 Critter Armor in Spell Resistance, It came up... [I]again[/I] |
  |
 Nov 30 2003, 02:08 PM
Post
#1
|
|
|
Runner  Group: Members Posts: 3,314 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Lisbon, Cidade do Pecado Member No.: 185  |
Right, every year or so this crops up in my game and I've already ruled on it, but I always bring it up on DSF to get other people's opinions on the subject. Normally the debate gets heated but it's almost always productive.
The issue that came up is: Does a Critter's natural (non-hardened) armor help it in a (Physical) Spell Resistance Test? I've ruled that it does, however there are obviously other possible interpretations. My reasoning is simple. We all know that worn armor doesn't reduce a Spell's Power during the (Physical) Spell Resistance Test, according to canon it is bypassed because it is not part of Target (or to be specific, it is not an integral part of the targeted aura). Accordingly - and I believe everyone agrees on this - a Troll's natural dermal armor (+1 to Body) does helps it resist Physical Combat Spells (he rolls that extra die). The same should hold true for a Street Samurai using implanted Dermal Armor (for which he paid for with his Essence). If both implanted and natural Dermal armor counts then why wouldn't Orthoskin. And to address the original issue: why wouldn't a (normal) armadillo's or rhino's (and yes, a dragon's) inate and integral armor do the same for them? |
 |
 
|
|
Nov 30 2003, 02:44 PM
Post
#2
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 266 Joined: 16-April 02 From: DC Member No.: 2,605 |
After a brief check through the rules I couldn't find anything. I would say no. Nothing except the natural body helps resist a physical spell, cyber would not help to defend against a spell, I'd probably say bio would. Armor would not help because the spell travels through the astral plane to hit the target, therefore the only armor that would help would be astral barriers. Does anyone else play this way regarding armor? What about defending with body from cyber/bio where?
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 30 2003, 02:47 PM
Post
#3
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
i wouldn't count orthoskin because the mechanic for orthoskin is different--rather than helping the body retain its own integrity, orthskin simply diffuses energy directed against it from outside. energy diffusion obviously doesn't help against physical combat spells, ergo orthoskin and natural armor don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 30 2003, 03:01 PM
Post
#4
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,314 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Lisbon, Cidade do Pecado Member No.: 185 |
Let's try to keep the natural and cyber-based issues separate for now. The reasoning for normal worn armor not working is explained above and if we address the former we might have an partial answer to the latter.
For those who have problems with what I've said above about dermal armor and natural armor, there is a clear reference in the books that it does count for damage resistance in Astral Combat against Astrally projecting attackers (who have no "physical" weapons); for instance a dual natured critter with natural armor uses it (SR3 p.176) and the same goes for a troll (SR3 p.162). Regarding implanted dermal armor and orthoskin I believe they work the same in the same circumstances as long as the character has paid Essence for them (by the same logic as an Astral perceiving mage with implanted Boosted Reflexes getting to use them when he rolls Initiative in Astral Combat) but I'm willing to put that aside for the moment to address the main issue - natural armor. My point is that a critter's natural armor is just the same as a troll's natural dermal armor (in fact the rules above say the same) just more effective... to make my point even clearer here's the obvious example: Let's take a troll with his natural Dermal Armor (which everyone seems to agree helps in the Physical Spell Resistance Test) and infect him with HMHVV and make him a Dzoo-Noo-Qua. One of the side-effects of the infection is that his osseous dermal deposits harden even further (in game mechanics this actually gives him Ballistic/Impact armor - and Hardened to boot - rather than a simple Body boost). So... all of a sudden he's even tougher but he loses his innate protection because it got better? Remember that we're talking about something which is an integral part of the critter's body and as such is part of it's "aura" (as opposed to "bypassable" worn armor which isn't). This it's skin/bone/hid/scales. It is integral to it's Body (hence the joint Body/Armor rating btw). I've already established that according to the rules if I was astrally projecting and hitting the Dzoo-noo-Qua above with my Sword Focus it would reduce the Power of my (non-physical) Astral weapon attack by it's natural Impact Armor because it is (a) natural and (b) an integral part of the critter's body. So why wouldn't natural armor (representing a critter's innate toughness or inborn protection) help a Critter reduce the damage of a Physical Combat spell? |
|
|
|
|
Nov 30 2003, 03:30 PM
Post
#5
|
|
|
Chrome to the Core Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,152 Joined: 14-October 03 From: ::1 Member No.: 5,715 |
A critter's armor would, because it is part of the aura and "living" just like the rest of it. However, a critter recieves B/I, correct? Which does a spell do? Ballistic, or Impact? If neither, the armor does not affect it.
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 30 2003, 05:36 PM
Post
#6
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,314 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Lisbon, Cidade do Pecado Member No.: 185 |
You do have a point there.
However my players and I thought that whether it's Ballistic or Impact is irrelevant since Critter armor has a single stat and that is what we'd be using to reduce Power (since it's also irrelevant when it comes into play in the case of an Astral Combat attack - ie. natural armor still reduces a Charisma-powered punch). |
|
|
|
|
Nov 30 2003, 05:39 PM
Post
#7
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 305 Joined: 2-March 03 Member No.: 4,188 |
Ah, your kung-fu is strong. Your verbal prestige is great.
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 30 2003, 05:53 PM
Post
#8
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
Dermal Armor specificially boosts a troll's Body for purposes of resisting damage. Note how it never lowers the Force of a spell, nor the Ballistic or Impact ratings of other attacks.
Sure, when a troll becomes a Dzoo (and what were they thinking when they came up with that name), it is weird that they suddenly lose the bonus Body dice for their dermal armor. Consider that a fuck-up by the game designers. If anything, a critter's armor should work more like Dermal Armor for a troll, not actual armor. OR it should work as actual armor instead of a Body boost (which is what it should have been to begin with in my humble opinion). It shouldn't grant them both benefits. So just decide which one you prefer and go that route. If you go with a Body boost for natural armor, it helps against damaging spells but doesn't lower target numbers. If you go the actual armor route, it functions as ballistic/impact armor and lowers target numbers (except for Force and similar-based TNs). If you allow it to do both, you should do the same with regular armor, too. I don't care if it's a rhino's natural hide or a guard's security armor, armor's armor in my book. Regardless, NEITHER helps against Spell Resistance (outside of spells like Elemental Manipulations which have their own special rules for such things) beyond adding Body dice in regards to Dermal Armor. |
|
|
|
|
Nov 30 2003, 05:55 PM
Post
#9
|
|||
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
So does Mystic Armor and the Armor spell. Are you now going to allow both of those to help in regards to Spell Defense, too? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 30 2003, 06:40 PM
Post
#10
|
|||||||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,314 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Lisbon, Cidade do Pecado Member No.: 185 |
Both are noted as not working against Spells and neither is actually part of the critter/metahuman.
For the record, I've ruled that it decreases the Force/Power of Physical Combat spells as it would any other attack. I've referred above why according to the rules worn armor and innate armor are different and why the former is not applicable though the latter might be. This is underlined by the multiple references with regards to the latter carrying over to the Astral while the former does not. You must concede there is more in common between a troll and a rhino's natural armor than either of them with a guard's security. The distinction becomes even more marked when you consider elephants and sharks have natural armor ratings because of their tough skins not unlike a troll's dermal deposits. Even if you fail to allow for a difference between the game effects of a security guard's armor and a rhino's, in terms of the in game explanation as to why worn armor does not always apply it is clear. One is not an integral part of the "target" aura and the other is. A precedent is clear in Astral Combat (dual/Perceiving beings' worn armor does not carry over to the Astral, while natural armor does). The issue lies in the reasoning (not the mechanic because there isn't one) and if whether or not it applies equally (and for the same in game logic) in the case of a Physical Spell Resistance Tests since Critter natural armor is integral to its body. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Nov 30 2003, 06:48 PM
Post
#11
|
|||
|
Mr. Quote-function Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 1,312 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Somewhere in Germany Member No.: 1,376 |
*erm* Adept powers are considered "natural" (or why would increased attribute be considered when calculating karmic cost of attribute increases?) and they are most definitely part of the Adept, since they dirctly affect the Adept's physiology |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 30 2003, 06:53 PM
Post
#12
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
Actually, you're quite wrong. Shadowrun 3rd Edition page 170 describes the Mystic Armor power of an adept. For all intents and purposes, it functions just like a critter's armor (even to the point of toughening up their skin), but it only provides Impact (instead of Ballistic and Impact) benefits. NO comment is made about the Force/Power of combat spells, because combat spells are not affected by ANY armor in the game.
I challenge you to provide a single solid instance where this is the case, keeping in mind that Astral Combat has nothing to do with combat spells (for example, you can use mundane weapons to extend your reach in Astral Combat). Astral Armor critter power? No mention of affecting combat spells. Critter Armor? No mention of affecting combat spells. Dermal Armor? No mention of affecting the Power/Force of combat spells. Standard Armor? No mention of affecting combat spells. Hell, even Immunity to Normal Weapons has no effect on combat spells. Feel free to rationalize it all away and house rule against it yourself, but don't try to pretend that the rules even suggest that's how it's supposed to be, because that simply isn't the case. Combat spells, as mentioned previous, imbue the target with mana to do damage. Armor has no meaning against it, save that Dermal Armor (which is where the rules are messed up, not the other way around) provides a few extra Body dice. |
|
|
|
|
Nov 30 2003, 06:58 PM
Post
#13
|
|||
|
Senior GM Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 1,406 Joined: 12-April 03 From: Redmond, WA Member No.: 4,442 |
To me, this seems a very strange question, as I have composed my mental image of how Combat Spells work by the very fact that armor is ignored. Asking me to consider including Armor in certain circumstances would force me to rethink my mental image. Ponder ... ponder ... ponder ...
No thanks. I'll keep my mental image: Natural armor is a toughness at the surface that prevents external attacks from getting to the muscle, tendons, bones and vital organs. Combat Spells directly attack the muscle, tendons, bones and vital organs from the inside. Body attribute is involved and Critter Armor rating is not. But I appreciate the question. Pondering our reality is useful from time to time. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 30 2003, 07:14 PM
Post
#14
|
|
|
Chrome to the Core Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,152 Joined: 14-October 03 From: ::1 Member No.: 5,715 |
As to the point of the Dzoo losing the extra body due, they do gain something called Magical Guard (Self Only). Spell Resistance dice, except they have to roll it every time. No matter the circumstances. Not only do they get to roll that, but they get to roll their +6 Body for staging as well. Yummy, huh?
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 30 2003, 07:19 PM
Post
#15
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,314 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Lisbon, Cidade do Pecado Member No.: 185 |
I stand corrected and apologize. I was thinking of Astral Armor. Mystic Armor does indeed provide critter-like armor and under my (house)ruling it would apply in this case.
Well since you're essentially ruling out Critters and metahumans as examples (since they're the issue here) an example where Armor does count against spells is when you cast spells against Vehicles (SR3 p.150). It's more of a stretch than I like but you did say any, didn't you? I've never equated Astral Combat with Combat Spells. What I did say is that the published reasons why natural armor applies to Resisting Damage in Astral Combat stand just as well for Physical Spell Resistance (i.e. because it's an integral part of their body, just like vehicles above).
Correct. Then again its irrelevant since it "[...]does not protect that being in anyway from physical attacks[...]" and "[...]Dual-natured creatures recieve no benefit from this power, unless they are astrally projecting[...]" which in turn also renders them beyond the scope of Physical Combat Spells.
That's the whole point of this discussion isn't it.
Implanted or innate? Regardless, both add to the character's toughness (Body) when resisting Physical Combat spells.
You may be right since I can't find a direct reference. The best I can offer until I can find an SR3 reference is that was mentioned as not functioning against spells.
Obviously. As the very name would suggest it only provides Immunity to Normal Weapons.
I am suggesting that it makes sense according to the rules.
You seem to be avoiding the reason why Dermal Armor (and any other Body-enhancing cyber btw) does applies according to the rules. I agree with you completely about how "Combat spells [...] imbue "the target with mana to do damage", my point is that the armor is part of that target, not an add-on. The being is tough by nature. An elephant or shark for instance. This is a living breathing extension of the critter. Unlike an armored jacket. |
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Nov 30 2003, 07:25 PM
Post
#16
|
|||
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
The major point you're missing with your rational (about astral combat providing physical benefits) is that Combat Spells aren't ignored by physical armor, either. So why should it suddenly work if you have astral armor? It's a bizarre leap of logic there.
Wait, so now you're trying to say that Astral Armor provides a benefit against Mana-based Combat Spells? If so, why doesn't a rhino's hide help against Physical Combat Spells? If it works on one plane, it should work on the other. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 30 2003, 08:01 PM
Post
#17
|
|||||||||||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,314 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Lisbon, Cidade do Pecado Member No.: 185 |
That statement doesn't make sense Doc. I never said astral combat provided physical benefits (whatever that means). I said physical natural armor applies in Astral Combat (SR3 pages 162 and 176). I also said that the in game reasons why such natural armor applies to Astral attacks would justify it working against Combat spells (i.e. it is integral to the being's body and aura not an external protection). I won't even start with the second part of the statement; it doesn't make much sense. Would you mind clarifying what you mean by "Combat Spells aren't ignored by physical armor, either" since it is unclear?
No. Did I say that? Don't think so... I simply stated the reason (actually two of them) why Astral Armor would not apply to Physical Combat spells and the issue being discussed.
Not entirely sure what your point is here but it seems to be exactly I've been trying to say. The issue I've been trying to address is that a rhino's, elephant's, shark's, dzoo-noo-qua's or troll's natural armor should do exactly that. At no point did I limit this to Awakened or dual-natured critters. Even you accept that troll's get a bonus for their dermal armor when resisting spells (in the form of a Body die), why wouldn't an elephant, shark, or rhino get the same by virtue of their natural toughness (in the form of natural armor rating)? Apparently, your position hinges on the assumption that there is some inherent difference between a troll's dermal deposits and a critter's natural armor because it is referred to as "dermal armor" and not simply as "armor" and/or that there is no in game difference between "natural armor" and "worn armor".
I didn't want to extrapolate that far ahead yet, but it is one possibility. It is however an even more complex issue than the basic one present above, because it involves the use of a power which probably wouldn't be covered by the "natural armor" precedent. |
||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
Nov 30 2003, 08:24 PM
Post
#18
|
|||||||||||||
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
Except that it only apples in Astral Combat when dealing with dual-natured creatures because, again, Astral Combat is nothing like Combat Spells. You'll note that they also use their Strength, Body, and Quickness rolls and, as previously mentioned, weapons (used by anyone) still gain the benefits of their Reach when used in that fashion, too. Astral Combat != Combat Spells. They have about as much to do with each other as apples and oranges do. Sure they both have relations to the Sorcery skill just like apples and oranges are both fruits, but that's about it.
Anything paid for by Essence is a part of a creature's natural body, too, at least as far as magic is concerned. So why doesn't Dermal Sheathes, Orthoskin, or Cyberlimbs with Body Plating work in the same fashion, eh? Also, despite your claims that the rationale is the same, it isn't. Astral Combat relies on attacks that get past a creature's defenses. You have to punch through armor, skin, and tissue with every blow you make in Astral Combat just like you do in physical combat. Combat Spells, however, COMPLETELY IGNORE ARMOR regardless of what plane you're fighting on. They always have, always will, and never has an exception been made except in the case of vehicles (which is another discussion entirely). Combat Spells have always done their damage by infusing the target with mana from within, completely bypassing all external defenses. And, once again, the only bizarre exception to that is a troll's Dermal Armor... and the rules for that are, also once again, what are messed up, not every other rule in the game. Occam's Razor should be in full effect regarding that. If anything, the Dzoo is an example of the designers heading in the right direction to correct the problem.
:please: I make typos and think faster/slower than I type sometimes. Sue me. You know what I meant; Combat Spells ignore physical armor.
Yes, you implied it with your context by stating that Astral Armor is beyond the scope of physical Combat Spells (and thereby, fully within the scope of mana Combat Spells). If you didn't mean to say that, I don't even know why you bothered to comment at all on that particular point.
The point is, they don't do exactly that. There's not a single instance, or even a hint of a instance, that this is the case. The rules have been clear; Combat Spells ignore armor. Period. The sole exception is the faulty Dermal Armor of trolls which, again, is the one that breaks the rules. To put it simple, SR3 page 178 "Category" ends any possible arguments. "The energy of the [combat] spell is channeled directly into the target, damaging it from within. Combat spells ignore the effects of armor and non-magical, external protections." You might try to argue that a critter's natural armor somehow mysteriously counts as "magical external protection," but that's just hogwash.
No, it's not a complex issue. It's a simple one. Armor doesn't work against Combat Spells. End of story. :) |
||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
Nov 30 2003, 09:24 PM
Post
#19
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,314 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Lisbon, Cidade do Pecado Member No.: 185 |
Incorrect, or at least incomplete, granted it does only apply in Astral Combat but it applies to anyone capable of Astral Perception including who get it at Chargen, as a result of SURGE, as a result of cybermancy and a number of other situations. However I'll concede your point that it applies only to situations of Astral Combat.
Yes and no. A dual natured Dzoo-Noo-Qua, Hell Hound or Greater Armadillo (or any number of other critters) can attack and defend in Astral Combat from strictly Astrally Projecting assailants using Sorcery as a combat skill and attacking unarmed. In which case the natural armor still works to resist even though there is no physical component at all involved in the attack.
For your benefit I'll reiterate what I've said above - I don't (and haven't) equated the two (and challenge you to point out where I did). What I have said is - the in game explanation as to why natural armor applies in Astral Combat while worn armor doesn't, is similar in several respects (to the point that a precedent might be inferred) to the canon reasons why a troll's dermal armor helps and a security guards does not against Combat Spells.
Really? I wonder if you actually read back you wouldn't find that's exactly what I suggested as a consequence of basic premise? Although I also think you'll find I suggested that discussing that particular aspect of the overall issue would be easier if the basic point was resolved.
I am inclined to agree with you about the Astral Combat aspect and am glad you agree about vehicles. Tentatively I will concede that SR3's phrasing doesn't leave much leeway for interpretation.
I agree with you as to how it functions. However the point I've been attempting to address is that natural armor is not an external defense. Let's try to take this apart - I'm assuming that you agree that a Power Bolt doing Deadly Damage to a being does so by infusing the entire target body with a powerful manifestation of damaging mana fo some sort: the heart, the stomach, the bones, the brain and the skin, everything gets damaged at the same time (it isn't an "explosion" from the center outward, you target the "whole body"). If that is the case (again, assuming you agree), it means there is no distinction between soft and hard bits: lungs and bones - or for the sake of this debate - spleen and tough hide (ie. natural armor [or, just to make it clear, Orthoskin as well]). In which case it is logical that tougher skin/hide/scales (ie. natural armor) make the overall body harder to damage just like a troll's dermal deposits - or any number of Body-enhancing cyber and bio mods (see below). The end effect is that Armor would help the Resistance Test.
Yes, it was implied, however I did not say it and made it clear I was counterarguing each individual statement you made. Coming out and saying it would mean I had established a valid assumption which I hadn't/haven't accomplished.
It is not entirely true that trolls are the exception. A number of GMs - I'll even venture saying the majority - will allow players to roll their Augumented Body rating (be it enhanced by implanted bio, cyber or drugs) when resisting Physical Spells.
No, actually I've been consistently arguing that a critter's armor is an non-magical, internal protection. The fact that natural armor is an integral aspect of a critter's Body. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Nov 30 2003, 09:45 PM
Post
#20
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 7,116 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,449 |
You can try and justify it all you want, but if you rule that a critter's natural impact and ballistic armor has an effect on Combat Spells, you are creating a house rule. If natural armor was meant to have any effects beyond reducing the power of impact and ballistic attacks, then the rules would have said so. They would not have left something so important for people to infer from the rules. It's pretty simple, actually. Armor that increases the Body Attribute helps to resist physical spells that are resisted with the Body Attribute. Armor that gives impact and ballistic ratings only adds half of the impact rating to resist damaging manipulation spells. And neither type of armor helps at all against mana spells - which are the spells you are likeliest to use against something like a rhino or a dzoo-noo-qua (although with the latter, it will still be tough, since their Magical Guard power is effective against all magical attacks).
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 30 2003, 10:06 PM
Post
#21
|
|||||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,314 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Lisbon, Cidade do Pecado Member No.: 185 |
I'll concede the issue on the basis that the rules would have addressed the exception especifically by now. However I will note again that this natural armor works perfectly well against completely non-physical attacks (as described above).
This is the distinction which doesn't make sense and which brought up the debate in my group. Have a look at any critter's attributes in the main book or Critters. Armor is not separate (and doesn't even have an Armor notation like it did in some SR2 books) , it is under the Body Attribute which I took to mean it reflected the fact that it is integral to the critter's Body Attribute (not unlike a troll's or human's augumented Body Rating, and although admittedly this has a different annotation). Furthermore the simple logic that Armor that increases Body Attribute helps while others don't, doesn't stand up very well to increasing Body via Cyberlimbs or even certain types of bone-lacing, not to mention the fact that a strict interpretation like Doc Funkenstein's means the fact that it is Armor disqualifies it from having an effect in either situation. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Nov 30 2003, 10:45 PM
Post
#22
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
Strict intreptation? Yes, I can see how reading "Combat Spells ignore armor" is such a strict and apparently abhorant reading of that rule. Apparently they meant the exact opposite. Because there's just no way "Combat Spells ignore armor" can possibly mean "Combat Spells ignore armor." That's just crazy talk, apparently. :silly:
Especially when compared to an argument about how a dzoo or rhino's armor is actually "non-magical, internal protection" as opposed to the external protection it obviously is -- oh I'm sorry, that I thought it was, based upon apparently erroneous reason and common sense -- which is quite clearly ignored by Combat Spells. :please: |
|
|
|
|
Nov 30 2003, 10:58 PM
Post
#23
|
|||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,314 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Lisbon, Cidade do Pecado Member No.: 185 |
As should be obvious from the quote preceeding it, I meant to imply that your interpretation was "stricter" than Glyph's since he - like I - apparently believes that at the very least Body-enhancing types of armor (bio, cyber, magical enhancement) do count while a "strict" reading of the rules would contradict even that. I've already pointed to exceptions to the "strict" reading of the rule that "Combat Spells ignore armor": the troll's Dermal armor and a vehicle's armor. I believe that most people will admit they follow Glyph's "less strict" interpretation as well.
I'm sorry you don't agree with me. Personally I happen to think 4-9 cms of hardened outer flesh is part of the body rather than something external. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 30 2003, 11:02 PM
Post
#24
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
Point to one example where I said a troll's dermal armor doesn't help. I'll save you the trouble -- I never did. I did say that it's the problem in the rules, not combat spells ignoring armor. But yes, let's instead infer that every other rule and commentary on how Combat Spells and armor work is the one that's incorrect, not a troll's Dermal Armor. Good call.
As for vehicle armor, that's an entirely different discussion that has little rational bearing on this one. |
|
|
|
|
Nov 30 2003, 11:08 PM
Post
#25
|
|
|
Senior GM Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 1,406 Joined: 12-April 03 From: Redmond, WA Member No.: 4,442 |
Long ago I noticed that awakened critters were way too easy (in a game-balance sense) for an astral magician to take out with spells. They just aren't enough opposition for our teams. Since they are no challenge, the players don't get any sense of accomplishment from defeating them. I like Synner's idea of making them harder to affect with Combat spells, but I'll probably do it for both Mana and Physical spells. I think making a house rule for this will increase the enjoyment my players have with the game. Perhaps I'll just increase the TN to affect them by half-essence, or by half-impact armor. I won't change mundane critters ... just awakened ones.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 20th April 2024 - 03:52 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.