 Question with the Armor Spell |
 Dec 7 2004, 07:30 PM
Post
#1
|
|
|
Moving Target  Group: Members Posts: 139 Joined: 19-September 04 From: Charleston, IL Member No.: 6,676  |
What does everyone think about the armor spell? Does it provide basic armor or hardened armor? This is very important because of the power rating necessary to hurt an individual. The spell does not clerify and it does stack with hardened armor. There are no rules stating that the spell works any differently under any circumstances, which would lead one to believe that it is hardened.
What do you guys think? |
 |
 
|
 |
Replies
(1 - 24)
|
Dec 7 2004, 07:40 PM
Post
#2
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 108 Joined: 6-December 04 Member No.: 6,871 |
I want to hear why APDS ammo 1/2s the armor spell.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 7 2004, 07:41 PM
Post
#3
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,010 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
For the same reason it halves regular armor.
And because it is not specified, the armor is unhardened. ~J |
|
|
|
|
Dec 7 2004, 07:42 PM
Post
#4
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
As mentioned in the other thread, it's because the Armor spell, while magical, still has an effect that is on the same level as any other type of armor.
As for the hardened/standard question, as far as I'm concerned it only grants standard armor. It's not hardened in any way, and any Hardened Armor you're wearing has its effect applied first (ie, if the Power of the attack is greater than the Hardened Armor, it is not negated). That's *my* ruling. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 7 2004, 07:44 PM
Post
#5
|
|
|
Traumatizing players since 1992 Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,282 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Las Vegas, NV Member No.: 220 |
Honestly the way it's written it could be either. It just blindly adds to your armor ratings. If you're wearing soft armor it adds to that. If you are wearing hard armor it adds to hard armor. It adds to whatever type of armor that you are wearing.
This spell IS specificed what type it adds, it specifically states that it adds it rating to the character's armor. It makes no distinction that it only adds to soft armor. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 7 2004, 07:48 PM
Post
#6
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 485 Joined: 25-October 04 Member No.: 6,789 |
SR3ed p198
That is the exact wording of the spell in question. Which means it is struck first and it is just a barrier not an armor rating. Think of it as Deflector Sheilds over your armor. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 7 2004, 07:48 PM
Post
#7
|
|
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
What I'd like to know is why the armor spell doesn't layer like all other armor. As it stands I really dislike how you can have someone with Quickness 6 have 6/7 physical armor, then cast an Armor spell on him and have 13/14 armor with no combat pool or quickness penalties. Does anyone have any particular balance reasons why the Armor spell should get the layering advantages it gets?
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 7 2004, 07:49 PM
Post
#8
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
Because the layering rules were tacked on and they did little more than cut-and-paste spell descriptions from previous editions.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 7 2004, 07:49 PM
Post
#9
|
|||||
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
Er, this is the text for Physical Barrier, not Armor. :) |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Dec 7 2004, 07:52 PM
Post
#10
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 139 Joined: 19-September 04 From: Charleston, IL Member No.: 6,676 |
As quoted on the other thread...you have an old printing that is wrong. Check the errata. Nothing in the spell description about barriers or raising the effectiveness with successes. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Dec 7 2004, 07:52 PM
Post
#11
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 485 Joined: 25-October 04 Member No.: 6,789 |
That depends if you have an original work or not.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 7 2004, 07:57 PM
Post
#12
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
Fortunately, we're discussing the actual rules, not errors. So even if that is the description of Armor in your archaic print of the rules, it hasn't been the case for a long time. Including my (later?) FASA-printed copy that I have in my hands at this very moment.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 7 2004, 08:02 PM
Post
#13
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 108 Joined: 6-December 04 Member No.: 6,871 |
This is the description of the spell we have in our L3 book. It is also the one in the Shadowrun 3rd Edition Errata. If the spell effects stated that it summoned a magic combat suit that protected the caster or something I could understand APDS 1/2 it. Saying that it is armor of course it is 1/2ed is taking the easy way out. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 7 2004, 08:05 PM
Post
#14
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
Once again, APDS works against BARRIERS, too. Solid walls. Armor doesn't create some eldrith super defensive screen... it just creates a barrier identical in its ability to stave off attacks that's nearly identical to the armor you regualrly wear. It's not Immunity to Normal Weapons in any way, shape, or form. It's not even in the same ballpark beyond both being magical.
If anything, why the rules handle Armor and Barriers with a completely different set of rules is what should be in question. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 7 2004, 08:09 PM
Post
#15
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,010 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Not that they did it well, but the processes of making large holes in barriers and the processes of just getting an object through a barrier with enough energy left to have a party in someone's chest are fairly different and, at the lower-energy end of the spectrum, largely mutually exclusive.
~J |
|
|
|
|
Dec 7 2004, 08:14 PM
Post
#16
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
I'm not trying to suggest it would have been elegant or anything. It's just that the fact that the two sets of rules are so alien to one another is what tends to cause problems.
Having different effects based upon the Power of an attack and the Armor Rating of the opponent that was similar to those for Barrier Ratings would have probably gone a long way. Like if its less than half the Armor Rating, no effect. If it's half to full, it has a reduced effect. If the power is equal to or greater, it has the standard effect, and if it's more than double it... something something. :) (Not exactly in a rules-thinking mode at the moment, obviously.) |
|
|
|
|
Dec 7 2004, 08:23 PM
Post
#17
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 108 Joined: 6-December 04 Member No.: 6,871 |
I don't disagree with APDS working on physical barriers. It is in the nature of its design. I disagree with APDS working against a magical non-physical barrier. Where does it say Armor doesn't create a eldrith defensive screen? It says it creates a glowing energy field around the user. It doesn't say it creates a magical battlesuit that covers the user. Armor is obviously not solid, it doens't add to armor stacking and it doens't affect perception tests. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 7 2004, 08:26 PM
Post
#18
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,010 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Can you explain a way for armor to work the way it does that isn't vulnerable to APDS?
~J |
|
|
|
|
Dec 7 2004, 08:32 PM
Post
#19
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 108 Joined: 6-December 04 Member No.: 6,871 |
Same way it works now. Magic. :D Unless I'm totally missing out on the glowing energy fields protecting people. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 7 2004, 08:36 PM
Post
#20
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
Magic isn't immune to physical attacks. Especially when it's creating, yanno, a physical effect (even if it's described all weird). If it makes you feel better, think of it as an invisible sheath of armor that just happens to glow.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 7 2004, 08:43 PM
Post
#21
|
|||
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
...you burst into flames. IMO everything involving magic used in combat should have some provision for the mage suddenly bursting into flames. :) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 7 2004, 09:03 PM
Post
#22
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 108 Joined: 6-December 04 Member No.: 6,871 |
Seriously though it is is a magical glowing energy field. Saying it fuctions just like armor is cheaping magic. Sure your going to have a few cases where a someone learns armor at 20 and figures out a way to drop it on all their buddies. Either that character isn't balanced to start with and has a lot of possible vunerablities or your power gaming at a fairly high level and should be ready for it. If you just can't live without something being able to be able to pierce the armor spell then make it something relatable to MAGIC or let high technology items pierce it (Sort of an anti magic). But having a simple piece of lead automatically 1/2 a magical barrier is a bit much. Now if that bit of lead had some history behind it. Say used in a murder then recast by a talismonger the target might want to think about investing in some real world armor. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 7 2004, 09:11 PM
Post
#23
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,010 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Saying APDS doesn't work against the spell cheapens technology.
We can make statements like this all day long, if you want. ~J |
|
|
|
|
Dec 7 2004, 09:13 PM
Post
#24
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
APDS ammunition is not "a simple piece of lead". The penetrator is made of tungsten carbide (or a similar ultra-hard high density material) and shaped for maximum penetration of rigid materials. You can easily explain away the different ammunition effects on the Armor spell by saying that the spell basically just induces massive friction (or a similar force) on the bullet. If that's cheapening magic, then I bet you just hate the Elemental Manipulation spells. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 7 2004, 09:18 PM
Post
#25
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 108 Joined: 6-December 04 Member No.: 6,871 |
If armor was an Elemental Manipulation spell I wouldn't have this problem with it. It would clearly be using a physical material to protect the caster. Actually not a bad idea for some spells. Air and Earth make sense. Fire would probably just be Flame Aura. Water Armor? That might be stupid. If the spell was worded differently it wouldn't bother me. |
||
|
|
|
||
 |
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 29th May 2025 - 12:34 PM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.