding and restarts the duration clock), but we do allow stacking.

The biggest problem we had with stacking was determining how the spells would layer. Would it be in order they were cast, or are there fine details in the spell descriptions that would hint that one is closer to the skin than the other? While it might not seem like that big of a deal, we play it that when the extra SDC runs out, all effects of the spell is cancelled.

For example, this means we had to figure out whether the ½ damage from fire from one armor spell would be above or below a spell that has zero damage from fire. That way when the zero damage effect is cancelled, would the ½ damage have already been cancelled or would the character still have some fire protection left?

Another example, would the spells lie above or below the manufactured armor being worn? That way, if you get halfway through your protection, is your manufactured armor still in one piece or not?

You can only have 1 of the 4 Armor spells active at one time.


Namely:
Armor of Ithan
Armor Bizzare
Invincible Armor
Armor of Neptune

you may only have 1 of those 4 active at once.


now, spells that provide MDC but are NOT "armor" spells you can stack on top of each-other and Armor.

So you could have Armor of Ithan and Invunerability and Sorcerors Fury all active at once.

Natalya wrote:The biggest problem we had with stacking was determining how the spells would layer. Would it be in order they were cast, or are there fine details in the spell descriptions that would hint that one is closer to the skin than the other? While it might not seem like that big of a deal, we play it that when the extra SDC runs out, all effects of the spell is cancelled.

For example, this means we had to figure out whether the ½ damage from fire from one armor spell would be above or below a spell that has zero damage from fire. That way when the zero damage effect is cancelled, would the ½ damage have already been cancelled or would the character still have some fire protection left?

Another example, would the spells lie above or below the manufactured armor being worn? That way, if you get halfway through your protection, is your manufactured armor still in one piece or not?

Excellent questions!

What were your answers to them?

I, like Nekira, allow one suit of magical armor to be cast over physical armor. You can throw other effects, like Invulnerable to Energy, etc. around like there's no tomorrow. But only one suit of armor at a time.

Also, as a house rule, we don't allow re-casting. You have to wait until the first suit of armor has collapsed or cancel it yourself, leaving your character open for a while. While this is less evident with Armor of Ithan, when you're walking through a CS platoon getting pegged with Armor Bizarre and it falls down, you better bet they're not going to give you breathing room.

RainOfSteel wrote:

Natalya wrote:The biggest problem we had with stacking was determining how the spells would layer. Would it be in order they were cast, or are there fine details in the spell descriptions that would hint that one is closer to the skin than the other? While it might not seem like that big of a deal, we play it that when the extra SDC runs out, all effects of the spell is cancelled.

For example, this means we had to figure out whether the ½ damage from fire from one armor spell would be above or below a spell that has zero damage from fire. That way when the zero damage effect is cancelled, would the ½ damage have already been cancelled or would the character still have some fire protection left?

Another example, would the spells lie above or below the manufactured armor being worn? That way, if you get halfway through your protection, is your manufactured armor still in one piece or not?

Excellent questions!

What were your answers to them?

I don't know how much help our answers will be, as we use Rifts as source material for our HU/NSS crossover, modern-day game, but this was the order we came up with for the common armor and protection spells, outer-most layer on top:

Energy Field
Armor of Ithan
Invulnerability: Lesser
manufactured armor

We don't use the Rifts-only spells, so we've never determined how those would fit in.

The only other protection that anyone in the group used besides those was Crystal Skin from a Crystal Sword (Island at the Edge of the World). That was layered between the Energy Field and the Armor of Ithan.

Natalya wrote:I don't know how much help our answers will be,

[...]

Energy Field
Armor of Ithan
Invulnerability: Lesser
manufactured armor

[...]

Every little bit helps.

Illithid13 wrote:

Nekira Sudacne wrote:You can only have 1 of the 4 Armor spells active at one time.


Namely:
Armor of Ithan Field of magical armor that protects you
Armor Bizzare armor made out of living stuff
Invincible Armor Actual suite of armor that goes over what you are wearing
Armor of Neptune

you may only have 1 of those 4 active at once.


now, spells that provide MDC but are NOT "armor" spells you can stack on top of each-other and Armor.

So you could have Armor of Ithan and Invunerability and Sorcerors Fury all active at once.

Based on the discription of the above armors (not fimiliar with Neptune), I say you can stack them, unless they creat an actual suite of armor. Example, Some wizard couldn't cast invincible armor on a T-man who already has the suite of armor tat activated.

I generally wouldn't allow Armor Bazaar and Invincible armor stack, just becaus there are physical qualities to them. AoI would stack with either.

But then again, this is a house rule, mostly because there are no definitive rules on this subject.

no, ALL create a Suit of Physical Armor, even Armor of Ithan, it's just invisible, still there.

therefore they can't stack.

Like not being able to wear two sets of body armor you cannot stack two armor spells, two force fields or any two of the same thing.

Nekira Sudacne wrote:You can only have 1 of the 4 Armor spells active at one time.


Namely:
Armor of Ithan
Armor Bizzare
Invincible Armor
Armor of Neptune

you may only have 1 of those 4 active at once.


now, spells that provide MDC but are NOT "armor" spells you can stack on top of each-other and Armor.

So you could have Armor of Ithan and Invunerability and Sorcerors Fury all active at once.

Yo Nekky!!

If you have a Canon Reference for that, please provide it for Ishtirru's sake......

(And I personally wouldn't mind knowing where to read those Rules, either)

Dr. Doom v.3.1.1 wrote:Like not being able to wear two sets of body armor you cannot stack two armor spells, two force fields or any two of the same thing.

Canon Reference, with Book and Page Number, please.

Attempting to assign Natural Physical Laws (such as "Two Objects cannot be in the same Place at the same time," in this case) to Magical Constructs is a non-starter...

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


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

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

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

cornholioprime wrote:Canon Reference, with Book and Page Number, please.

Attempting to assign Natural Physical Laws (such as "Two Objects cannot be in the same Place at the same time," in this case) to Magical Constructs is a non-starter...

Perhaps in your munchkin opinion.

Dr. Doom v.3.1.1 wrote:Like not being able to wear two sets of body armor you cannot stack two armor spells, two force fields or any two of the same thing.

Why can't you wear two sets of armor? Where does it say that a person can't get a suit of snug armor, a suit of loose armor, and a suit of really loose armor and wear them all together?

On that train of thought, where does it say specifically that armor spells can't stack together? Why can't someone cast an Armor-type of spell, and then the second Armor-type spell lays on top of the first (like the above question)?

Okay Stacking has a flaw..Spell wise anyway the most effective/Highest will override the lesser. I can buy that.

Other protective spells can easily stack (Impervious to energy and other such enchantments)

As for that Snug armour idea glitter boy or Samson would be how I see it.

You got the pilot in his suit (enchanted with a say impervious to energy and breath with out air...) the outer or loose armour (the Glitterboy or the samson (Power armour)

But like others I can see certain armour components carrying a spell. ech type protective armour should be vs a type of damage as shown below on my Fire Dragon hunting ggear bellow (just thought so you'll forgive the hastiness of the work.)

Say I have a
-suit of Gladiator (Impervious to energy/Magic resistant barrier)
-a chest/body protector over that. (Armour of Ithan general damage)
-a large mail cloak (as like cloth but made of Light MDC scales). (Armour vs fire/cold/what ever the kind of creature your after uses.)

All three can have enchantments added..Munchkin breeding ground Yes..but legal..sure since technically each is separate piece.

Natalya wrote:

Dr. Doom v.3.1.1 wrote:Like not being able to wear two sets of body armor you cannot stack two armor spells, two force fields or any two of the same thing.

Why can't you wear two sets of armor? Where does it say that a person can't get a suit of snug armor, a suit of loose armor, and a suit of really loose armor and wear them all together?

On that train of thought, where does it say specifically that armor spells can't stack together? Why can't someone cast an Armor-type of spell, and then the second Armor-type spell lays on top of the first (like the above question)?

It doesn't say this anywhere in the books that I have ever read...Nor have I seen (besides the NPC's like cornholio pointed out) any reference in the books on how to stack multiple protection magics (same or different spells). As there is no clear cut rules in the books on either subject the only rules are house rules....*sigh* yet again its up to the GM to say what is allowed.

Dr. Doom v.3.1.1 wrote:

cornholioprime wrote:Canon Reference, with Book and Page Number, please.

Attempting to assign Natural Physical Laws (such as "Two Objects cannot be in the same Place at the same time," in this case) to Magical Constructs is a non-starter...

Perhaps in your munchkin opinion.

Nice try, Doom, but A]] I don't have a Dog in this Fight (and thus I don't care for one "side" or the other, just want to know), and

B]] You STILL haven't provided us with a Canon Reference proving your Position.

Try Again.

Natalya wrote:

Dr. Doom v.3.1.1 wrote:Like not being able to wear two sets of body armor you cannot stack two armor spells, two force fields or any two of the same thing.

Why can't you wear two sets of armor? Where does it say that a person can't get a suit of snug armor, a suit of loose armor, and a suit of really loose armor and wear them all together?

On that train of thought, where does it say specifically that armor spells can't stack together? Why can't someone cast an Armor-type of spell, and then the second Armor-type spell lays on top of the first (like the above question)?

The fact that Doom hasn't provided us with a Canon Reference already probably means that there isn't one.

Of course, I hope that you're not holding your Breath waiting for Doom to admit it.

As you probably very well know, if Doom merely remains silent on an Issue, then that's as close to admission as you'll get from that fellow...

Here's to blessed silence.

Natalya wrote:

Dr. Doom v.3.1.1 wrote:Like not being able to wear two sets of body armor you cannot stack two armor spells, two force fields or any two of the same thing.

Why can't you wear two sets of armor? Where does it say that a person can't get a suit of snug armor, a suit of loose armor, and a suit of really loose armor and wear them all together?

On that train of thought, where does it say specifically that armor spells can't stack together? Why can't someone cast an Armor-type of spell, and then the second Armor-type spell lays on top of the first (like the above question)?

You CAN wear two "suits" of armor, if those suits are made properly. Nothing stops you from having your plate mail sized to fit over your chain mail rather than a padded suit, and that padded suit that most fantasy games have is not meant to be real armor - it's the undercoat so that your heavier metal armor doesn't hurt you.

As to the much earlier comment - No, I don't believe in stacking a SINGLE spell. Like Natalya said, cast AoI over AoI, and you "overwrite" the damage capacity and duration, but multiple spells stack just fine. On a similar note, If I cast Superhuman Speed on myself five times, would I be +2 to parry and +6 to dodge, or +10 to parry and +30 to dodge?

Necrite wrote:On a similar note, If I cast Superhuman Speed on myself five times, would I be +2 to parry and +6 to dodge, or +10 to parry and +30 to dodge?

No, just one would. I say that for balance..I know me and balance ussually don't work together.

as for multiple armor I would just add them together and treat it as "co-operative magic" and limit Co-Operative magic to items.

Thinyser wrote:
It doesn't say this anywhere in the books that I have ever read

Have you read what it says about Triax plain clothes armor?

Dr. Doom v.3.1.2 wrote:

Thinyser wrote:
It doesn't say this anywhere in the books that I have ever read

Have you read what it says about Triax plain clothes armor?

Nope but if they are as form fitting as plain clothes there should be no restrictions as to what they can be worn under...but i assume by your comment that there is...though I as a GM would ignor any such rule.

Doom I Just read the "Plain Clothes" armor entry (p.37) in my second printing 1994 Triax and there is no mention of wearing it under any other armor...Does yours say something about this and what printing do you have?

<<<In Douthern Drawl>>> "What you talking 'bout Willis?"

Ishtirru wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Ishtirru wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:A person can only wear one suit of armor at a time.
Why would this be any different for magically created armor?

because its magic? and who says you can't wear more than one suit of armor. Pilots in large PA suits have a low md suit around the same as cheap armor. Flexy Steel under a rigid juicer suit of armor too maybe.

It's true about PA, but that doesn't really equate since the spell isn't "Power Armor of Ithan."

(Although that would be a cool spell....)

There are no rules stating that spell armor stacking has to be limited to the physics of non-magical armor. And you thought I was the one who dictates house rules over base rules?

on the contrary, magical construcs follow every single rule of nonmagical constructs except where specifically specified by default, because it possess no magical feature that is not specsifically stated it posesses.

You and me both my brain devouring friend. I've never seen anything like that anywhere in Canon that I can remember.

Illithid13 wrote:Book and page please? I must have missed this one (seriously).

The book of common sense. Page one, chapter one.
Unless something says it can do a thing it cannot do that thing. Assigning benefits or attributes to something with no evidence is invariably wrong.

Can armor stack? There is no evidence it can so it can't.
Can you have two force fields on at the same time? There is no evidence that you can so you can't.

Chapter two goes into proving a negative and specious logic.

This is Rifts we're talking about Doom; more specificly this is Magic in Rifts. Common sense very rarely applies where Rifts rules are concerned and even more rarely where Magic in Rifts is concerned.

Ishtirru wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Ishtirru wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:A person can only wear one suit of armor at a time.
Why would this be any different for magically created armor?

because its magic? and who says you can't wear more than one suit of armor. Pilots in large PA suits have a low md suit around the same as cheap armor. Flexy Steel under a rigid juicer suit of armor too maybe.

It's true about PA, but that doesn't really equate since the spell isn't "Power Armor of Ithan."

(Although that would be a cool spell....)

There are no rules stating that spell armor stacking has to be limited to the physics of non-magical armor. And you thought I was the one who dictates house rules over base rules?

There shouldn't need to be rules stating that.
It's only logical.
There are no rules stating that you can't activate multiple psi-swords in the same hand either, or multiple Ice-blades, or whatever.
But it makes no sense to claim that things would work that way.
Same goes with armor.
The magically created armor is solid... there is no reason to believe that you can wear multiple suits of magic armor at the same time.

demos606 wrote:This is Rifts we're talking about Doom; more specificly this is Magic in Rifts. Common sense very rarely applies where Rifts rules are concerned and even more rarely where Magic in Rifts is concerned.

I disagree.
Common sense and magic go hand in hand most of the time in Rifts.

Nekira Sudacne wrote:You can only have 1 of the 4 Armor spells active at one time.


Namely:
Armor of Ithan
Armor Bizzare
Invincible Armor
Armor of Neptune

you may only have 1 of those 4 active at once.


now, spells that provide MDC but are NOT "armor" spells you can stack on top of each-other and Armor.

So you could have Armor of Ithan and Invunerability and Sorcerors Fury all active at once.

This was my assumption as well, but after going back to find were I thought I read this I came up empty. So anyone have a page number on this anywhere? I think its very clear that the same spell cannot be stacked, but I really see no reason to not allow the stacking of separate spells, unless it is stated somewhere it is illegal.

Jesterzzn wrote:

Nekira Sudacne wrote:You can only have 1 of the 4 Armor spells active at one time.


Namely:
Armor of Ithan
Armor Bizzare
Invincible Armor
Armor of Neptune

you may only have 1 of those 4 active at once.


now, spells that provide MDC but are NOT "armor" spells you can stack on top of each-other and Armor.

So you could have Armor of Ithan and Invunerability and Sorcerors Fury all active at once.

This was my assumption as well, but after going back to find were I thought I read this I came up empty. So anyone have a page number on this anywhere? I think its very clear that the same spell cannot be stacked, but I really see no reason to not allow the stacking of separate spells, unless it is stated somewhere it is illegal.

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

demos606 wrote:This is Rifts we're talking about Doom; more specificly this is Magic in Rifts. Common sense very rarely applies where Rifts rules are concerned and even more rarely where Magic in Rifts is concerned.

Common sense always applies.

No offence but that argument gets more stupid every time I see it.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Jesterzzn wrote:

Nekira Sudacne wrote:You can only have 1 of the 4 Armor spells active at one time.


Namely:
Armor of Ithan
Armor Bizzare
Invincible Armor
Armor of Neptune

you may only have 1 of those 4 active at once.


now, spells that provide MDC but are NOT "armor" spells you can stack on top of each-other and Armor.

So you could have Armor of Ithan and Invunerability and Sorcerors Fury all active at once.

This was my assumption as well, but after going back to find were I thought I read this I came up empty. So anyone have a page number on this anywhere? I think its very clear that the same spell cannot be stacked, but I really see no reason to not allow the stacking of separate spells, unless it is stated somewhere it is illegal.

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

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

Dr. Doom v.3.1.2 wrote:

Illithid13 wrote:Book and page please? I must have missed this one (seriously).

The book of common sense. Page one, chapter one.
Unless something says it can do a thing it cannot do that thing. Assigning benefits or attributes to something with no evidence is invariably wrong.

Can't armor stack? There is no evidence it can so it can't.
Can you have two force fields on at the same time? There is no evidence that you can so you can't.

Chapter two goes into proving a negative and specious logic.

This is a VERY weak Argument, Doom.

Magical Armors neither say that they CAN stack, nor do they say that they CANNOT stack (and this is apart from Spells that specificaly say that they cannot be combined with Spell X).

There's absolutely no evidence, supporting Statements, or even Inferences for EITHER side of the Argument; so you, Doom, are JUST as 'wrong' by assuming that Magical Armors CANNOT stack as someone is who says that Armors CAN stack.

You might want to read that Chapter about Specious Logic yourself before you recommend the Book to someone else.

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

Bottom Line, boys and girls:

Yet another Palladium Ambiguous Grey Area; GM's Call.

I think that I'll ask J. Lionheart if Palladium RPG has Rules on this sort of thing......

****ADDENDUM****

Something of interest to both sides of this Debate:

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

If you want to use illogical house rules then you are welcome to.

Dr. Doom v.3.1.2 wrote:If you want to use illogical house rules then you are welcome to.

***Yawn***

And THIS consitutes a well-reasoned refutation???


I thought that you were one of the brightest Intellects in the Marvel Universe!?!?

No wonder I switched from Doom to Thanos back in the early 80s as my all-time greatest Bad Guy........

I know this is a weak argument (maybe) but it is the only one that came to mind while reading the posts.

In PFRPG, there are magical items that give certain bonuses (=1 vs magic, =2 vs ward magic, etc) it goes on to specify that having two or more of the same type of item (which it must be assumed uses the same spell in creation) will not grant a cumulative bonus.

From this I say that the same spell may not stack with itself.

As for different armor spells (ones which actually create something; Armor of Ithan, Armor Bizarre, etc), I would say that only one would be inn effect at a time. Any spells which provide MDC but do not "create" something that provides the MDC would be stackable.

Malakai wrote:I know this is a weak argument (maybe) but it is the only one that came to mind while reading the posts.

In PFRPG, there are magical items that give certain bonuses (=1 vs magic, =2 vs ward magic, etc) it goes on to specify that having two or more of the same type of item (which it must be assumed uses the same spell in creation) will not grant a cumulative bonus.

From this I say that the same spell may not stack with itself.

As for different armor spells (ones which actually create something; Armor of Ithan, Armor Bizarre, etc), I would say that only one would be inn effect at a time. Any spells which provide MDC but do not "create" something that provides the MDC would be stackable.

I quite agree.

As stated in my previous Posts, and fleshed out by Natalya or Kalinda (I forget), it seems that you can't use the SAME Spell to stack upon itself; I stated that since there are no NPCs who do so, it doesn't seem likely.

It was either Natalya or Kalinda who stated that if you try to re-cast the same Spell on top of itself, you'd only reset the Spell. as it were. No Canon to back that particular Statement up, but I agree with it nonetheless.

Doom

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thinyser wrote:Doom

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ishtirru wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:The magically created armor is solid... there is no reason to believe that you can wear multiple suits of magic armor at the same time.

solid? Many armor spells are just like an aura. solid?

No, many defensive spells are just an aura.
All armor spells create armor.

demos606 wrote:

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

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

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

Killer Cyborg wrote:

demos606 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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