Does the Armor spell count towards encumbrance, or not? I just realized that could prove problematic for a certain concept of mine (Medium milspec armor with an anchored Armor spell attached), and I can't seem to dig up my core book.

AFAIK, only worn armor counts towards encumbrance. But I'm away from books, so I can't really say for sure.

Checked my SR4A book, never mentions one way or the other :\
If I were running the game, I'd rule it does not count toward the encumbrance limit, but you should clarify with your GM.

The armor spell is just an energy field that surrounds you, it does in no way interact with anything you wear. IMHO, it should not count towards encumbrance... you will glow like a christmas tree anyway, so that's enough of a downside in my book.

-CJ

I'd say only worn armor counts; the following, for example, don't cause encumbrance:
- Troll dermal bone deposits
- Cyberlimb armor

It definitely doesn´t count to encumberance. I think in the errata or in the FAQ of the official homepage is the corresponding clarification.

While this clarification may be at those locations, it is actually not needed. The encumbrance rules explicitly only apply to worn armor. The spell, adept powers, or 'ware are not worn.

Hmmm...this is the old fight of RAW against RAI.^^ It is better to ask.

I'm not sure the cyberlimb armor doesn't count. Depending on how sane the GM is, of course.

Every rules entry about encumbrance references "worn armor".

I think that might be important.




-k

Sure, but there's RAW and then there's sanity. Armor spell is fine, though.

Anchored spells of any kind are kinda suspect, though. :/ Hmf.

I would also think if they intended to have spells/powers count for encumberance there would recoil for ranged, Physical effect spells; like Lightning Bolt. Or need of the scatter diagram for Lightning Ball.

I was almost sure that the spell text specifically said that it did not count towards encumbrance. I could be wrong.

Actually, this brings up a related point that I've been thinking about.

Which is that (for characters with anything but superlatively high Body) 'Increase [Body]' is better than Armor in every conceivable way.

For that matter, I fail to see how 'Increase Reaction' is not better than 'Combat Sense' in every conceivable way for characters with anything but superlatively high Reaction.

And if you have superlatively high Reaction/Body you don't need either spell.

I suppose you're ignoring the ability of armor to reduce P to S? It all depends, as you implied, on the precise circumstances.

I suppose you're ignoring the ability of Increase Body to let you wear exponentially more ARMOR (without encumbrance penalties).

Every point of Body increase is another die for Damage Resistance that can't be reduced by AP, and another two points of ballistic and impact armor you can wear without incurring encumbrance. i.e. one hit on an Increase Body test is the difference between Lined Coat + FFBA and Armor Jacket + FFBA. That's three extra dice right there and your Ballistic goes up by two for the purposes of reducing P to S.

And then there's the drain. Armor is (F/2) + 3. Increase Body is (F/2) -2. That certainly does not depend on the precise circumstances. Armor is a better spell to cast on your Body 11 Trolls (although why bother) and the like because literally casting Increase Body at a high enough Force becomes an issue, but for anything Body 10 or less (assuming a Magic of 5) you might as well just overcast Increase Body at Force 10 and soak the measly 3P Drain.

Did I mention that Increase Body adds CM boxes?

You didn't say anything about wearing more armor, so I didn't include it.

Yes, (Increase Body + a bunch of armor that you had handy) is better than (Armor spell all by itself). Like I said: circumstances. Here's one: you don't have a bunch of armor handy.

Increase Body + more armor + armor spell is better than all!

Increase Body is still better, it has much less drain? And the extra soak dice you get from it can never be taken away by any level of AP?

Did I mention that Increase Body adds CM boxes?

And it can't turn Physical to Stun. You're right; they're different spells, and they overlap, but it all depends on the situational needs.

Turning physical to stun is innately less important than taking less damage and having more health levels?

Increase Body has less drain. You can cast it at higher force and get more net hits and take less damage from drain than Armor while adding more dice to soak rolls that can't be reduced by AP. And it gives you more condition monitor boxes.

It doesn't matter if it's stun or physical because you aren't taking it. In fact, if you cast increase Body you WANT it to be physical because that is the track you are getting more boxes to.

A. Magic 5, Body 3 Mage In Lined Coat Casts Force 10 Increase Body: Lucky roll. Six Successes. Has to soak 3P Drain. +6 Soak Dice. +3 Physical CM Boxes.
B. Magic 5, Body 3 Mage In Lined Coat Casts Force 5 Armor: Lucky roll. Maxed out at five successes. Has to soak 5S Drain. +5 Soak Dice. +0 CM Boxes. Will be taking more stun on top of the 5S he probably didn't soak all of due to his higher armor rating.

And as the KICKER, if they are getting shot at with (say) a Sniper Rifle with APDS (-7 AP) A rolls 9 Dice, B rolls 7 Dice.

That's without the fact that it is really not that hard to have heavier armor on hand if you know you have the Increase Body spell and can sustain it.

Possibly. Possibly not. It depends.

What does it depend on?

Physical Damage can be restored by Heal and by First Aid. Stun Damage can be healed by...sleeping for several hours. Physical Damage is accrued by incoming attacks (which may not bypass your enhanced body + your current armor, or the extra armor that you may now wear). Stun Damage is accrued by incoming attacks if you have Armor sustained...plus the spells you are constantly casting.

You may not be casting these spells on a spellcaster, for one thing. Physical damage is *not* easier to heal than Stun, for another. People could also be using Trauma Dampers or Pain Editors, or Stims. It's a complex question; I don't understand why you feel the need to oversimplify it.

If you're up against tasers and knockout gas, then yes, Armor is inferior. If it's small arms fire, I'd rather shrug it down to Stun than take Physical damage I don't have to.

I'm certainly not (as I re-reiterate) saying that Armor is always better, or that Body is somehow bad. I'm saying that different things have different uses. I hardly think 5 Force against 10 Force is fair, nor is the example of an extremely specialized anti-armor weapon.

I'd also take issue with your blanket statement that if your Body is really high, you wouldn't even bother with Armor. You would, and unlike Increase Body, you *could*. Yet another relevant situational detail.

remember Increase body has to be cast at a force > your current stat.

Armor does not.

It is easier to cast 2 Force 4 spells, than it is to cast 1 force 8 spell.
2 Sustaining Foci at force 4, are easier to obtain than 1 Sustaining Foci at Force 8

Stim Patches don't heal Stun in SR4. They remove wound penalties. And also I don't know if you're even arguing in good-faith at this point.

Leave situational factors out of it. We are comparing the relative merits of two spells.

Here are the factors that make Increase Body better than Armor, once more.

Advantages of Increase Body:

1. It has MUCH less drain.
2. Bonus soak dice from Increase Body are unaffected by Armor Piercing.
3. It allows you to wear more armor, thus making Armor spell superfluous with a modicum of preparation.
4. It increases your condition monitor boxes.

Advantages of Armor:

1. More attacks will inflict Stun damage (which is, and this is certainly a topic for a separate thread, only arguably a good thing).

But even if we say that attacks inflicting Stun is INARGUABLY a good thing, it still seems pretty one-sided to me!



Did you notice that the drain of Increase Body was two lower at FORCE TEN than the drain of Armor was at FORCE FIVE? Because that was my point.



Up to Body 10 a Magic 5 character is looking at a measly three drain for casting Increase Body at Force 10. Casting Armor at Force 4 is two more drain than that.

the only downside is you can get jumped from the astral b/c of an active spell, but depending on your class its not that a big a deal.

That could happen from Armor too? Or not. Targeting physical characters from Astral is a real gray area for me. (I thought you had to be Astrally Perceiving to be spelled by an Astrally Projecting caster.)

@sabs
Well, this would be 2-4 if you are looking at a mage, so it is not a big deal.

@Neurosis

Well, first aid heals stun first! Thats quite important and the reasons it is such a good thing to play a mage/medic. Because stun is not a problem, because it is gone afte a couple hours. But physical must be healed if you do not want to rest several days.

Anything that is magically active (Active foci, sustained or Quickened spells) are a viable target for boring through as memory serves.
It just means that if your not magic stick to the activation items only.

Actually you are incorrect.

Or more specifically your brain is reminding you of SR2-3 rules that no longer apply to SR4.

Pageref?

Oh really? Thats cool, life just got way safer then. Is that a page reference for that?

not exactly.
They just never ever mention being able to target someone through a foci.
They are very specific on how you target someone with spells from the astral.

SR4A p183


Nowhere does it say in the foci rules that they can be used to target someone.
They are mentioned as having an astral form and can be taken on an astral journey if they are activated, but really that's it.

I certainly don't see anything about it in 4A. Which is pretty convincing.

Though you CAN target a Foci directly with a spell. I'm not sure what that does to the magician.

I guess it will come to down to GM interpretation of Astral Form. I know where my GM is gonna go. But i hope others are more merciful.

Neurosis, I'm the only one giving good faith here. Increase Body, as I've repeatedly said, is good. It is not categorically superior to Armor.

To me, the Armor spell is bad, and not for any numbers reason.

It puts a great big glowing "I'M A MAGE" sign on your back.





-karma

Oh come now, Kill the one the dress is SOP. We all love it.

I much prefer a high force Combat Sense spell, m'self.

Being able to chuck handfuls of dice to not get hit in the first place is nice.

And it doesn't have a visible component.



-karma

"Geek the mage!!!"



If you wish to argue this, account for the 4:1 advantages ratio I presented at the end of the last page.



Increase Reaction does the same thing and more for less drain and is just as invisible.

Unless you're much better at Detection than Health, which you might be. Or your Reaction is high, but you (quite understandably) want even more protection. Again, it depends. Why does everything have to be a blanket categorical statement? Try this: 'Increase Reaction is a better choice in many cases.'

The primary difference in Drain between Armor and Increase Body comes from Armor being LOS. Learn a T version of Armor.

Something that is better in most cases is better. It is not 'ALWAYS BETTER' but we may safely say that it is just plain 'better'. You would have to come up with some obscure, special cases (like being so much better at Detection than spell that it offsets the difference between Drain (F/2) - 2 and Drain (F/2) + 2) to come up with situations where the 'Increase' spells AREN'T better. For day-to-day use, assuming no mitigating situational factors, 'Increase Body' IS categorically better than armor.

This is true of Increase Reaction when compared to Combat Sense and of Increase Body when compared to Armor.

In other news, still want to see a PageRef about First Aid healing Stun.

Well, there's also the whole "no augmented cap" for combat sense and armor.

That is the first undeniably valid argument against my point I have seen, Mooncrow, and you did it one post.

*golfclap*

SR4A - page 252

Many, not necessarily most.

I don't want to get off on a personal invective, but is it necessary for you to include one or more smiley faces to punctuate each sentence, Yerameyahu? I am not sure what the intended effect is, but I think it might be having the opposite effect.

@Mooncrow: Thankee. Is this a change since SR4 or has it always been this way?

Hmm. It has always been this way. Fairly vast oversight on my part but doesn't actually effect my argument all that much.

First Aid could heal stun in SR4 as well.

You insult me, sir. I never use more than one per sentence, and it's hardly my fault if smiling annoys you.