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?

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?

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.

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?

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.

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).

Ah, your kung-fu is strong. Your verbal prestige is great.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

It sounds like combat spells should ignore all forms of armor then, including dermal armor.

And I agree that it should. But as far as the rules are concerned, Dermal Armor (despite it's name) doesn't function like armor to begin with (armor doesn't improve Body on anything else as far as I know), so it's no surprise that it does here, too. Dermal Armor is where the problem lies, not armor on everything else.

But things like dermal armor, dermal sheathing, and bone lacing add to the Body Attribute - the character essentially has a cybered Body Attribute. Combat spells don't have anything specific to say about cybered Attributes, but for spells such as Decrease Cybered Reflexes, the modified Attribute is used to resist the spell. The only "official" statement in the rules is on pg. 283 of the main book, where it talks about dermal armor (emphasis mine):

All spells that target one being create an alignment in astral space between the caster and the castee. Said alignment brings their auras into place together, and the mage sends a jolt of mojo through to the other guy. The spell grounds through his astral form into physical, thus get around the armor, and sending the Fireball straight into him. He resists the damage with unaugmented Body (Which, IIRC, includes Bioware and anything Magical), nothing from any Dermal, Cyberware, or Armor.

Critter Armor is the same way. It is just hardened skin. Now, if they have Mystic Armor or Magical Guard, that can be used. Not armor. Armor is just having something there to protect you from mundane happenings/elemental effects that did not directly happen to you (Blast, for instance).

Zazen: I guess the question then becomes "How do you resolve the apparent contradiction?" To me, I look at the description of combat spells: "Combat spells ignore the effects of armor and non-magical, external protections," and I interpret it as implying external armor, rather than dermal armor, despite using the general term "armor".

The other option would be to say that the magic rules supercede the other statement. I prefer the first option, though. All that I have to do is interpret a sentence as having a narrower implied meaning. If I take the second approach, I have to contradict the sentence describing how dermal armor works. You are right, though. The two statements do contradict each other.


btw, tanka, do you have any rules reference where unaugmented Body is specified? I couldn't find any.

Or you could look at it as being exactly what it says.

Combat spells ignore armor, with any exceptions being listed appropriately (which is the normal way that Shadowrun deals with exceptions to the general rule). Dermal Armor ignores the canon ruling, as it is the only one that actually lists such an excetion to the general rule.

That assumes that the ruling for combat spells is a "general rule" and that the dermal armor rule is an "exception".

If I call the dermal armor rule a "general rule" and the combat spell rule the "exception", then I end up with the opposite conslusion.

There is nothing to tell us which one supercedes the other.

if it adds body, it's effective against combat spells. if it reduces power, it's not effective. none of the quotes i've seen here have convinced me that the 'line' is drawn any other way.

There is nothing to say that the line is drawn the way you describe, either. In fact, the only way you can say that is if you say that Dermal Armor is not armor.

Dermal Armor is not armor. it's called armor, but it works completely differently from every other type of 'armor' in the game except Body Plating and Dermal Sheath. odd man out: Dermal Armor and the like are not armor.

Ahh, but now you must show me where armor is defined in such a way as to exclude body-enhancing armors.

The main book goes on to specifically quote what type of armor is avoided by combat spells. "All combat spells work by damaging the target directly, bypassing physical armor and other non-magical forms of protection." (Pg. 191) Critter armor seems like its physical to me, so it should not impact combat spells. The only way I can see arguing against this is if you want to argue that dermal armor and critter armor is somehow magical in nature.

Namer18

Dermal armor is very specificly allowed to negate the flechette effect. In fact, I'd argue that since it's listed specificly there that dermal armor doesn't normally act as armor at all.