Just what the topic says...does this work?

Yes, but it doesn't do what you want it to. It makes the physical item hard to break, as a barrier. It doesn't increase the wearer's personal armor rating. Depending on the GM, this isn't worthless: hiding behind a wall *does* protect you, after all.

It would also make the armor more rigid. At best, the increased armor would add to the encumbrance. At worst, you wouldn't be able to move in it.

It says it increases the Armor and Structure rating of an item. I understand that pretty clearly refers to barriers, but what would you consider the armor and structure of an armor vest? And wouldn't that vest offer more protection to anyone wearing it?

There's space for abuse, but this isn't like Mystic Armor. You still have a to figure out a way to move around in that armor.

My instant knee-jerk reaction to this is "absolutely not". The reinforce spell is pretty clearly about making objects more resistance to damage, where as the question wants the wearer of the armour to be more resistant to armour.

That said:

• The armour spell is a sustained and adds to impact and ballistic armour, but doesn't add to encumbrance
• I wouldn't object to a variation of the armour spell, that was sustained, and adds to impact and ballistic armour, and does add to encumbrance, for 1 drain code less
• You could easily call that "reinforce armour", and it would probably be F/2+2 instead of the reinforces F/2+1.

I think that trying to limit it by "only when I am wearing armour" isn't much of a limitation (when are shadowrunners not wearing armour...I think some of mine try and wear it in the shower: or at least have ballistic shower curtains...paranoid??). You might be able to get another point of drain off though by restricting the maximum benefit to half the existing armour you cast it on (restricting it to value of the worn armour isn't much of a restriction, and this brings the spell in line with skill and attribute buffs).

This would give you:

That is the point. The description says it "hardens" items and armor is an item. But it doesn not say that it makes it less flexible, more heavy etc. It doesn´t change the molecular structure and changes one material into another.

Edit: and by the way, if this would work, i am absolutely going to abuse this spell as much as i can. ^^

how hard would it be to write a spell that does what he wants by default? And could you use reinforce on another mage's barrier spell?

You mean, a version of Armor that can only be cast on worn armor? :/ It seems odd for the normal 'theme' of SR magic, but yeah? I feel like you'd just use the existing Armor spell.

Nope, it works on objects. Hmm. Are there any spells that work on spells in that fashion (modifying them)?

Yup. and can be made permanent besides

"Permanent" effects in Shadowrun are almost always the result of transforming one thing into another, then the magic going away.

Like you get healed, and then the magic fades but you stay healed. Or you get your clothes altered, then the magic fades but the clothes stay altered.

You will generally not see any sort of permanent spell that leaves behind an ongoing magic effect.

So, to be permanent, an armor-enhancing spell would have to actually alter the armor into something tougher. At which point you have to ask, "why not make armor out of that tougher stuff to begin with?"



-k

Yeah, the question is iffy enough before something crazy like, 'and permanent besides'. And without that, there's no reason not to just use the Armor spell already.

The Reinforce spell would indeed increase the armor value of a item (regardless of what item it is as long as it has a Armor value), however same thing as having a Spirit possess/inhabit said item would increase the encumbrance (due to the value hitting that magic number above bodyx2). Depending on your character this may not matter as much. RAW is friendly in this regrade allowing for the addition. Although as Yerameyahu correctly said (and i hate to say this) a plain Armor spell would be better, simply cast it a few times and let it stack up. Since it is a bonus magical in nature it would not count for encumbrance.


It doesn't actually do this, I'm not sure where you got it from. Fluffwise I suppose that would be correct but as per the mechanics this does nothing.

As for the sustaining there are plenty of options to keep it around depending on your resources.

Possibly, he meant that increasing Structure naturally makes things more rigid. It's a reasonable assumption, but it's probably true that Structure is more like 'toughness', so that some truly advanced material could have a high Structure *and* flexibility.

You are correct structure is just the objects condition moniter. A fancy way to say HP or LP, while it's true the more robust materials in the game have a high structure and are rather inflexible, the Reenforce spell does not actually do that. In this case you could have cotton and is harder than steel but still soft,warm, and flexible as normal cotton. Remeber IT'S MAGIC!

One difference is that the armor spell puts a glowing aura around the subject, instantly marking him out from the others in his team and the surroundings. A reinforcement would not single him out that way.

Are you sure Armor spells can be stacked?

Ask Neraph. He has an argument that the RAW doesn't say they can't, basically. Personally, I use 'identical effects don't stack', but it's really a GM call. There is potential for abuse with the right 'tactics', but it's not too bad in 'normal' play.

Does Armor actually make you glow, and if so, why wouldn't Reinforce?

The armor spell description says, "This spell creates a glowing field of magical energy around the subject...". Reinforce doesn't say anything like that.

Cool, thanks. I never use either, so I wasn't sure if it was a rule or what. Are there rules for how that 'glowing field' affects Perception tests?

I don't think there is anything that specifically mentions a visibility modifier for the armor spell, but ... some guy walking down a back alley at midnight, surrounded by a 'glowing field' has got to have a little trouble being sneaky.

The main thing about that isthat Shadowrun is a game of addition/subtraction. The rules say each casting of the armor spell inreases your ballistic and impact armor by +X/+X. The rule you mentioned was a specific rule from dungeons and dragons and thus does not apply here.
Another part of Shadowrun is that the game will specifically tell you when something doesn't stack, not the otherway around. Take Trama Dampaners and a Platlet Factory as a good example. In some situations even though the plus or minus will be culmiative you might have a impractical situation where you can take multiple of something but you won't get any added benefit such as taking more than one pain editor.

Yes, but those are different effects stacking. You can't have 2 Trauma Dampers, yes? You can't have 2 bone lacings? I guess you could have two armor jackets, but can you have 2 helmets? What does 2 doses of a drug do? (Doesn't stack the bonuses.) Like that. I like your Pain Editor example, but it's different: it's a non-numeric effect (and I wouldn't let someone get 2 of them anyway).

The rule I mentioned is a general rule for many games; if it's in D&D, good.

I don't have the time to answer all your examples but to touch upon one thing. Are you sure you cannot have 2 of every item you mentioned? Can you cite a page number or example?
That's exactly my point, if we are going by straight rules here, then the rules simply state you pay X amount of Nyuen and Essence and you get a Bone lacing effect. I'll take 3!
Obviously this is far fetched but unless your GM says no you have that option.
Touching upon my example let's replace the Pain Editor with Ruth poly Coat which gives a -4 to see the target, this item takes up only 1'capacity in armor and in a basic vest can get you -24 all together. It's the same situation in which the numbers will stack but getting there is strange, you could justify or condemnit in any number of ways but the basic mechanics allow for it.
Also while that is generally a good rule to go by no matter the game you still need to be aware that would be your houserule and not something that the game actually goes by.

I think you're making my point for me: you obviously *can't* have multiple Rutheniums, nor stack their bonus.

You have two options: assume that you can't have 2 muscle augmentations, 2 Wires-1s, 2 helmets, 2 ruthenium coatings (in which case the game functions as intended and as played), or you can say "the book doesn't say I can't" (in which case you have a moral victory and a broken game). You can see how the latter is utterly insane.

You're not seriously suggesting this are you??

Yes he is, thats just how he rolls

It's funny because it's true

Well I hope you and your GM enjoy your game. You should be aware of course that the game you are playing isn't the game that the rest of us are. If you are in any doubt about that count the number of people that disagree with you, and the number that agree.

I see you've missed my point in it's entirety. I'm pointing out that yes, the rules are badly written and allow for all sorts of shenanigans, but no you shouldn't play like that because it's fairly stupid.
It's important to understand the difference of how it works and the ideal play method, so you can make discerning choices going forward and has a greater understanding of the game as a whole.

Common sense is not common unfortunately, however if you can provide factual information (including page numbers and references) as to why you cannot put 6 poly coats in armor and have it add up then I will be glad to say that I am wrong.

I hate that saying. Common sense is perfectly common, because no one plays the game that way. That's exceedingly common.

Anyway, we were considering the stackability of Armor (though, the question has certainly been addressed before). As it stands, the vast majority of modifications (armor, 'ware, electornics, weapons, and vehicles) are not able to be applied more than once. There are a few exceptions, and that's exactly what they are: specific exceptions to a general rule. We all know that; we can get a (tiny) chuckle out of noting that 'hey, the rules don't actually say it', but that's the extent of it. It's only funny once.

Armor (spell) represents a slightly complicated question, because there *are* armor stacking rules, and it's magic; still, I think the simplest answer is 'no, can't stack identical effects'. In this *specific* case, it's probably not abusive to allow the spell to stack, but it's just more coherent for everyone to follow the general rule.

Well said

Honestly, Shadowrun is a bit schizophrenic sometimes about number stacking.

Sometimes the rules state "these options stack together", as if the default is that they don't normally stack.

Other times, the rules state "These option do not stack", as if the default is that they DO normally stack.

When setting the base rules, there really should have been an actual stated default. Like "Numbers do not stack unless an exception is specifically stated as stacking." But there isn't.

One very good addition to the 3rd edition of The Game That Gives You Cancer was the idea of named bonuses and specific stacking rules. They were put in because the previous edition having a glaring problem with everything stacking and ending with some ridiculous results. Granted, they later weakened this concept by putting in way too many exceptions and bonus types, but the core idea was sound.

Eh. I guess this is just one item on the small mountain of stuff that "should have been done".




-k

Yeah, it is dangerous in SR4 to use the logic that, 'if they're specifying it doesn't stack, the norm must be stacking', etc. Instead, just take all such descriptions as friendly clarifications, without reading into it.

That's how math works Yerameyahu, specifically, Addition and Subtraction.

That's not how math works. The assumption that a specification implies that the default is different is a linguistic strategy, nothing more. (Albeit, a fascinating and useful one. Google 'Gricean Maxims'; this one would be 'relation' or 'relevancy'.)

The SR4 rulebooks make it very clear, however, that you *can't* trust the SR4 books to follow that convention. There are many cases in which specification is nothing more than reiteration or clarification, and cannot be used to back-construct a general rule… without breaking the game, that is.

That only underlines that the rules for Shadowrun are strange, it doesn't underline your point that the rules are vague and must have a baseline. A simple example would be casting Armor on yourself multiple times or Combat Sense multiple times. That's not saying that the spells stack, because the basic rules say so, they stack because those specific spells will add with each other based on how they are worded. The armor spell specifically is not mutually exclusive and really none of the spells are, hence my point.

Using FFBA as a great example we can take a typical shirt of 0/0 armor and add on a full cover FFBA of 6/2. Now because this particular item is worded in a very specific way you can take your shirt of 0/0 and "equip" 5 FFBA's getting a total armor value of 30/10 (which counts as 15/5). This is ridiculous only because its hard to imagine someone wearing 5 skin tight outfits with ballistic fiber. However you can do this because Shadowrun has no limit on what you can equip, only stacking penalties, its not like DND (to use a common example) that only allows you to have 1 suit of armor equipped at a time. As Karmainferno pointed out...

"This is ridiculous only because its hard to imagine someone wearing 5 skin tight outfits with ballistic fiber."
No, it's ridiculous because that would ruin the game.

I'm not sure what points of mine you're addressing, actually. That's fine, I just wanted to make it clear that you're making your own statements, not responding to me.

Who hath awoken me from my slumber..?

Actually, Armor specifically states that it stacks with armor worn, so irregardless to how many instances of Armor you have, all of them stack with your armor worn. They don't stack with each other - they all stack with your armor worn. Slightly different, but the same. For example, your 4 Armor won't stack with your other 4 Armor, but both will stack for 8 on your 0/0 Clothing or 0/1 Forearm Guards.


And a troll getting the same result without FFBA doesn't? You're simply getting the same armor as a 'tank' troll with a considerably lower body.

EDIT: Oh, and now that I have a little coffee in me, Merry Christmas to all, and to me I gotta work tonight.

I'm not disagreeing with you.

Just pointing out flaws in the rules.

You shouldn't have to guess at what the rules mean. They should SAY what they mean.

We can talk about what the rules SHOULD mean, debating game balance and what's reasonable, but the fact remains that the rules themselves are vague sometimes in an age when RPG rulebook quality is generally expected to be better than that.



-k

Except nothing stops you from doing that same as tank troll(Except your GM who stops it from working in the first place)

That's my point, KarmaInferno: while it's a *conventional logical assumption* that specification implies a general rule, that's all it is. It's not inherent to how logic works or anything. It would be *nice* if SR4 allowed us to use that convention, but it does not.

One of the interesting questions among mathematicians is "is there an upper level ontology". I am on the side of the fence that says there isn't. What that means in simple terms is that it is not possible for writers to do a perfect job at SAYing what the rules mean.

Putting it another way there are always assumptions about what language means, especially when you are involved in a form of language with no feedback to wide audience. I think the shadowrun authors did an extremely good job, and have produced a set of rules that are playable, exciting to use, and deliver results that I enjoy whether a GM or a player. It is not clear (even with mathematical notation instead of natural language) that the rules could be expressed in a way to catch every nuance, and to be honest I don't think that such precision would add to the enjoyment of the game. (If you doubt me go buy a book on elementary analysis...its very precise, but not the most exciting read in the world).

Putting it yet another way: Stop whining about the rules! They are good enough. They are satisfactory for the purpose of having a fun game.

Edit: Mind you, I think the rules would be better if the authors had a beta release program, and had many players test them.

Dude, this is Dumpshock.

Bitching about rules is what we do.

And in any case, I'm not even talking about getting every little detail right. You're right that this would be impossible.*

I'm talking something as basic as just number stacking, a core component of any roleplaying system mechanics. Because every RPG uses math.

We're not even talking about a badly worded set of stacking rules. I could understand faulty grammar.

They're completely ABSENT. As in, the rules don't tell us AT ALL what the default is supposed to be.

It's not even in the freaking FAQ.

That's more than just "not being able to write it in such a way that it's clear to everyone".

Putting in basic core rules for stacking would have an additional benefit: You don't have to specify how things stack over and over and over again throughout the books, as we currently see. You only have to call out the exceptions.


-k

*- normally, the inevitable clarifications, errors and problems with how rules are worded should be corrected via errata and updates to future printings. How fast has Catalyst been known to put out errata? Yeah. Right.

The rules are fairly good for the most part, but the biggest problem is that there are a lot of places where they are vague when they should be very specific. An example would be splitting dice pools. Instead of leaving us guessing what "modifiers" means when you say "split the dice pool before applying modifiers", tell us exactly what you add before the split, and after the split. Then we wouldn't have these lengthy, inconclusive debates about whether specializations get added before or after, or whether the +4 for a power focus gets added to every test when you split your dice to cast multiple spells.

It would be even better if they followed the rules themselves.

For example, many of the grunts from the core book are encumbered with their armor, many of them have non-existant equipment, the cybertooth tiger's damage code from Augmentation is not accurate, as many of those pieces that apparently do stack for its DV are not supposed to. Or the cygoyle from WAR! having 3 IP with a Wired Reflexes 1 (what happened to IPs not stacking?)...

Maybe it has 2 IP as a matter of course before augmentations... kind of like the Cheetah (which has 2 IP as a natural animal, per Running Wild). After all, A Wired 1 Interface in a Cheetah would result in 3 IP...

Ok... but IP's still do not stack. That 2 from simply being should not stack with anything else; and if it does, it should be expressly noted somewhere, which it isn't.

Are you claiming that the natural IP of a metahuman, 1, does not stack with the IPs given by Wired Reflexes?




-k

I gotta say, magic is powerful enough without letting everyone use it.
Do we really want to get to a place where any mundane character can point a stick and throw mana balls?
Permanent enchants are a neat idea, but I don't know if it works with the system.

Unlike D&D, Shadowrun magic needs to be sustained and can only be used by an awakened being.

I guess you haven't read the unique enchantment creation rules in Digital Grimoire, as the example in that is a weapon focus that can be used by any one and doesn't even need to be bonded.

Yeah, I saw that...but I'm not sure it's a direction I'd want a campaign to go.
As far as I know...there is no such thing as an armor focus.

What would stop every street sam from buying enchanted bullets or turning their hand razors into force 6 weapon foci?