Critter Armor in Spell Resistance, It came up... [I]again[/I] Options Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic Download this topic Subscribe to this forum Display Modes Outline Switch to: Standard Switch to: Linear+

[Synner]

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?