Talismans and Body Armor

Diabolists, Techno-Wizards & Psionicists, Oh my! All things that are Magics and Psionics in all Palladium Games.

Moderators: Immortals, Supreme Beings, Old Ones

User avatar
5IronBadger
D-Bee
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2020 2:39 pm

Talismans and Body Armor

Unread post by 5IronBadger »

I have been unable to find the answer in any of the rules so I thought I would post my problem here and see what people know or think.

Do full suites of armor, environmental body armor, and power armor interfere with the casting of a spell stored in a Talisman? The same way that they interfere with a spell caster channeling and casting a spell.

For example, would a character in power armor be able to turn invisible with no difficulty by using a Talisman charged with Invisibility: Superior?
User avatar
drewkitty ~..~
Monk
Posts: 17737
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2000 1:01 am
Location: Eastvale, calif
Contact:

Re: Talismans and Body Armor

Unread post by drewkitty ~..~ »

I understand your question. There is no official book answer.(FAIK) So the official answer would end up...'If your GM says it does, it does. Otherwise it doesn't.'
May you be blessed with the ability to change course when you are off the mark.
Each question should be give the canon answer 1st, then you can proclaim your house rules.
Reading and writing (literacy) is how people on BBS interact.
User avatar
Killer Cyborg
Priest
Posts: 27954
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 2:01 am
Comment: "Your Eloquence with a sledge hammer is a beautiful thing..." -Zer0 Kay
Location: In the ocean, punching oncoming waves
Contact:

Re: Talismans and Body Armor

Unread post by Killer Cyborg »

5IronBadger wrote:I have been unable to find the answer in any of the rules so I thought I would post my problem here and see what people know or think.

Do full suites of armor, environmental body armor, and power armor interfere with the casting of a spell stored in a Talisman? The same way that they interfere with a spell caster channeling and casting a spell.


No.

For example, would a character in power armor be able to turn invisible with no difficulty by using a Talisman charged with Invisibility: Superior?


Yes.
Annual Best Poster of the Year Awards (2012)

"That rifle on the wall of the laborer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there." -George Orwell

Check out my Author Page on Amazon!
User avatar
ITWastrel
Dungeon Crawler
Posts: 297
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 11:49 pm

Re: Talismans and Body Armor

Unread post by ITWastrel »

Killer Cyborg wrote:
5IronBadger wrote:I have been unable to find the answer in any of the rules so I thought I would post my problem here and see what people know or think.

Do full suites of armor, environmental body armor, and power armor interfere with the casting of a spell stored in a Talisman? The same way that they interfere with a spell caster channeling and casting a spell.


No.

For example, would a character in power armor be able to turn invisible with no difficulty by using a Talisman charged with Invisibility: Superior?


Yes.



This.

Otherwise the Talisman spell and items are useless to non-casters. Giving magic to non-casters is the #2 use of this spell. The #1 is, of course, making talismans to use in combat because your PPE is too precious to waste on blowing people up.

Since we're on the subject, does anyone else's Line Walker look like a wind charm? I have pockets full of attack spells, danglies and buttons for utility spells, and spells in every major piece of clothing. I even have magic underwear. Teleport panties*, my friends.

Problem is, I jingle.




*The panties don't teleport, they time slip. I point this out to avoid any future pedantic trolling. Teleport played better for the comedic effect.
User avatar
5IronBadger
D-Bee
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2020 2:39 pm

Re: Talismans and Body Armor

Unread post by 5IronBadger »

ITWastrel wrote:
Since we're on the subject, does anyone else's Line Walker look like a wind charm? I have pockets full of attack spells, danglies and buttons for utility spells, and spells in every major piece of clothing. I even have magic underwear. Teleport panties*, my friends.

Problem is, I jingle.




*The panties don't teleport, they time slip. I point this out to avoid any future pedantic trolling. Teleport played better for the comedic effect.

I have to say, this is awesome!

Thank you everyone for your responses. They have all helped out a lot. I over think things and you have all helped to simplify it. :)
User avatar
drewkitty ~..~
Monk
Posts: 17737
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2000 1:01 am
Location: Eastvale, calif
Contact:

Re: Talismans and Body Armor

Unread post by drewkitty ~..~ »

ITWastrel wrote:Otherwise the Talisman spell and items are useless to non-casters.

For the Rifts game I would agree with the above statement.
In the other PB Games, this is not an issue all that much.

But then again, if they do interfere with the use of a Talisman...so what.
Make those munchkins have their chars take their gauntlets off to use T's. That way they have to be exposed to use 2nd hand magic. So they have to 'risk themselves' to use magic, like mages have to do to use magic.

Both of these ideas ('make it easier for non-mages to use 2nd hand magic' (and a freer flowing game) & 'make the non-magic users have to be like mages and be exposed to use magic') of how to run a game are up to the GM of that Game.
--------
The only reason I'd have my Magic User character dress the part would be for formal occasions..to 'dress to impress.'
Otherwise they are in normal fashions of the time/place/game.
May you be blessed with the ability to change course when you are off the mark.
Each question should be give the canon answer 1st, then you can proclaim your house rules.
Reading and writing (literacy) is how people on BBS interact.
User avatar
ITWastrel
Dungeon Crawler
Posts: 297
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 11:49 pm

Re: Talismans and Body Armor

Unread post by ITWastrel »

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:--------
The only reason I'd have my Magic User character dress the part would be for formal occasions..to 'dress to impress.'
Otherwise they are in normal fashions of the time/place/game.



You don't know what you're missing, a beaded hat and matching robes goes a long way for establishing character.
User avatar
drewkitty ~..~
Monk
Posts: 17737
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2000 1:01 am
Location: Eastvale, calif
Contact:

Re: Talismans and Body Armor

Unread post by drewkitty ~..~ »

ITWastrel wrote:
drewkitty ~..~ wrote:--------
The only reason I'd have my Magic User character dress the part would be for formal occasions..to 'dress to impress.'
Otherwise they are in normal fashions of the time/place/game.



You don't know what you're missing, a beaded hat and matching robes goes a long way for establishing character.

I have a few Scotsman outfits. I only where them at cons & ren-fairs and Scott themed weddings.
May you be blessed with the ability to change course when you are off the mark.
Each question should be give the canon answer 1st, then you can proclaim your house rules.
Reading and writing (literacy) is how people on BBS interact.
User avatar
ITWastrel
Dungeon Crawler
Posts: 297
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 11:49 pm

Re: Talismans and Body Armor

Unread post by ITWastrel »

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
ITWastrel wrote:
drewkitty ~..~ wrote:--------
The only reason I'd have my Magic User character dress the part would be for formal occasions..to 'dress to impress.'
Otherwise they are in normal fashions of the time/place/game.



You don't know what you're missing, a beaded hat and matching robes goes a long way for establishing character.

I have a few Scotsman outfits. I only where them at cons & ren-fairs and Scott themed weddings.



First time I wore a Kilt was a Ren Faire. So freeing, so cool on a very hot July day! Since then I've embraced robes and kilts wholeheartedly. Any excuse to ditch the pants.
User avatar
Mack
Supreme Being
Posts: 6295
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2000 2:01 am
Comment: This space for rent.
Location: Searching the Dinosaur Swamp
Contact:

Re: Talismans and Body Armor

Unread post by Mack »

5IronBadger wrote:I have been unable to find the answer in any of the rules so I thought I would post my problem here and see what people know or think.

Do full suites of armor, environmental body armor, and power armor interfere with the casting of a spell stored in a Talisman? The same way that they interfere with a spell caster channeling and casting a spell.

For example, would a character in power armor be able to turn invisible with no difficulty by using a Talisman charged with Invisibility: Superior?


Personally, I'd draw a line between body armor and power armor.
Some gave all.
Love your neighbor.
Know the facts. Know your opinion. Know the difference.
User avatar
drewkitty ~..~
Monk
Posts: 17737
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2000 1:01 am
Location: Eastvale, calif
Contact:

Re: Talismans and Body Armor

Unread post by drewkitty ~..~ »

Mack wrote:
Personally, I'd draw a line between body armor and power armor.

Power Armor is a vehicle.
So the above is in line with the rule that magic, in rifts, can't pass through a vehicle's hull.
May you be blessed with the ability to change course when you are off the mark.
Each question should be give the canon answer 1st, then you can proclaim your house rules.
Reading and writing (literacy) is how people on BBS interact.
Curbludgeon
Hero
Posts: 1183
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2018 7:08 am
Comment: They/Them

Re: Talismans and Body Armor

Unread post by Curbludgeon »

I recall that Coalition Navy mentioned Talismans used by people wearing "traditional" body armor. The Altara, with their body suits, also come to mind. Is there an example of someone using a Talisman while wearing something above chain mail, which wasn't instead defined as being a TW item?
User avatar
Killer Cyborg
Priest
Posts: 27954
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 2:01 am
Comment: "Your Eloquence with a sledge hammer is a beautiful thing..." -Zer0 Kay
Location: In the ocean, punching oncoming waves
Contact:

Re: Talismans and Body Armor

Unread post by Killer Cyborg »

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
Mack wrote:
Personally, I'd draw a line between body armor and power armor.

Power Armor is a vehicle.
So the above is in line with the rule that magic, in rifts, can't pass through a vehicle's hull.


No, it’s not.
Annual Best Poster of the Year Awards (2012)

"That rifle on the wall of the laborer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there." -George Orwell

Check out my Author Page on Amazon!
User avatar
Glistam
Megaversal® Ambassador
Posts: 3631
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2005 2:09 pm
Comment: The silent thief of Rozrehxeson.
Location: Connecticut
Contact:

Re: Talismans and Body Armor

Unread post by Glistam »

5IronBadger wrote:I have been unable to find the answer in any of the rules so I thought I would post my problem here and see what people know or think.

Do full suites of armor, environmental body armor, and power armor interfere with the casting of a spell stored in a Talisman? The same way that they interfere with a spell caster channeling and casting a spell.

For example, would a character in power armor be able to turn invisible with no difficulty by using a Talisman charged with Invisibility: Superior?

I would say they don't interfere (some of the results of that table make no sense for a talisman), but once you get into Power Armor the magic is not going to affect the suit, but only the pilot. So a talisman of invisibility would not turn the power armor invisible, just the wearer (spooky!).
Zerebus: "I like MDC. MDC is a hundred times better than SDC."

kiralon: "...the best way to kill an old one is to crash a moon into it."

Image

Temporal Wizard O.C.C. update 0.8 | Rifts random encounters
New Fire magic | New Temporal magic
Grim Gulf, the Nightlands version of Century Station

Let Chaos Magic flow in your campaigns.
User avatar
ITWastrel
Dungeon Crawler
Posts: 297
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 11:49 pm

Re: Talismans and Body Armor

Unread post by ITWastrel »

There are no penalties or restrictions on using talismans like there are with spellcasting. You don't need to chant the words, wave your implements, or keep a piece of yak cheese in your bra to make a talisman work. It's a command word operation. How you are dressed does not interfere with the talisman, as the object, not the user, is channeling the stored magic. You can use a talisman while chained up and covered in lead*. As long as you can activate the talisman it will work.


Generally, I allow talismans to produce an identical effect as the spell. If the spell can make the power armor invisible, then the talisman works to do so. If the spell can make a vehicle fly, so can the talisman. Each spell will list its limitations.

Invisibility simple, for example, says one person (caster) plus clothes and articles. Your armor is clothes, a power armor is not. Invisibility is for people, so vehicles need not apply.
Invisibility superior likewise says caster, with no equipment limits, so we assume again clothes and articles, not vehicles or PA.

I'd refer to Rifts BoM pp18-21 for specific info and the published canon magic FAQ.



*provided you can manipulate the talisman and say it's command word/activation function. Note that the books do not detail such function, but fantasy game tradition says command words, so here we are.
User avatar
drewkitty ~..~
Monk
Posts: 17737
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2000 1:01 am
Location: Eastvale, calif
Contact:

Re: Talismans and Body Armor

Unread post by drewkitty ~..~ »

Killer Cyborg wrote:
drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
Mack wrote:
Personally, I'd draw a line between body armor and power armor.

Power Armor is a vehicle.
So the above is in line with the rule that magic, in rifts, can't pass through a vehicle's hull.


No, it’s not.

For normal PAs it is.
If you are talking about magic PAs....they use their own rules, because they are the "magic item" the pilot is using.

If you have a rules citation that makes a pilot of a PA able to use magic items that are outside the PA then please give it.
May you be blessed with the ability to change course when you are off the mark.
Each question should be give the canon answer 1st, then you can proclaim your house rules.
Reading and writing (literacy) is how people on BBS interact.
User avatar
Killer Cyborg
Priest
Posts: 27954
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 2:01 am
Comment: "Your Eloquence with a sledge hammer is a beautiful thing..." -Zer0 Kay
Location: In the ocean, punching oncoming waves
Contact:

Re: Talismans and Body Armor

Unread post by Killer Cyborg »

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:
drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
Mack wrote:
Personally, I'd draw a line between body armor and power armor.

Power Armor is a vehicle.
So the above is in line with the rule that magic, in rifts, can't pass through a vehicle's hull.


No, it’s not.

For normal PAs it is.
If you are talking about magic PAs....they use their own rules, because they are the "magic item" the pilot is using.

If you have a rules citation that makes a pilot of a PA able to use magic items that are outside the PA then please give it.


It’s a rule that PAs beyond a certain thickness/bulk block spellcasting.
It’s not a rule that vehicles block spell casting, except in that the physical walls of a vehicle will physically block spells with a physical effect, and that spells that require a line of sight are blocked by anything that blocks kind of sight.
I don’t know of any rule about people in PA being able to—it NOT being able to—use magic items that are outside their armor.
Annual Best Poster of the Year Awards (2012)

"That rifle on the wall of the laborer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there." -George Orwell

Check out my Author Page on Amazon!
User avatar
drewkitty ~..~
Monk
Posts: 17737
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2000 1:01 am
Location: Eastvale, calif
Contact:

Re: Talismans and Body Armor

Unread post by drewkitty ~..~ »

Within the rules of Rifts PAs are vehicles.
The rules about what magic can't pass through say that magic doesn't pass through the structure of vehicles. W/o any Distinction about how thick said structure is. Not if it block line of sight, nor if the spell produces a physical effect. I can see how GM will give those distinctions as the logical reasons for the rule to their players. So the players don't fuss and fume about them.

The "... the rule that magic, in rifts, can't pass through a vehicle's hull." is very similar to the rifts rule "Magic can't pass through a Force Field". In that is was made to let the mundane forces of the CS to roll over whatever magic user nations because the players were playing their mages correctly--creatively-- and defeating the CS forces in their games.

Then there is the Magic ability of Bionics to block magic and psionics from effecting the remaining fleshy bits of a FCB, even when their are spells that would normally by-pass any physical constructs and only effect those flesh and bone. I'm sure there is some GM out there that has made up some """explanation""" about why the borg components blocks such damage, too.


Though, perhaps it is time someone cited the locations of the rule for us people who know the rule but forgot unimportant bits like where it is found......
May you be blessed with the ability to change course when you are off the mark.
Each question should be give the canon answer 1st, then you can proclaim your house rules.
Reading and writing (literacy) is how people on BBS interact.
User avatar
Prysus
Champion
Posts: 2593
Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Boise, ID (US)
Contact:

Re: Talismans and Body Armor

Unread post by Prysus »

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:Though, perhaps it is time someone cited the locations of the rule for us people who know the rule but forgot unimportant bits like where it is found......

Greetings and Salutations. Sounds like I've been summoned to the conversation. Okay, so the rules for magic and power armor is in RUE on page 168. Note: There may be other locations with different information (this is Palladium after all), but this is the one I'm most familiar with (and typically the one referenced in regards to this type of conversation).

Wearing Body armor, ...
[snip]
Note: The same considerations and penalties apply to power armor, which practitioners of magic won't know how to operate/pilot.

Trying to cast magic from inside a vehicle or giant robot is impossible, causing the magical effect/damage to strike those inside the vehicle (cannot penetrate the walls of the vehicle ...

So ...
drewkitty ~..~ wrote:Within the rules of Rifts PAs are vehicles.

Unless there's another rule somewhere else, this is false. In Rifts, for the proposes of magic, power armor is just body armor. A claim that Power Armor are the same as vehicles (in regards to magic) is a house rule, or will require further citation from another source. Though you may be thinking of the psionic note (see below).

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:The rules about what magic can't pass through say that magic doesn't pass through the structure of vehicles. W/o any Distinction about how thick said structure is.

This is accurate, and (without further citation) Killer Cyborg is mistaken about the thickness of the walls being relevant (in regards to magic). Most likely what he's thinking of is the rule for Psychic Combat on page 366.

2. Psionics that affect the mind and emotions can affect people inside a locked room or car, ...
[snip]
Not can it affect someone in a sealed, environmental M.D.C. vehicle like a tank, APC, giant robot or heavy power armor (250 M.D.C. or more for the main body).

In this case, "heavy" power armor are in the same category as vehicles, but the classification is dependent upon the amount of M.D.C. the power armor has. Power Armor with less than 250 M.D.C. would not be in the same category as vehicles.

Now people may combine the two for the purposes of house rules or believing that one indicates the intent of the other, but that doesn't make them the RAW.

Hope some of that helps. Farewell and safe journeys.
Living the Fantasy (fan website)

Rifter #45; Of Bows & Arrows (Archery; expanding rules and abilities)
Rifter #52; From Ruins to Runes (Living Rune Weapons; playable characters and NPC)
Rifter #55; Home Away From Home (Quorian Culture; expanded from PF Book 9: Baalgor Wastelands)

Official PDF versions of Rifter #45, #52, and #55 can be found at DriveThruRPG.
User avatar
drewkitty ~..~
Monk
Posts: 17737
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2000 1:01 am
Location: Eastvale, calif
Contact:

Re: Talismans and Body Armor

Unread post by drewkitty ~..~ »

*opens up my RUE page 168*
I find I'm in the middle of the section for physical psionics. Typo?
May you be blessed with the ability to change course when you are off the mark.
Each question should be give the canon answer 1st, then you can proclaim your house rules.
Reading and writing (literacy) is how people on BBS interact.
User avatar
Prysus
Champion
Posts: 2593
Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Boise, ID (US)
Contact:

Re: Talismans and Body Armor

Unread post by Prysus »

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:*opens up my RUE page 168*
I find I'm in the middle of the section for physical psionics. Typo?

D'oh!

Greetings and Salutations. I apologize. Looks like a typo (or I misread the page number at a glance). I'm not at home anymore, but I have the official PDF on my phone.

I believe it's 188. In case the PDF page is off at all: It's the magic section (part 5 in particular). There will be a heading Technological Effects on Magic (left column of page), and the part about Body Armor is on the right column (with vehicles being right below it).

Hope that clears things up. If that doesn't help, I'll have to check my book when I get home. Farewell and safe journeys.
Living the Fantasy (fan website)

Rifter #45; Of Bows & Arrows (Archery; expanding rules and abilities)
Rifter #52; From Ruins to Runes (Living Rune Weapons; playable characters and NPC)
Rifter #55; Home Away From Home (Quorian Culture; expanded from PF Book 9: Baalgor Wastelands)

Official PDF versions of Rifter #45, #52, and #55 can be found at DriveThruRPG.
User avatar
drewkitty ~..~
Monk
Posts: 17737
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2000 1:01 am
Location: Eastvale, calif
Contact:

Re: Talismans and Body Armor

Unread post by drewkitty ~..~ »

So...
Having read the text on Page 188 of RUE...My org. Assessment is correct.
And my assessment of Mack's GM ruling is correct too.

Now if GMs wish to apply the casting in body armor difficulty %'s to the use of T'mons, it probably should be that there is a chance that the T'mon will-not activate because of their use of armor.

I can see that there would be three levels:
As Twisted Over As Magic Users That Wear Body Armor: where the t'mon user would have to roll over the coverage % of body armor they are wearing to be able to activate t'mons..
Inconvenienced: 50% of the time if they are wearing body armor they are unable to activate T'mons.
Barely Inconvenienced: has to roll over 20% to activate T'mons.
May you be blessed with the ability to change course when you are off the mark.
Each question should be give the canon answer 1st, then you can proclaim your house rules.
Reading and writing (literacy) is how people on BBS interact.
User avatar
ITWastrel
Dungeon Crawler
Posts: 297
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 11:49 pm

Re: Talismans and Body Armor

Unread post by ITWastrel »

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:So...
Having read the text on Page 188 of RUE...My org. Assessment is correct.
And my assessment of Mack's GM ruling is correct too.

Now if GMs wish to apply the casting in body armor difficulty %'s to the use of T'mons, it probably should be that there is a chance that the T'mon will-not activate because of their use of armor.

I can see that there would be three levels:
As Twisted Over As Magic Users That Wear Body Armor: where the t'mon user would have to roll over the coverage % of body armor they are wearing to be able to activate t'mons..
Inconvenienced: 50% of the time if they are wearing body armor they are unable to activate T'mons.
Barely Inconvenienced: has to roll over 20% to activate T'mons.


Again, there are ZERO rules stating TALISMANS are in ANY WAY constrained to the rules of spellcasting.

The entire color text, as I know you love color text, states the reason spellcasting in armor is difficult comes from the artificial materials interfering with the CHANNELING of the magic energy to create the spell.
Talismans have already completed this step, they're charged and ready. There is NO logical way to state that the Body Armor penalties apply to talismans.
The logic is not held up in color text, and the RULES do NOT support your illogical and overly punitive suggestions.

If it's hard, folks, remember that talismans are NOT spellcasters, and, even if they were, the TALISMAN isn't wearing armor.*

Since the TALISMAN is INCAPABLE of wearing armor, why should it follow armor rules? The Talisman is free, in someone's hand, being an object NOT IN ARMOR.

You might as well say that if a mage is touching someone in armor, even with just one hand, that mage is penalized for the second person wearing metal.


The question should be, what level of protection makes it impossible to activate the talisman.

If your PA is basically a heavy armor suit? The Terrain Hopper and some Naruni sets are basically just armor with engines. In this case you hold the talisman in your hand and speak the command with your own mouth. Seems like it'll work to me.

In the opposite direction, what about the Ultimax? It's technically PA, but you ride in a cockpit and use the robot's hands and loudspeaker. Vehicle rules seem to apply, based on color text. I'd rule against the talisman activating.


I'm going to have to house rule some limits, such as you must hold the talisman in your actual hand, even if armored, and speak the command with your own voice.



*I'm assuming the talisman is on the OUTSIDE of the armor here. Obviously, if you have the talisman on your person inside the PA, the standard rules about casting/targeting inside/outside vehicles apply. The rules are very clear about what penetrates armor.
Note that this also changes the usefulness of some spells. A healing talisman outside the PA would be useless to heal the wearer, but could be used on someone else. The reverse is also true.
User avatar
drewkitty ~..~
Monk
Posts: 17737
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2000 1:01 am
Location: Eastvale, calif
Contact:

Re: Talismans and Body Armor

Unread post by drewkitty ~..~ »

ITWastrel wrote:
drewkitty ~..~ wrote:So...
Having read the text on Page 188 of RUE...My org. Assessment is correct.
And my assessment of Mack's GM ruling is correct too.

Now if GMs wish to apply the casting in body armor difficulty %'s to the use of T'mons, it probably should be that there is a chance that the T'mon will-not activate because of their use of armor.

I can see that there would be three levels:
As Twisted Over As Magic Users That Wear Body Armor: where the t'mon user would have to roll over the coverage % of body armor they are wearing to be able to activate t'mons..
Inconvenienced: 50% of the time if they are wearing body armor they are unable to activate T'mons.
Barely Inconvenienced: has to roll over 20% to activate T'mons.


Again, there are ZERO rules stating TALISMANS are in ANY WAY constrained to the rules of spellcasting.

...

And someone didn't read my org. post.

Didn't understand what I said about mack' s post.
I agree with his house rule because, in my book, PAs are vehicals. And it would take a bit of munckinisum out of the game.

Or Didn't understand that I was talking to GMs who would like to make the rules about magic more balanced.

And Yes, ITW you don't like the descriptive text because it is hard to apply the canon text there to the game. But in this instance, what is being talked about is not any descriptive text, it's talking about actual rules text. So you shouldn't get so hopping mad that discount things just because you don't like someone else's reading Of The Rules just becasuse you've disagreed with that person in the past.

Since there are No Rules about if a character can activate magic items from inside Body Armor. There are No Rules ETHER WAY on this choice point. Which is why i said my OP with that idea from and center.
drewkitty ~..~ wrote:I understand your question. There is no official book answer.(FAIK) So the official answer would end up...'If your GM says it does, it does. Otherwise it doesn't.'
May you be blessed with the ability to change course when you are off the mark.
Each question should be give the canon answer 1st, then you can proclaim your house rules.
Reading and writing (literacy) is how people on BBS interact.
User avatar
ITWastrel
Dungeon Crawler
Posts: 297
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 11:49 pm

Re: Talismans and Body Armor

Unread post by ITWastrel »

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
ITWastrel wrote:
drewkitty ~..~ wrote:So...
Having read the text on Page 188 of RUE...My org. Assessment is correct.
And my assessment of Mack's GM ruling is correct too.

Now if GMs wish to apply the casting in body armor difficulty %'s to the use of T'mons, it probably should be that there is a chance that the T'mon will-not activate because of their use of armor.

I can see that there would be three levels:
As Twisted Over As Magic Users That Wear Body Armor: where the t'mon user would have to roll over the coverage % of body armor they are wearing to be able to activate t'mons..
Inconvenienced: 50% of the time if they are wearing body armor they are unable to activate T'mons.
Barely Inconvenienced: has to roll over 20% to activate T'mons.


Again, there are ZERO rules stating TALISMANS are in ANY WAY constrained to the rules of spellcasting.

...

And someone didn't read my org. post.

Didn't understand what I said about mack' s post.
I agree with his house rule because, in my book, PAs are vehicals. And it would take a bit of munckinisum out of the game.

Or Didn't understand that I was talking to GMs who would like to make the rules about magic more balanced.

And Yes, ITW you don't like the descriptive text because it is hard to apply the canon text there to the game. But in this instance, what is being talked about is not any descriptive text, it's talking about actual rules text. So you shouldn't get so hopping mad that discount things just because you don't like someone else's reading Of The Rules just becasuse you've disagreed with that person in the past.

Since there are No Rules about if a character can activate magic items from inside Body Armor. There are No Rules ETHER WAY on this choice point. Which is why i said my OP with that idea from and center.
drewkitty ~..~ wrote:I understand your question. There is no official book answer.(FAIK) So the official answer would end up...'If your GM says it does, it does. Otherwise it doesn't.'



My point is simple, your house rules are unsupported and in direct conflict with known rules.

You are making illogical, unsupported claims that unrelated rules about body armor and CASTERS somehow applies to MAGICAL ITEMS that happen to recreate spell effects.

YOUR house rules are your business, but if they make no sense and are punitive to players, you shouldn't expect them to go by with no pushback.

I just don't want other players to think your half-baked ideas are the right way to play.
User avatar
drewkitty ~..~
Monk
Posts: 17737
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2000 1:01 am
Location: Eastvale, calif
Contact:

Re: Talismans and Body Armor

Unread post by drewkitty ~..~ »

ONE
Let's go to the point that there "There Are No Rules about this." There for there Can't be any conflict with any 'known rules' because there are NONE!
--that takes care of your concerns about conflicting rules.

TWO
I presented the what the canon rules say about this in My OP to this topic.
(*points out the very 1st response to the topic's OP* see I followed my own request to everyone, answer the question with the canon answer 1st. see I did that. FO)

My post about Mack's "gm ruling" was that they didn't conflict with the no magic through vehicles rule. So you are braking at NOTHING!

The three optional rule I posted were posted as house rules GMs could use if they chose to level the playing field between tech junkies were not presented as if they were canon. So it you actually look at those posts and READ the way they are written, you will see that you are barking about something that is not there.

The options I posted were examples for GMs to use if they chose, for themselves, to limit tech junkies in similar ways that magic users are limited, when they try to use magic while in body armor.

Half baked......sure they were, they were not play-tested for a month before posting them. But they were about the three different difficulty levels for using T'mon for chars in armor that can be thought of on the fly.
If you are mad I got to them 1st...well...post your non-canon ideas about what the difficulty levels would be to level the playing field when using magics. I'm perfectly open to comparing what you think up and what I came up with.

In other words.....What ideas I present here that are not the canon rules I present as my ideas. If you look how my ideas are written you will find that I'm saying these are my thoughts.


Now will you stop barking about something that is not there?
May you be blessed with the ability to change course when you are off the mark.
Each question should be give the canon answer 1st, then you can proclaim your house rules.
Reading and writing (literacy) is how people on BBS interact.
User avatar
ITWastrel
Dungeon Crawler
Posts: 297
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 11:49 pm

Re: Talismans and Body Armor

Unread post by ITWastrel »

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:ONE
Let's go to the point that there "There Are No Rules about this." There for there Can't be any conflict with any 'known rules' because there are NONE!
--that takes care of your concerns about conflicting rules.

TWO
I presented the what the canon rules say about this in My OP to this topic.
(*points out the very 1st response to the topic's OP* see I followed my own request to everyone, answer the question with the canon answer 1st. see I did that. FO)

My post about Mack's "gm ruling" was that they didn't conflict with the no magic through vehicles rule. So you are braking at NOTHING!

The three optional rule I posted were posted as house rules GMs could use if they chose to level the playing field between tech junkies were not presented as if they were canon. So it you actually look at those posts and READ the way they are written, you will see that you are barking about something that is not there.

The options I posted were examples for GMs to use if they chose, for themselves, to limit tech junkies in similar ways that magic users are limited, when they try to use magic while in body armor.

Half baked......sure they were, they were not play-tested for a month before posting them. But they were about the three different difficulty levels for using T'mon for chars in armor that can be thought of on the fly.
If you are mad I got to them 1st...well...post your non-canon ideas about what the difficulty levels would be to level the playing field when using magics. I'm perfectly open to comparing what you think up and what I came up with.

In other words.....What ideas I present here that are not the canon rules I present as my ideas. If you look how my ideas are written you will find that I'm saying these are my thoughts.


Now will you stop barking about something that is not there?


First off, if you want to tell me to "FO" Then I have one thing to say.

Say it out loud, you sniveling worm.

Secondly, your IDEAS, your HOME RULE IDEAS are... How do I put this so YOU can understand?

Kitty Idea Dumb.

SIMPLEST ANSWER, Your proposed house rules are unnecessary, punitive, and absolutely unneeded.

YOUR IDEAS are both unsupported and bad.

I'm not attacking a misquote of rules here, I understand these are YOUR IDEAS.
I'm stating the following.

YOUR IDEAS LACK REASON AND NEED.
YOUR IDEAS ARE UNSUPPORTED BY RULES
YOUR IDEAS ARE IN DIRECT OPPOSITION TO HOW MAGIC ITEMS WORK IN THIS OR ANY GAME I HAVE EVER PLAYED.
and finally
YOU ARE A COWARD. RISK THE BAN.

**** OFF, KITTY.

EDIT: The first word in that sentence is automatically bleeped. You will have to use your tiny imagination.

Warning: Warning for multiple violations of rule 2 in a single post. Attacking another user and flamebaiting/trying to incite a flame war. Use the foe feature.
Curbludgeon
Hero
Posts: 1183
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2018 7:08 am
Comment: They/Them

Re: Talismans and Body Armor

Unread post by Curbludgeon »

I'm not bothering with nesting quote tags from multiple posts.

~..~: There is no official book answer.(FAIK)
Mack: Personally, I'd draw a line between body armor and power armor.
~..~: Power Armor is a vehicle.
So the above is in line with the rule that magic, in rifts, can't pass through a vehicle's hull.
RUE pg 188: Wearing Body armor, ...
[snip]
Note: The same considerations and penalties apply to power armor,
~..~: Having read the text on Page 188 of RUE...My org. Assessment is correct.
And my assessment of Mack's GM ruling is correct too.
~..~: I agree with (Mack's) house rule because, in my book, PAs are vehicals.

Insofar as the RUE Wearing Body Armor subheading in no way mentions Talisman activation it can only serve as a necessary condition in a claim of evidence of absence to the validity of the statement "There is no official book answer", and not a sufficient one. All that page demonstrates is the lack of rules regarding Talismans on that page. To claim "Having read the text on Page 188 of RUE...My org. Assessment is correct" in this case is affirming the consequent, and therefore fallacious. That said, I don't think there are any rules regarding Talisman activation requirements, and since the Talisman spell description mentions casting spells and RUE 188 mentions the use and channeling of magic I could go either way, depending on a given game's power level.

Secondly, in that Mack did not state their reason for drawing a line between body armor and power armor, to claim an assessment of such is correct due to it aligning with an unstated claim is, in addition to putting words in someone's mouth, a non distributio medii and is again fallacious. That PA are, at least for the purposes of magic, clearly stated as different than vehicles means that choosing to house rule as such further invalidates claims of correctness.

To say something is correct is different than to say one agrees with or likes it, with two different types of misuse seen above.

Sometimes precision in language is important. Knock off the cursing.
User avatar
ITWastrel
Dungeon Crawler
Posts: 297
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 11:49 pm

Re: Talismans and Body Armor

Unread post by ITWastrel »

EDIT: My Bad

I read this on my phone and thought it was DK making the same points but differently. I thought this was word salad only because it was out of context.

I got argumentative, that's, again, my bad.

I'm leaving original text here because, despite my shame at jumping to a "you ain't listening!" I did write this.





Spoiler:
Curbludgeon wrote:I'm not bothering with nesting quote tags from multiple posts.

~..~: There is no official book answer.(FAIK)
Mack: Personally, I'd draw a line between body armor and power armor.
~..~: Power Armor is a vehicle.
So the above is in line with the rule that magic, in rifts, can't pass through a vehicle's hull.
RUE pg 188: Wearing Body armor, ...
[snip]
Note: The same considerations and penalties apply to power armor,
~..~: Having read the text on Page 188 of RUE...My org. Assessment is correct.
And my assessment of Mack's GM ruling is correct too.
~..~: I agree with (Mack's) house rule because, in my book, PAs are vehicals.

Insofar as the RUE Wearing Body Armor subheading in no way mentions Talisman activation it can only serve as a necessary condition in a claim of evidence of absence to the validity of the statement "There is no official book answer", and not a sufficient one. All that page demonstrates is the lack of rules regarding Talismans on that page. To claim "Having read the text on Page 188 of RUE...My org. Assessment is correct" in this case is affirming the consequent, and therefore fallacious. That said, I don't think there are any rules regarding Talisman activation requirements, and since the Talisman spell description mentions casting spells and RUE 188 mentions the use and channeling of magic I could go either way, depending on a given game's power level.

Secondly, in that Mack did not state their reason for drawing a line between body armor and power armor, to claim an assessment of such is correct due to it aligning with an unstated claim is, in addition to putting words in someone's mouth, a non distributio medii and is again fallacious. That PA are, at least for the purposes of magic, clearly stated as different than vehicles means that choosing to house rule as such further invalidates claims of correctness.

To say something is correct is different than to say one agrees with or likes it, with two different types of misuse seen above.

Sometimes precision in language is important. Knock off the cursing.



Knock off the cursing? Aren't you the one who decided to punctuate your posts with FO?

Aside from that, the rest of this is basically word salad. If you had a point, you haven't made it.

I believe you are still trying to defend your claim that power armor are vehicles, and all of the erroneous logic which fell from that. Maybe that wasn't your point? I don't really get what you're rambling about right now.

Maybe I can help out with a little clarity and a bit of sarcasm.

Power armor is armor. We all understand that power armor can be a vehicle, such as the Ultimax, but under its standard definition it is simply armor that enhances its wearer. In the case of most power armor, the rules are absolutely unchanged from regular armor.

Secondly, I am not attempting to make any point about talisman's penetrating vehicles. In my statement, I reasoned that talismans held in a power armor's hand can be activated just as easily as if you were holding them in your bare hand.

My belief is that wearing armor or power armor does not interfere with the function of a talisman.

Talismans produce spell effects but are not spell casters.

There are no rules stating that magic items must obey the rules for spellcasters.

If that were true, then no one who wore armor would be able to use any magical items.

Heck, why stop at talismans, Kitty? Armor interferes with magic. Magic swords are magic. Armor interferes with magic swords. Magic swords don't work for characters anymore if they're wearing armor.

Magic armor? Never going to happen. You can't have magic armor because armor interferes with magic.

Magic potion? Sorry buddy, you drank that potion but you're wearing armor. Armor interferes with magic. No heal for you.

Oh bummer, the mage cast that protection spell on you but you're wearing armor. Armor interferes with magic, you don't get the effect of that spell.

The enemy mage has cast the spell of blasty death on you. Thankfully, you are wearing armor. I'm interferes with magic therefore the spell has no effect.


Okay, the last couple of examples were perhaps a bit over the top. Unfortunately the logic you have put forth in this thread leads directly to that.

There is no reason that armor should interfere with a potion or magic weapon. There are no rules stating that armor should interfere with potions, but since the rules don't say either way about whether armor interferes with potions, it is perfectly okay to make up rules that fit your current mood, right, Kitty?

You see, when you decide that the rules don't cover whatever scenario you have, the job of a good GM is to make rules that are consistent with all of the others.

I'm not going to say what kind of GM you are. I will however say that your rules are highly inconsistent.
Last edited by ITWastrel on Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:34 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
drewkitty ~..~
Monk
Posts: 17737
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2000 1:01 am
Location: Eastvale, calif
Contact:

Re: Talismans and Body Armor

Unread post by drewkitty ~..~ »

Since you are the one trolling for an argument I will stop with the arguing with you. Since this is not a Monty Python skit you're continual looking for an argument Is Not Funny.

Bye the way, I have reported you again for using the wrong screen name when referring to me. You have been told not to use the word Kitty in reference to me.
Approved nicknames to call me here are Drew, Drewkitty or DK.

As to your insistence on everything being canon rules, I will point out that you are being a hypocritical in this, in that you insist that the descriptive text in the canon text is non-canon. You have yet to provide a citation in the PB gamebooks to support this non-canon assertion.
-------
Since we have drifted from the OP topic I would suggest the mods lock this topic If ITW contenues with his search for argument.
May you be blessed with the ability to change course when you are off the mark.
Each question should be give the canon answer 1st, then you can proclaim your house rules.
Reading and writing (literacy) is how people on BBS interact.
User avatar
ITWastrel
Dungeon Crawler
Posts: 297
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 11:49 pm

Re: Talismans and Body Armor

Unread post by ITWastrel »

The minute this forum dings me for not using your preferred abbreviation is the day I quit forever.

I'm an American, your feeling mean nothing to me.
User avatar
drewkitty ~..~
Monk
Posts: 17737
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2000 1:01 am
Location: Eastvale, calif
Contact:

Re: Talismans and Body Armor

Unread post by drewkitty ~..~ »

As a fellow American I am feeling sorry for your lack of empathy, and how you reflecting the worst of humanity rather than trying to be the best you can be. Now that you have confermed you are choosing to be a member of the Alpha Heta greek house. I have no reason to even acknowledge you say anything.
May you be blessed with the ability to change course when you are off the mark.
Each question should be give the canon answer 1st, then you can proclaim your house rules.
Reading and writing (literacy) is how people on BBS interact.
User avatar
ITWastrel
Dungeon Crawler
Posts: 297
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 11:49 pm

Re: Talismans and Body Armor

Unread post by ITWastrel »

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:As a fellow American I am feeling sorry for your lack of empathy, and how you reflecting the worst of humanity rather than trying to be the best you can be. Now that you have confermed you are choosing to be a member of the Alpha Heta greek house. I have no reason to even acknowledge you say anything.



Alpha what? Worst of humanity?

I don't get it, but be well.

And if what you are trying to say is I'm somehow a bad person for not rolling over for you and your forum nickname preferences, I want you to think hard before you say that out loud.

Some people struggle their whole ******* lives over who and what they are, and how that self image is not reflected in their appearance, name, and biology.

Your forum name isn't even in the same WORLD as that. Sit down before you embarrass yourself.
User avatar
Killer Cyborg
Priest
Posts: 27954
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 2:01 am
Comment: "Your Eloquence with a sledge hammer is a beautiful thing..." -Zer0 Kay
Location: In the ocean, punching oncoming waves
Contact:

Re: Talismans and Body Armor

Unread post by Killer Cyborg »

Prysus wrote:
drewkitty ~..~ wrote:Though, perhaps it is time someone cited the locations of the rule for us people who know the rule but forgot unimportant bits like where it is found......

Greetings and Salutations. Sounds like I've been summoned to the conversation. Okay, so the rules for magic and power armor is in RUE on page 168. Note: There may be other locations with different information (this is Palladium after all), but this is the one I'm most familiar with (and typically the one referenced in regards to this type of conversation).

Wearing Body armor, ...
[snip]
Note: The same considerations and penalties apply to power armor, which practitioners of magic won't know how to operate/pilot.

Trying to cast magic from inside a vehicle or giant robot is impossible, causing the magical effect/damage to strike those inside the vehicle (cannot penetrate the walls of the vehicle ...

So ...
drewkitty ~..~ wrote:Within the rules of Rifts PAs are vehicles.

Unless there's another rule somewhere else, this is false. In Rifts, for the proposes of magic, power armor is just body armor. A claim that Power Armor are the same as vehicles (in regards to magic) is a house rule, or will require further citation from another source. Though you may be thinking of the psionic note (see below).


Agreed; RUE/BOM clearly lump Power Armor in with Body Armor when it comes to trying to cast spells through them, not with vehicles.
And it seems pretty clear to me that talismans are intended to be able to be activated through body armor.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:The rules about what magic can't pass through say that magic doesn't pass through the structure of vehicles. W/o any Distinction about how thick said structure is.

This is accurate, and (without further citation) Killer Cyborg is mistaken about the thickness of the walls being relevant (in regards to magic). Most likely what he's thinking of is the rule for Psychic Combat on page 366.


What it comes down to is whether one (wrongly :p) interprets the RUE/BOM quote to literally mean "no magic or magical energy or magical effect can ever pass through any kind of walls of any kind of vehicle,
OR whether one interprets the passage to be more of a generalization about the fact that you can't cast (most) spells through walls.
I see zero reason to take the first interpretation, and a number of reasons to take the second:

1. Aliens Unlimited Galaxy Guide p. 120, regarding the Dagotte:
The position is not unlike the "God made flesh" status of the Egyptian Pharaohs. In addition to such status, a more practical means of respect is the fact that they are the only ones who can return a raiding party back to their ship or base camp in the blink of an eye via Teleport Superior

This came up way back during our roughly 2,000 post argument about whether or not somebody can teleport into a vehicle, and it was the last nail in the coffin for the argument that "no, you can't teleport into a vehicle because magic cannot penetrate the walls of a vehicle as per a RAW interpretation of that RUE/BOM passage."
We have canon evidence that the spell Teleport Superior can indeed work through the walls of a vehicle, which indicates that magic can in fact pass through the walls of vehicles in at least some situations and circumstances, contrary to RUE 188's apparent phrasing.

2. Canon doesn't have to make any sense, but when in doubt between an interpretation that makes no sense, and an interpretation that does make sense, it seems unwise to choose the one that doesn't make sense.
And "magic cannot penetrate the walls of any vehicle ever, in any way" does not make any actual sense.
One example Doom III used to illustrate this back in that lengthy argument was that of a cardboard box. Add some wheels, and now it's a vehicle.
If magic technically cannot penetrate the walls of any vehicle ever, then:
-A LLW could not sense the PPE of a supernatural creature hiding in that box, even if the mage was touching the box, and the creature inside had infinite PPE.
-No area effect magic of any kind could affect anybody in the box, not Antimagic Cloud, Fear, Calling, Death Curse (which has a range of hundreds of miles and even OTHER DIMENSIONS), Distant Voice, Teleport, Animate Dead, Globe of Silence, Summon Ally (or any summoning spell), Locate (which specifies being able to find people on an aircraft), Life Drain ( which states "characters inside power armor, environmental body armor, manned robots, or military vehicles are affected by this spell"), nor any spell of Legend, or anything else.
Meanwhile, the exact same box sans wheels would not protect anybody from that kind of thing in the slightest.
Which wouldn't make any sense, unless we decide there's something magical or antimagical about vehicles themselves above and beyond their physical nature, some supernatural or at least unnatural aspect of their nature that serves to serve as an antimagic barricade that has no ties to the materials or construction.

And I can't believe for a moment THAT's what the writers meant when they wrote that passage.

Take the Sanctuary spell (BoM 157).
It is described as being able to "immobilize an entire army," with the effect of "any creature that attempts to attack or harm another creature within its radius is instantly struck down, becoming temporarily paralyzed or rendered unconscious." There's specific note of "the perpetrator of any action that will harm another, no matter how subtle, will be so paralyzed."
And "this applies to all forms of war machinery, iron juggernauts and automatons, as well as robots, cyborgs, battle vehicles...."
How so, if the magic cannot penetrate the battle vehicle's walls to to affect it?
How so if the occupants of the battle vehicle are protected from any and all magic cast from the other side of the vehicle's walls?
Even if it simply paralyzed the vehicle, allowing people within a vehicle to still fight one another doesn't seem to work with the spell's description.

3. The passage in RUE (p. 188)* is more unclear than people like to think:
Trying to cast magic from inside a vehicle or giant robot is impossible, causing the magical effect/damage to strike those inside the vehicle (can not penetrate the walls of the vehicle; even novice students of magic are taught this). As a result, the spell caster must at least open a window or hatch, and stick his head and upper body out (a nice target for snipers) to weave his magic. Many spells also require a line of sight to strike a specific target; the spell caster must be able to see his quarry.

Note that the "can not penetrate the walls of the vehicle" part does NOT refer back to "any or all kinds of magic or magical energy." It refers back to "magical effect/damage."
Which is a LOT different from "magic" or "magical energy" and so forth.
In regards to this passage specifically is incorrect to say "magic cannot penetrate the walls of a vehicle; it is more correct to say "magical effects/damage cannot penetrate the walls of a vehicle."
Which could mean something as simple as "you cannot cast fireball/magic net through the walls of a vehicle to a target on the other side," and that seems a lot more like what the writers seem to be discussing/picturing than "all vehicle walls are inexplicably impenetrable to all magical energy/effects of any kind, in every circumstances."
Sure, a mage has to roll down the window, and stick his upper body out, if he wants to cast fireball/whatever at somebody outside the car.
It generally works the same way when somebody inside a car wants to fire a gun at somebody outside the car; they have to either blast through the wall/window, or they have to roll a window down and stick enough of their body out to fire at the target.
I don't see any reason to believe that what the writers were attempting to say is along the lines of "Even if some guy is standing just outside your rolled-down car window, you can't cast a spell at him because he's on the outside of the car," and plenty of reason to believe that the writers are picturing the mage trying to aim/cast at somebody outside and in front of or behind the car; the kind of positioning where it would be blatantly obvious that yeah, you can't just put your hand up to the windshield, cast fireball, and have the fireball appear on the other side of the glass & hurl at the target.
The kind of thing we see with guns in action movies, where somebody hangs out the passenger side window with a gun in order to shoot at people in a car ahead of or behind him/her.
That makes a LOT more sense than assuming that the writers were enscripting into stone a new rule of physics and/or metaphysics to the game world, granting vehicles some kind of anti-magical property that boxes, buildings, and so forth don't have.

This is one of the times where people have looked at RAW, had a way too literal take on what they think RAW means, and just ran with it way out into left field.
It's NOT something that means "If you're driving a car, holding a talisman outside the open window with one hand, you cannot activate the talisman unless you stick your entire torso beyond the magic-negating effects of the vehicle's walls.
It's NOT something that means "If you're in a Conestoga wagon, looking directly out the back or front of the vehicle, you cannot cast a spell to affect the weather, nor shoot a fire bolt through the opening at an enemy."
It just means "most spells won't cast through solid objects, and vehicles are solid objects."

That's why it says that the vehicle walls block magical damage/effects, NOT "the body of a vehicle blocks all forms of magic and magical energy from traveling through."

Edit:
*BoM is more generalized:
Magic can not penetrate the skin of giant robots, or vehicles. Any spell cast inside will only affect the occupants and the internal systems of the vehicle/robot. Likewise, any spell directed at vehicles/robots outside, only affect the robot itself and can not affect the occupants inside.

But I don't see much reason to think it means anything different from RUE, with the RUE passage either being an attempted clarification of BoM's vague overgeneralization, or with BoM being a sloppy rehash of RUE's passage, depending on which came first.

Remember the context:
The quoted passage is response to "what about power armor, or vehicles/giant robots?", and the "what about" part is a continuation from the previous question "Are there any spell casting penalties when wearing armor?"
So what it's attempting to answer is effectively the question of Are there any spell casting penalties while in a vehicle?
The answer is simply saying that you cannot cast spells out of a vehicle the same way you cast spells out of armor, i.e., you cannot cast a spell like fire bolt out of the hand of a giant robot the way you could cast it out of the hand of a suit of power armor or body armor, nor can you cast most other spells that way.
Basically, it's saying that no, being in a vehicle is more like being in a room than in a suit of armor; you can't cast spells through walls.
Annual Best Poster of the Year Awards (2012)

"That rifle on the wall of the laborer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there." -George Orwell

Check out my Author Page on Amazon!
User avatar
Prysus
Champion
Posts: 2593
Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Boise, ID (US)
Contact:

Re: Talismans and Body Armor

Unread post by Prysus »

Killer Cyborg wrote:One example Doom III used to illustrate this back in that lengthy argument was that of a cardboard box. Add some wheels, and now it's a vehicle.

Greetings and Salutations. Okay, I need to ask, what definition of "vehicle" are you using? A "cardboard box" with wheels would not fit the definition of vehicle I tend to use. So, I'll start with posting an example of something closer to what I would use:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vehicle

a machine that is used to carry people or goods from one place to another

A box with wheels isn't something I'd generally consider a machine, though maybe we could quibble about technicalities. More importantly, it will not carry people from one place to another, at least not in any sensical manner. On the other hand, power armor does fall into this category. So I'd be very curious to what definition you're using that supports a cardboard box with wheels as a vehicle while prohibiting a flying SAMAS (as an example), or are you using this argument to change your stance to power armor ARE vehicles in Rifts?

Note: Some definitions vary. Some include machine but mention it's typically land based and/or with wheels (though not limited to), and others leave out the machine, but don't try to highlight land or wheels as a typical part. All of the ones I saw included transporting people and objects. I merely included one as an example.

Killer Cyborg wrote:3. The passage in RUE (p. 188)* is more unclear than people like to think:
Trying to cast magic from inside a vehicle or giant robot is impossible, causing the magical effect/damage to strike those inside the vehicle (can not penetrate the walls of the vehicle; even novice students of magic are taught this). As a result, the spell caster must at least open a window or hatch, and stick his head and upper body out (a nice target for snipers) to weave his magic. Many spells also require a line of sight to strike a specific target; the spell caster must be able to see his quarry.

*Shrugs.* Okay, and? If you notice, I didn't actually attempt to argue against the details of that. My post and quotes were in response to the comments about thickness (which you brought up). Now, I was responding to both you and drewkitty ~..~ at the same time, so my response may not have been as clear as I thought (as both of you were using vehicles and power armor in different ways). Let me break down a little better.

1: Both magic and psionics have sections about vehicles blocking those abilities. I'm not discussing which abilities can and cannot, just the rule itself. There is no mention that I have found regarding thickness.
2: The magic section has power armor the same as body armor. There is no mention that I have found regarding thickness.
3: The psychic section has power armor over 250 M.D.C. the same as a vehicle. Note: I'm willing to translate M.D.C. into thickness, or at least as a valid interpretation of such a statement.
4: Your statement that the thickness of certain power armor blocks spellcasting is inaccurate. There was nothing in the magic section about that, and you haven't brought any citations up to address that.

Killer Cyborg wrote:1. Aliens Unlimited Galaxy Guide p. 120, regarding the Dagotte:
The position is not unlike the "God made flesh" status of the Egyptian Pharaohs. In addition to such status, a more practical means of respect is the fact that they are the only ones who can return a raiding party back to their ship or base camp in the blink of an eye via Teleport Superior

I appreciate the citation. It's not the best proof, but definitely not the worst either. Though I'm not really sure anyone here was contesting that detail right now. Do you feel this addresses the thickness topic in some way that you quoted? Are the thickness of the ship or base described in detail to give us correlation to the thickness of a power armor?

Note: If the book describes ship hulls and base walls as cardboard thin and about half the thickness of power armor ... that would be odd, but also cool and would really make that cardboard box example above make a lot more sense.

I apologize for any miscommunication on my part earlier. Though right now I'm feeling lost on where you're trying to go with this. Thank you for your time and patience. Farewell and safe journeys.
Living the Fantasy (fan website)

Rifter #45; Of Bows & Arrows (Archery; expanding rules and abilities)
Rifter #52; From Ruins to Runes (Living Rune Weapons; playable characters and NPC)
Rifter #55; Home Away From Home (Quorian Culture; expanded from PF Book 9: Baalgor Wastelands)

Official PDF versions of Rifter #45, #52, and #55 can be found at DriveThruRPG.
User avatar
Killer Cyborg
Priest
Posts: 27954
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 2:01 am
Comment: "Your Eloquence with a sledge hammer is a beautiful thing..." -Zer0 Kay
Location: In the ocean, punching oncoming waves
Contact:

Re: Talismans and Body Armor

Unread post by Killer Cyborg »

Prysus wrote:[justify]
Killer Cyborg wrote:One example Doom III used to illustrate this back in that lengthy argument was that of a cardboard box. Add some wheels, and now it's a vehicle.

Greetings and Salutations. Okay, I need to ask, what definition of "vehicle" are you using? A "cardboard box" with wheels would not fit the definition of vehicle I tend to use. So, I'll start with posting an example of something closer to what I would use:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vehicle

a machine that is used to carry people or goods from one place to another

A box with wheels isn't something I'd generally consider a machine, though maybe we could quibble about technicalities. More importantly, it will not carry people from one place to another, at least not in any sensical manner. On the other hand, power armor does fall into this category. So I'd be very curious to what definition you're using that supports a cardboard box with wheels as a vehicle while prohibiting a flying SAMAS (as an example), or are you using this argument to change your stance to power armor ARE vehicles in Rifts?


First definition I found online was: a thing used for transporting people or goods, especially on land, such as a car, truck, or cart.
"A thing used for transporting goods."

But look at your definition again:
"a machine that is used to carry people OR goods from one place to another."
aka
A machine that is used to carry goods" would fit.
"Machine" being "an assembly of interconnected components arranged to transmit or modify force in order to perform useful work."

A box with wheels would be an assembly of interconnected components arranged to transmit or modify force (via the wheels) in order to perform useful work.

If you want to get fancier, though, you could pick whatever the simplest example of a "vehicle" you like, and compare it to an otherwise identical non-vehicle.
Say a Buick, compared to a sculpture of a Buick using all the same parts, only the engine doesn't work.
Is there any logical reason for being able to teleport in one, but not the other?
Or in this case, is there any logical reason why the vehicle would be any harder to cast spells into or out of than the sculpture?

Killer Cyborg wrote:3. The passage in RUE (p. 188)* is more unclear than people like to think:
Trying to cast magic from inside a vehicle or giant robot is impossible, causing the magical effect/damage to strike those inside the vehicle (can not penetrate the walls of the vehicle; even novice students of magic are taught this). As a result, the spell caster must at least open a window or hatch, and stick his head and upper body out (a nice target for snipers) to weave his magic. Many spells also require a line of sight to strike a specific target; the spell caster must be able to see his quarry.

*Shrugs.* Okay, and? If you notice, I didn't actually attempt to argue against the details of that. My post and quotes were in response to the comments about thickness (which you brought up). Now, I was responding to both you and drewkitty ~..~ at the same time, so my response may not have been as clear as I thought (as both of you were using vehicles and power armor in different ways). Let me break down a little better.

1: Both magic and psionics have sections about vehicles blocking those abilities. I'm not discussing which abilities can and cannot, just the rule itself. There is no mention that I have found regarding thickness.
2: The magic section has power armor the same as body armor. There is no mention that I have found regarding thickness.
3: The psychic section has power armor over 250 M.D.C. the same as a vehicle. Note: I'm willing to translate M.D.C. into thickness, or at least as a valid interpretation of such a statement.
4: Your statement that the thickness of certain power armor blocks spellcasting is inaccurate. There was nothing in the magic section about that, and you haven't brought any citations up to address that.


I was clarifying my general position, not necessarily taking issue with your taking issue with "thickness." ;)
Although yeah, I was basically going off MDC as a measurement of thickness/bulk.

I'm not married to "thickness" being a part of the equation, and yeah, I was probably thinking of a variation of that rule from RUE 366:
Psionics that affect the mind and emotions... cannot affect... someone in a sealed environmental MDC tank, APC, giant robot or heavy power armor (250 MDC or more for the main body).
I recalled MDC being a mark for stuff passing through, and 250 was the number I had in mind, although I didn't look it up.
Since 250 MDC was being used as the standard for "heavy" power armor, I chalked it up to thickness/bulk rather than trying to look up the specific number of MDC.

The RUE passage seems to me to be describing the same sort of thing that was first discussed (I believe) on SB1 p. 10:
Can a Psi-stalker track a mage, psionic, or supernatural being who is wearing one of the power armors that block psionics and magic such as SAMAS, Glitter Boy, and giant robot vehicles?
NO! However the psionic or mage inside the robot or power armor can not use his paranormal powers to affect anybody outside the armor or bot...

I could be conflating two different rules, or maybe the SB1 rule has been changed to no longer apply to mages/magic, but that's where my mind was when I put that part (size/bulk) of my earlier comment.

Killer Cyborg wrote:1. Aliens Unlimited Galaxy Guide p. 120, regarding the Dagotte:
The position is not unlike the "God made flesh" status of the Egyptian Pharaohs. In addition to such status, a more practical means of respect is the fact that they are the only ones who can return a raiding party back to their ship or base camp in the blink of an eye via Teleport Superior

I appreciate the citation. It's not the best proof, but definitely not the worst either. Though I'm not really sure anyone here was contesting that detail right now.


It goes to Drew's key stance, which is an overly-literal interpretation of "Magic can not penetrate the skin of giant robots, or vehicles."
Space ships are vehicles, and Teleport Superior is magic.
It can be argued that Teleport "bypasses" rather than penetrates the skin of space ships, but it seems like a distinction without a difference, since that same argument could be made regarding any number of other things, including whatever connection exists between a person and their Talisman.

To sum up:
Thesis = "Magic can not penetrate the skin of vehicles" is a misleading general statement, not the hard rule that Drew takes it to be.
Support = The number of times when we're shown magic penetrating the skin of vehicles in official material, such as the AUGG example, along with various spells I mentioned.
Further Support = Various logical inconsistencies that pop up when one tries to take that hard stance very far in various directions, such as vehicles having some kind of special protection against magic that otherwise identical non-vehicles lack.

(Keep in mind, if somebody slapped a Talisman outside their spaceship hull, I probably wouldn't let them activate the thing from inside, but that'd be because there's a bloody WALL in the way, not because "a vehicle's skin" is in the way. ;) )
Annual Best Poster of the Year Awards (2012)

"That rifle on the wall of the laborer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there." -George Orwell

Check out my Author Page on Amazon!
User avatar
drewkitty ~..~
Monk
Posts: 17737
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2000 1:01 am
Location: Eastvale, calif
Contact:

Re: Talismans and Body Armor

Unread post by drewkitty ~..~ »

1. Aliens Unlimited Galaxy Guide p. 120, regarding the Dagotte:
The position is not unlike the "God made flesh" status of the Egyptian Pharaohs. In addition to such status, a more practical means of respect is the fact that they are the only ones who can return a raiding party back to their ship or base camp in the blink of an eye via Teleport Superior

Since the rules pertaining to the imperviousness of MDC construction to magic are in the Rifts game, citing text from other games’ own canon rules does not really effect he canon rules in the Rifts game.
If you are going to bring up citations from the other PB Games then why don’t you cite the rules saying the specifics of how to use Talismans while using EBA.

I will stick to my Original Answer to the OP’s question, that there are no specific rules governing the actual use of talisman, and that GMs decide what rules they have in their games for them.

It goes to Drew's key stance, which is an overly-literal interpretation of "Magic can not penetrate the skin of giant robots, or vehicles.”


I do believe that my key stance on this subject is “that there are no specific rules governing the actual use of talisman, and that GMs decide what rules they have in their games for them.”
:roll: :roll: :roll:
It's like none of you even read the 1st response to the OP.

Since others have lost sight of this simple idea, I’ve been wondering why people are thinking that I like the rules in the Rifts Game about how magic does or doesn’t interact with MDC constructs.

Nor are they reading the nuances of the posts where I move beyond the canon answer to the OP's question by giving GMs ideas about how to make level the playing fields, between magic users and non-magic users when using magic, of their personal games.

Just because I gave some ideas GMs could use to make non-magic users be affected by the same hurtles as magic users do when using magic, when the non-magic users try to use magic themselves, Does not make me someone who likes the the rules In The Rifts Game that were bought up about magic and vehicles.
Note: under these rules I would place PAs within the Vehical catagory, because thst is what they are....even if very close fitting ones.

*BoM is more generalized:
Magic can not penetrate the skin of giant robots, or vehicles. Any spell cast inside will only affect the occupants and the internal systems of the vehicle/robot. Likewise, any spell directed at vehicles/robots outside, only affect the robot itself and can not affect the occupants inside.


Since this was 1st this is what I think of when concerning the stupid Rifts rules that magic can’t pass through vehicles hull rule.
Yes, the updated rule in RUE is more nuanced.
May you be blessed with the ability to change course when you are off the mark.
Each question should be give the canon answer 1st, then you can proclaim your house rules.
Reading and writing (literacy) is how people on BBS interact.
User avatar
Killer Cyborg
Priest
Posts: 27954
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 2:01 am
Comment: "Your Eloquence with a sledge hammer is a beautiful thing..." -Zer0 Kay
Location: In the ocean, punching oncoming waves
Contact:

Re: Talismans and Body Armor

Unread post by Killer Cyborg »

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
1. Aliens Unlimited Galaxy Guide p. 120, regarding the Dagotte:
The position is not unlike the "God made flesh" status of the Egyptian Pharaohs. In addition to such status, a more practical means of respect is the fact that they are the only ones who can return a raiding party back to their ship or base camp in the blink of an eye via Teleport Superior

Since the rules pertaining to the imperviousness of MDC construction to magic are in the Rifts game, citing text from other games’ own canon rules does not really effect he canon rules in the Rifts game.


The BoM rules don't mention anything about MDC construction, so I'm not sure why you're saying that.
BoM just says "vehicles."

And as we've discussed before, this is a megaversal system; if magic is blocked by vehicles in Rifts, it's blocked by vehicles in HU unless otherwise stated or indicated.

If you are going to bring up citations from the other PB Games then why don’t you cite the rules saying the specifics of how to use Talismans while using EBA.


:?

I will stick to my Original Answer to the OP’s question, that there are no specific rules governing the actual use of talisman, and that GMs decide what rules they have in their games for them.


Cool.
My objection was only to your claim that vehicles block magic, so that's what I've addressed.

I’ve been wondering why people are thinking that I like the rules in the Rifts Game about how magic does or doesn’t interact with MDC constructs.


I'm not commenting on what you like; I'm correcting you on how the rules work.

Nor are they reading the nuances of the posts where I move beyond the canon answer to the OP's question by giving GMs ideas about how to make level the playing fields, between magic users and non-magic users when using magic, of their personal games.


Fair enough.
I officially note that you were giving advice for house rules about talismans & PA based on a bad interpretation of the official rules regarding vehicles and magic, NOT making claims about any official answers about talismans & PAs.

Note: under these rules I would place PAs within the Vehical catagory, because thst is what they are....even if very close fitting ones.


The official rules disagree, but you're free to houserule as you like, of course.
:ok:
Annual Best Poster of the Year Awards (2012)

"That rifle on the wall of the laborer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there." -George Orwell

Check out my Author Page on Amazon!
User avatar
drewkitty ~..~
Monk
Posts: 17737
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2000 1:01 am
Location: Eastvale, calif
Contact:

Re: Talismans and Body Armor

Unread post by drewkitty ~..~ »

And what vehicles In Rifts, that players would use or be fighting, that ate not MDC? :roll:

And megavercial just means that rules are easy for GMs to import into their personal games.
NOT it is one game, which the different PB Games are not.
Yes, it is a factual statement That PB produces several Individual Games that are independent of each other.
Another Factual statement is that PB encourages individual GMs to Import or Barrow rules and other stuff from their different games for their personal games.

Get over it that what you've ""discussed"" it does not effect what the canon is.

Wether or not the cat acts like a dog, it is still a cat.
------
I very much know how the rules work, and when I stand corrected I let people know about it.
In this case there was no correct needed when I state my opinions as my opinions.

Since ALL of the objections have been about opinions stated as opinions there is nothing for me to be corrected about.
---

If the official rules state that PAs are, in general, not Vehicles then give citations to this.


Note that calling something that just attaches to the pilot's EBA a 'power armor' is a bit stupid, when compared to a SAMAS or a GB. I'm smart enough to know which armors are vehicles and which are not.
May you be blessed with the ability to change course when you are off the mark.
Each question should be give the canon answer 1st, then you can proclaim your house rules.
Reading and writing (literacy) is how people on BBS interact.
User avatar
Killer Cyborg
Priest
Posts: 27954
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 2:01 am
Comment: "Your Eloquence with a sledge hammer is a beautiful thing..." -Zer0 Kay
Location: In the ocean, punching oncoming waves
Contact:

Re: Talismans and Body Armor

Unread post by Killer Cyborg »

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:And what vehicles In Rifts, that players would use or be fighting, that ate not MDC? :roll:


Any SDC vehicle, obviously.
Vagabonds start with a rusty junker that's probably not MDC, and it's not like SDC vehicles don't exist in the game; they do and they're common.
Palladium just doesn't like to stat out the "boring" stuff.

And megavercial just means that rules are easy for GMs to import into their personal games.


Source?

NOT it is one game, which the different PB Games are not.


It's not one game; it's a bunch of games that share the same system except as noted in individual games.

Yes, it is a factual statement That PB produces several Individual Games that are independent of each other.


No ****.
Any other strawmen you feel a need to beat down before we move on?

Another Factual statement is that PB encourages individual GMs to Import or Barrow rules and other stuff from their different games for their personal games.


Seems like there's a lot of opinion in there, like the bolded.
If you want a fact:
Palladium regularly advertises that their games are compatible with one another.
For example, SB1 says on the back, "Compatible with the entire Palladium Books Megaverse."

They're different games, but they're compatible because they're all the same megaversal system.
Capiche?

I very much know how the rules work, and when I stand corrected I let people know about it.
In this case there was no correct needed when I state my opinions as my opinions.


You claimed "Power Armor is a vehicle.
So the above is in line with the rule that magic, in rifts, can't pass through a vehicle's hull."

Since then, we've found (or simply pointed out) canon evidence that:
1. Power armor is NOT a vehicle
and
2. Magic in Rifts can pass through a vehicle's hull.

So you were incorrect twice, and you've been corrected twice.
Saying that you weren't and that you haven't doesn't change anything; calling a cat a dog doesn't make it one.

If the official rules state that PAs are, in general, not Vehicles then give citations to this.


You were talking in the context of blocking magic, which is the context that we've already quoted the official rules for.
No need to look any further.
Annual Best Poster of the Year Awards (2012)

"That rifle on the wall of the laborer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there." -George Orwell

Check out my Author Page on Amazon!
User avatar
Killer Cyborg
Priest
Posts: 27954
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 2:01 am
Comment: "Your Eloquence with a sledge hammer is a beautiful thing..." -Zer0 Kay
Location: In the ocean, punching oncoming waves
Contact:

Re: Talismans and Body Armor

Unread post by Killer Cyborg »

Oh, and in case you think it's NOT canon that all of Palladium's games are one system, you'd be wrong:
https://palladium-store.com/profile.html
One Game System for all genres!
Palladium is the First!

That's right, Palladium was the very first (to our knowledge) to actively and intentionally implement the working fundamentals of "one" game system. Certainly, we've done if for the longest number of years, with a string of hit role-playing games. It all started in 1979 when every gamer I (Kevin Siembieda) knew, complained about having to adapt new games and/or supplements from one system or another. Even games from the same company had different rules and this frustrated them to no end.

I said to myself, "Hmm, if I ever did roleplaying games I'd create 'one' basic set of rules that could be used in every possible genre." At the time, everybody, and I do mean EVERYBODY, said you couldn't mix science fiction and fantasy, let alone create a game system that could satisfy both and other settings too. The funny thing was that I was doing just that in my Palladium campaign.


"One game system for all genres."
Annual Best Poster of the Year Awards (2012)

"That rifle on the wall of the laborer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there." -George Orwell

Check out my Author Page on Amazon!
User avatar
Prysus
Champion
Posts: 2593
Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Boise, ID (US)
Contact:

Re: Talismans and Body Armor

Unread post by Prysus »

Killer Cyborg wrote:First definition I found online was: a thing used for transporting people or goods, especially on land, such as a car, truck, or cart.
"A thing used for transporting goods."

Greetings and Salutations. "A thing used for transporting goods" could also include backpacks, anything with pockets, and even people. But instead of arguing definitions, let's just say you convinced me. A cardboard box with wheels is a vehicle. Now, back to the question: How does your definition that declares a cardboard box with wheels IS a vehicle also declare a Power Armor is NOT a vehicle? What part of your definition excludes a thing that can transport a person at faster speeds than a standard modern day car from being a vehicle?

While I have issues with such an open definition, I could really care less. My real issue is that you seem to be using two different definitions and switching up to try and suit your arguments. And if your answer is that Rifts doesn't include Power Armor as vehicles, then ask yourself what part of Rifts includes cardboard boxes with wheels as vehicles? If Rifts doesn't include Power Armor as vehicles, then maybe consider that Rifts isn't using a definition that would include a plastic shopping bag as a vehicle.

Killer Cyborg wrote:If you want to get fancier, though, you could pick whatever the simplest example of a "vehicle" you like, and compare it to an otherwise identical non-vehicle.
Say a Buick, compared to a sculpture of a Buick using all the same parts, only the engine doesn't work.
Is there any logical reason for being able to teleport in one, but not the other?
Or in this case, is there any logical reason why the vehicle would be any harder to cast spells into or out of than the sculpture?

I see zero issues with a sculpture blocking magic the same as a vehicle. The section mentions the magic hitting the wall. So I'd figure a wall (or barrier of some sort) would be sufficient regardless. If there was to be a difference, the section is discussing the effects of Technology. So one could argue it's the technology of the vehicle that's causing the barrier and not the actual wall (the wall is just the physical barrier that enacts the effects of the technology). I don't think it's what that section really means, but I can't say for sure (it is specifically in that section after all) and you asked for a difference, so I provided a possibility.

For the record, I don't have any issues with a cardboard box blocking magic. So, as you state, this is to discuss things like Fireball. That's an easy spell to visualize, so I'll use that for ease of visuals. You're in a Buick and cast Fireball. What happens? You're in a cardboard box and cast Fireball. What happens?

You used the cardboard box as an example of being ridiculous. I think the cardboard box would serve as much of a barrier as any other wall (etc.), though perhaps not as durable (less S.D.C.). I'd feel the same about any generally enclosed space or barrier. Though do you feel someone is making the case that a room wouldn't offer the same protection as a vehicle? Did I miss someone making that case?

What it looked like to me was you were using a cardboard box on wheels as a ridiculous example of something that shouldn't stop magic because it was too thin, and that was a support of the thickness topic (you replied to a quote about thickness when you used that example). Maybe I'm misunderstanding or missed something. If so, can you clarify? :?

Killer Cyborg wrote:I was clarifying my general position, not necessarily taking issue with your taking issue with "thickness." ;)
Although yeah, I was basically going off MDC as a measurement of thickness/bulk.
[snip]
Since 250 MDC was being used as the standard for "heavy" power armor, I chalked it up to thickness/bulk rather than trying to look up the specific number of MDC.

General response, okay. You had quoted me regarding thickness, so I was thinking more specific.

And yeah, I was fine with the thickness/bulk concept in relation to M.D.C. I only left it a little more uncertain in my second reply because if I said thickness = M.D.C. there will be that one guy who comes in like: "Well, actually ... in Dimension Book XX, it states the Giga-Naruni have armor that has 1,000 M.D.C. but is only paper thin due to their advanced technology. This goes to show that you M.D.C. is not correlated to thickness but design." So I kept it more uncertain. :P

Killer Cyborg wrote:To sum up:
Thesis = "Magic can not penetrate the skin of vehicles" is a misleading general statement, not the hard rule that Drew takes it to be.
Support = The number of times when we're shown magic penetrating the skin of vehicles in official material, such as the AUGG example, along with various spells I mentioned.
Further Support = Various logical inconsistencies that pop up when one tries to take that hard stance very far in various directions, such as vehicles having some kind of special protection against magic that otherwise identical non-vehicles lack.

I'm fine with your Thesis and your Support. I have a few issues with your Further Support.

1: While Rifts specifically mentions a vehicle (so we have mentioned it several times), I'm not anyone has argued that it's limited to vehicles and an environmentally sealed room wouldn't offer the same protection. I think Palladium in general thinks players will be traveling, so vehicles are more commonly thought of in a combat situation and they just didn't list every possible situation. The mention hitting the wall of the vehicle, so I (personally) think of it as the wall more than any mystical aspect of vehicles, and the same rules apply to walls in general (though if there's only 1 walls, things like a cloud could still just go around it).
2: If I were to rule that vehicles had special properties due to technology, this would probably mean the vehicle needs to have similar properties to the type of technology we're already told inhibits magic. Body Armor can inhibit magic already because of unnatural materials (maybe more, I forget, whatever). So if you apply the same concept to a vehicle (or room, etc.) made of the same magic inhibiting materials (and a vehicle would likely have thicker walls than just body armor), then it's the materials (and/or other factors, I'm not big on Rifts after all) of the technological vehicle that is blocking the magic (you can't cast on the other side of a wall because the unnatural material is blocking the flow of magic to the other side). Or maybe it's a power source of vehicles, and the flow of the technological energy interferes with the flow of mystical energy.

The Further Support really only offers any support (in my opinion) is if the other side is being inconsistent. As an individual, I'd probably go with something like any barrier that isn't close fitting or too bulky. Mark Hall often talks about auras as a defining factor. I'm not sure aura is exactly what I'm thinking, but it's close enough that I think it gets the concept across. So something like Body Armor and some Power Armor would be a good enough fit. But the bigger Power Armor (this is more about size than M.D.C. though), Robots, and Vehicles wouldn't. A room definitely wouldn't (even if you hugged up against the wall, the room as a whole is still much bigger and wouldn't qualify).

Hmm ... I'm wondering if your "Further Support" is where we're having most of our issues. Like you're trying to cutoff possible retorts, but since they're mostly not claims I've seen here the Further Support comes off as weird and disjointed and is creating more problems than solving. Maybe I'm misreading things. I just keep feeling like I'm missing some posts or something, and that's creating confusion on my part so I keep trying to figure out what's going on. If you think I'm wrong though, I'll take your word on it. Hopefully you have a better idea of what you're trying to say than I do. I do have some reading problems, so maybe I'm just not parsing something properly. Farewell and safe journeys.
Living the Fantasy (fan website)

Rifter #45; Of Bows & Arrows (Archery; expanding rules and abilities)
Rifter #52; From Ruins to Runes (Living Rune Weapons; playable characters and NPC)
Rifter #55; Home Away From Home (Quorian Culture; expanded from PF Book 9: Baalgor Wastelands)

Official PDF versions of Rifter #45, #52, and #55 can be found at DriveThruRPG.
User avatar
Killer Cyborg
Priest
Posts: 27954
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 2:01 am
Comment: "Your Eloquence with a sledge hammer is a beautiful thing..." -Zer0 Kay
Location: In the ocean, punching oncoming waves
Contact:

Re: Talismans and Body Armor

Unread post by Killer Cyborg »

Prysus wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:First definition I found online was: a thing used for transporting people or goods, especially on land, such as a car, truck, or cart.
"A thing used for transporting goods."

Greetings and Salutations. "A thing used for transporting goods" could also include backpacks, anything with pockets, and even people. But instead of arguing definitions, let's just say you convinced me. A cardboard box with wheels is a vehicle. Now, back to the question: How does your definition that declares a cardboard box with wheels IS a vehicle also declare a Power Armor is NOT a vehicle? What part of your definition excludes a thing that can transport a person at faster speeds than a standard modern day car from being a vehicle?

While I have issues with such an open definition, I could really care less. My real issue is that you seem to be using two different definitions and switching up to try and suit your arguments. And if your answer is that Rifts doesn't include Power Armor as vehicles, then ask yourself what part of Rifts includes cardboard boxes with wheels as vehicles? If Rifts doesn't include Power Armor as vehicles, then maybe consider that Rifts isn't using a definition that would include a plastic shopping bag as a vehicle.


As I said, the point isn't the cardboard box itself; if you don't like that, substitute any other situation in which two things are identical except for one's status as a "vehicle."
You're right that I'm going with two different definitions there, in that I yanked a dictionary definition of "vehicle" for the box, and was going off of Palladium's specific standard for what interferes with magic use in the latter.
In Palladium's case, it seems like they--rightly or wrongly--consider power armor to be something worn, rather than something used to transport you.

Killer Cyborg wrote:If you want to get fancier, though, you could pick whatever the simplest example of a "vehicle" you like, and compare it to an otherwise identical non-vehicle.
Say a Buick, compared to a sculpture of a Buick using all the same parts, only the engine doesn't work.
Is there any logical reason for being able to teleport in one, but not the other?
Or in this case, is there any logical reason why the vehicle would be any harder to cast spells into or out of than the sculpture?


I see zero issues with a sculpture blocking magic the same as a vehicle. The section mentions the magic hitting the wall. So I'd figure a wall (or barrier of some sort) would be sufficient regardless. If there was to be a difference, the section is discussing the effects of Technology. So one could argue it's the technology of the vehicle that's causing the barrier and not the actual wall (the wall is just the physical barrier that enacts the effects of the technology). I don't think it's what that section really means, but I can't say for sure (it is specifically in that section after all) and you asked for a difference, so I provided a possibility.

For the record, I don't have any issues with a cardboard box blocking magic. So, as you state, this is to discuss things like Fireball. That's an easy spell to visualize, so I'll use that for ease of visuals. You're in a Buick and cast Fireball. What happens? You're in a cardboard box and cast Fireball. What happens?

You used the cardboard box as an example of being ridiculous. I think the cardboard box would serve as much of a barrier as any other wall (etc.), though perhaps not as durable (less S.D.C.). I'd feel the same about any generally enclosed space or barrier. Though do you feel someone is making the case that a room wouldn't offer the same protection as a vehicle? Did I miss someone making that case?

What it looked like to me was you were using a cardboard box on wheels as a ridiculous example of something that shouldn't stop magic because it was too thin, and that was a support of the thickness topic (you replied to a quote about thickness when you used that example). Maybe I'm misunderstanding or missed something. If so, can you clarify? :?


It's not that the box is ridiculous; it's that the idea that a cardboard box would NOT stop magic, but one with wheels (or otherwise designated as a "vehicle") would, simply because of that status.
Which is how Drew is treating things with his claim that power armor would stop magic [/i]because it's a vehicle[/i], even though the context is different for power armor than for any "other" vehicle.
Specifically, power armor is worn like clothing/armor. Your entire body is enclosed within it, with no significant gaps between your body and the body of the armor.
It's not the same thing as sitting in a car, trying to cast spells through the windshield; it's closer to wearing EBA and trying to cast spells through the armor.
My stance is that it's the room effect that makes magic "unable to penetrate the skin of a vehicle," NOT an object's status as "vehicle."

Killer Cyborg wrote:To sum up:
Thesis = "Magic can not penetrate the skin of vehicles" is a misleading general statement, not the hard rule that Drew takes it to be.
Support = The number of times when we're shown magic penetrating the skin of vehicles in official material, such as the AUGG example, along with various spells I mentioned.
Further Support = Various logical inconsistencies that pop up when one tries to take that hard stance very far in various directions, such as vehicles having some kind of special protection against magic that otherwise identical non-vehicles lack.

I'm fine with your Thesis and your Support. I have a few issues with your Further Support.

1: While Rifts specifically mentions a vehicle (so we have mentioned it several times), I'm not anyone has argued that it's limited to vehicles and an environmentally sealed room wouldn't offer the same protection. I think Palladium in general thinks players will be traveling, so vehicles are more commonly thought of in a combat situation and they just didn't list every possible situation. The mention hitting the wall of the vehicle, so I (personally) think of it as the wall more than any mystical aspect of vehicles, and the same rules apply to walls in general (though if there's only 1 walls, things like a cloud could still just go around it).


My entire presence here is because of Drew's claim:
"Power Armor is a vehicle.
So the above is in line with the rule that magic, in rifts, can't pass through a vehicle's hull."

He's arguing purely based on the (incorrect) idea that Power Armor counts as a "vehicle," NOT anything based on the thickness of the armor or anything else.
I object to that claim because it rests on the idea that vehicles are special when it comes to magic, that the same power armor would NOT block the magic if it was not a "vehicle."

2: If I were to rule that vehicles had special properties due to technology, this would probably mean the vehicle needs to have similar properties to the type of technology we're already told inhibits magic. Body Armor can inhibit magic already because of unnatural materials (maybe more, I forget, whatever). So if you apply the same concept to a vehicle (or room, etc.) made of the same magic inhibiting materials (and a vehicle would likely have thicker walls than just body armor), then it's the materials (and/or other factors, I'm not big on Rifts after all) of the technological vehicle that is blocking the magic (you can't cast on the other side of a wall because the unnatural material is blocking the flow of magic to the other side). Or maybe it's a power source of vehicles, and the flow of the technological energy interferes with the flow of mystical energy.


The part about vehicles blocking magic IS in the "technology vs magic" section, and you could right that the authors had in mind only vehicles that had engines and metal bodies and other "tech" staples, but as written the text simply states "vehicles" in a vacuum, meaning that anything from a bark canoe to a covered wagon to a wooden carriage would block magic this same way barring a GM-specific house ruling on the issue.
Any way you slice it, that section is NOT written very clearly.

It makes the most sense as far as I can tell to just assume that Palladium was thinking of something that wouldn't hinge on the structure or nature of the vehicle beyond having "skin" or "walls" of some kind, a physical barrier to spellcasting, rather than assume that they were only describing modern or futuristic vehicles that included lots of technology.
There's no note that technowizard vehicles are exempt to the rule, after all, and technowizardry would arguably NOT count as technology for the purposes of blocking magic.
There's no note of any exemption, in fact.

The Further Support really only offers any support (in my opinion) is if the other side is being inconsistent. As an individual, I'd probably go with something like any barrier that isn't close fitting or too bulky. Mark Hall often talks about auras as a defining factor. I'm not sure aura is exactly what I'm thinking, but it's close enough that I think it gets the concept across. So something like Body Armor and some Power Armor would be a good enough fit. But the bigger Power Armor (this is more about size than M.D.C. though), Robots, and Vehicles wouldn't. A room definitely wouldn't (even if you hugged up against the wall, the room as a whole is still much bigger and wouldn't qualify).

Hmm ... I'm wondering if your "Further Support" is where we're having most of our issues. Like you're trying to cutoff possible retorts, but since they're mostly not claims I've seen here the Further Support comes off as weird and disjointed and is creating more problems than solving. Maybe I'm misreading things. I just keep feeling like I'm missing some posts or something, and that's creating confusion on my part so I keep trying to figure out what's going on. If you think I'm wrong though, I'll take your word on it. Hopefully you have a better idea of what you're trying to say than I do. I do have some reading problems, so maybe I'm just not parsing something properly. Farewell and safe journeys.[/justify]


Yes, the bolded portion seems to be it.
This is a subject that has come up before, many times, and been argued to death many times with people making the same kinds of arguments that have already been disproven in previous arguments.
Often the same people.

In short, the only thing I'm really trying to say here is that it's incorrect to claim that power armor--or anything else--would stop magic "because it's a vehicle," because that hinges all stopping power entirely on the status of being a vehicle, and that stance has far, far more evidence against it than for it.
It's akin to saying "EBA interferes with spellcasting because it's armor"; it attributes the effect to the incorrect factor.
Annual Best Poster of the Year Awards (2012)

"That rifle on the wall of the laborer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there." -George Orwell

Check out my Author Page on Amazon!
User avatar
drewkitty ~..~
Monk
Posts: 17737
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2000 1:01 am
Location: Eastvale, calif
Contact:

Re: Talismans and Body Armor

Unread post by drewkitty ~..~ »

Killer Cyborg wrote:
drewkitty ~..~ wrote:And what vehicles In Rifts, that players would use or be fighting, that ate not MDC? :roll:


Any SDC vehicle, obviously.
Vagabonds start with a rusty junker that's probably not MDC, and it's not like SDC vehicles don't exist in the game; they do and they're common.
Palladium just doesn't like to stat out the "boring" stuff.

Thank you for answering a rhetorical question that anyone could see that answer for.

And megavercial just means that rules are easy for GMs to import into their personal games.


Source?
Another Factual statement is that PB encourages individual GMs to Import or Barrow rules and other stuff from their different games for their personal games.


Seems like there's a lot of opinion in there, like the bolded.
If you want a fact:
Palladium regularly advertises that their games are compatible with one another.
For example, SB1 says on the back, "Compatible with the entire Palladium Books Megaverse."

They're different games, but they're compatible because they're all the same megaversal system.
Capiche?

as to where it is said...the RCB1.
Ahhh...hummmm.......Gee wow, you rebutted me by saying I'm correct....Now why did you put a 'DK is wrong' spin on the 1st lines of the rebuttal when your last lines said that I'm correct?
My only guess that my paraphrasing what the RCB1 said confused you.

I very much know how the rules work, and when I stand corrected I let people know about it.
In this case there was no correct needed when I state my opinions as my opinions.


You claimed "Power Armor is a vehicle.
So the above is in line with the rule that magic, in rifts, can't pass through a vehicle's hull."

Since then, we've found (or simply pointed out) canon evidence that:
1. Power armor is NOT a vehicle
and
2. Magic in Rifts can pass through a vehicle's hull.

So you were incorrect twice, and you've been corrected twice.
Saying that you weren't and that you haven't doesn't change anything; calling a cat a dog doesn't make it one.

Did I not say it as my opinion? ........Yes I did.
And because in the real world and in most fiction PAs (or power suits) ARE vehicles. So what if you are saying to me that you are upset that I'm stating my opinion which happens to be congruent with the real world and most fiction. I've been saying that they are as My Opinion.

Now if you were talking about EX-suits...now there is something that can be concidered body armor rather than being a vehicle.

Killer Cyborg wrote:*BoM is more generalized:
Magic can not penetrate the skin of giant robots, or vehicles. Any spell cast inside will only affect the occupants and the internal systems of the vehicle/robot. Likewise, any spell directed at vehicles/robots outside, only affect the robot itself and can not affect the occupants inside.

Hello, I'm quoting you because you seam to have forgotten what you posted.
Since this talk about magic passing through vehicles bodies when I said that Mack's post about How He Would Rule On This In His Games, that is would not violate the no magic in or out of vehicles. The RBoM rule is what was being referenced. There is also that in any game I Would GM that would be the same rubicon line I would put down because In The Real World (and most fiction) vehicles are what Power Armors are. Put it down to me being OCD about words/ideas. You arguing with me will not change my Opinion. An Opinion that has been FULLY Proclaimed as my opinion.

Now since EVERYBODY knows where my opinion is about whether or not PAs are vehicles, drop it.
If you continue one this argument even though you and everyone knows where where my opinion are AND I have told you my opinion will not be changed, I will report you for disruptive behavior.


Post Script:
As for some "in Game" reasons for concidering PAs to be vehicals:
Spoiler:
Characters pilot PAs. Proof there is a skill for that.
Vehicles are piloted. proof: there are skills for piloting vehicles.
Body Armor is worn. proof: there is no skill to were body armor.
Last edited by drewkitty ~..~ on Fri Feb 04, 2022 8:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
May you be blessed with the ability to change course when you are off the mark.
Each question should be give the canon answer 1st, then you can proclaim your house rules.
Reading and writing (literacy) is how people on BBS interact.
User avatar
Prysus
Champion
Posts: 2593
Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Boise, ID (US)
Contact:

Re: Talismans and Body Armor

Unread post by Prysus »

Killer Cyborg wrote:
Prysus wrote:you're trying to cutoff possible retorts, but since they're mostly not claims I've seen here


Yes, the bolded portion seems to be it.
This is a subject that has come up before, many times, and been argued to death many times with people making the same kinds of arguments that have already been disproven in previous arguments.
Often the same people.

Greetings and Salutations. Thanks for clarifying. That helps things make more sense. I'm not going to argue about most of this, but I wanted to at least take the moment to thank you for the clarification and to make a few replies that you may not have considered.

Killer Cyborg wrote:You're right that I'm going with two different definitions there, in that I yanked a dictionary definition of "vehicle" for the box, and was going off of Palladium's specific standard for what interferes with magic use in the latter.
In Palladium's case, it seems like they--rightly or wrongly--consider power armor to be something worn, rather than something used to transport you.

Well, I think Palladium's definition of vehicle will continue to vary a bit. I decided to look through RUE (or use the search function with the official PDF) to see what we'd discover.

There are at least 3 references to bicycles being a vehicle, and 2 to a kayak. So it doesn't need to be high tech (or even modern tech) to be a vehicle. With that said, neither of these examples would benefit from the rule, as that mentions the walls of the vehicle. Neither the bicycle nor a kayak are typically walled vehicles. Your head and torso will already be out of the vehicle, so having to stick your head and torso out would be moot.

Page 188 ("The exception to the welcomed use of technology") mentions that Gargoyles and Brodkil will seldom use a vehicle unless it's suited to accommodate their size. If this vehicles (in Rifts) included anything just for transporting goods, this limitation wouldn't make as much sense.

On page 351 [Robot (and Power Armor) Combat: Basic], they differentiate between power armor and robot vehicles.

Any vehicle bigger than 12 feet (3.6 m) and which requires the pilot to sit down or has a "crew compartment" or can accommodate passengers is a robot vehicle, not power armor.

Now this is specifically regarding Robot Vehicles and Power Armor, but from the two passages I'd deduce the Palladium feels a vehicle is for individuals, and a place for them to typically sit (and helps to be of a certain size).

Now, on page 235 (Coalition SAMAS Pilot O.C.C., Equipment Available Upon Assignment), power armor is listed as a vehicle. And the way the Pilot skill category is written (page 318), the skill is used to control vehicles, and Power Armor is included in this category. So Palladium does seem to consider them vehicles (at times). Of course, this is irrelevant to the magic conversation as Page 188 specifically has Power Armor function the same as Body Armor and NOT vehicles.

So just by what we learned so far we can deduce that the rule on page 188 does NOT apply to all vehicles, as bicycles, kayaks, and Power Armor do not meet the criteria listed.

On Page 122, the Shifter O.C.C., ability #3, we're told that a Shifter can redirect certain types of spells. Included is the line ...

In the case of a Teleport spell, he can have the person or object appear right in front of him, or at some other specific location (inside a vehicle, a prison cell, etc.).

So we now have a Rifts specific line (from the main book no less!) that tells us a Teleport can land inside of a vehicle. One could argue that this is an ability specific to the Shifter and not the general Teleport spell power, but in addition we have on page 213, Life Drain spell ...

Saving Throw: [snip] Characters inside power armor, environmental body armor, manned robots, or military vehicles are affected by this spell!

So, again, a specific indication that at least some magic can penetrate vehicles.

Now, on page 204 (both the end of Paralysis: Lesser spell as well as the Blind spell), Page 206 (Trance), Page 207 (both Domination and Energy Disruption), and Page 217 (Desiccate the Supernatural); all the spells note they won't work on anyone in EBA or PA, as well as Robots. The Desiccate the Supernatural spell even specifies a room (not sure if it requires it to be an armored M.D.C. room or not, depending on where the "or" separates).

So in Rifts, to cast magic you can be in EBA or Power Armor (per page 188) and still cast magic (with penalty). But the spell caster cannot cast from any enclosed vehicle (and presumably room, but that's not outright stated). Meanwhile, sealed environments (such as EBA and Power Armor) seem to offer better protection against those inside. So if a spell can't go through a vehicle to target someone inside, then it probably can't go through EBA or Power Armor (considering it's environmental, but I think they all are? Not positive because ... you know, I don't care enough about Rifts to have that kind of thing memorized) either.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Which is how Drew is treating things with his claim that power armor would stop magic [/i]because it's a vehicle[/i], even though the context is different for power armor than for any "other" vehicle.
Specifically, power armor is worn like clothing/armor. Your entire body is enclosed within it, with no significant gaps between your body and the body of the armor.
It's not the same thing as sitting in a car, trying to cast spells through the windshield; it's closer to wearing EBA and trying to cast spells through the armor.
My stance is that it's the room effect that makes magic "unable to penetrate the skin of a vehicle," NOT an object's status as "vehicle."

Thanks. At least I understand where you were going with that now, because I had been really confused.

Killer Cyborg wrote:My entire presence here is because of Drew's claim:
"Power Armor is a vehicle.
So the above is in line with the rule that magic, in rifts, can't pass through a vehicle's hull."

He's arguing purely based on the (incorrect) idea that Power Armor counts as a "vehicle," NOT anything based on the thickness of the armor or anything else.
I object to that claim because it rests on the idea that vehicles are special when it comes to magic, that the same power armor would NOT block the magic if it was not a "vehicle."

Well, Rifts does (apparently) describe Power Armor as a vehicle ... sometimes. However, whether or not it is at times is irrelevant, since the passage on page 188 specifically states Power Armor will follow the same rules as body armor, and NOT included in the vehicle rules.

So is power armor a vehicle in Rifts? Yes. Is a power armor treated as a vehicle in relation to the spell casting rules on page 188? No.

Killer Cyborg wrote:The part about vehicles blocking magic IS in the "technology vs magic" section, and you could right that the authors had in mind only vehicles that had engines and metal bodies and other "tech" staples, but as written the text simply states "vehicles" in a vacuum, meaning that anything from a bark canoe to a covered wagon to a wooden carriage would block magic this same way barring a GM-specific house ruling on the issue.
Any way you slice it, that section is NOT written very clearly.

I'll agree with that. For the record, I (personally) don't necessarily think that's what the writer(s) intended, so much as I included it as a possibility (since you asked, I gave it thought and came up with that possibility). Overall, I believe that the walls appear to be the main limitation, as that's what's described in the section (sticking a head and torso outside of the vehicle to not be blocked by the wall).

However, there is some consideration to the fact that the spell caster must stick the whole head and upper torso out of the window to cast the spell. If it was simply the barrier, the spell caster should be able to just cast through the open window or just stick out a hand. Instead, the caster must effectively stick out 50% of their body, which is the same ratio listed in the body armor affecting spell casting. This would give some support that it's more than just wall, but the material itself. So armor is tight fitting and the material hampers the flow of magic, but can still be worked around. Inside a vehicle, the mage's body is not directly covered, so s/he can still cast without the material hampering the spell. However, if the material hampers the flow of magical energy, the material of the vehicle may prevent the magic from going through the material would end up forming within the vehicle (unless the caster sticks out 50% of their body as not to be restricted any longer).

Mind you, I haven't done massive research on this matter. So there could be passages in different books that give different indications. Anyways, I hope that helps. Farewell and safe journeys.
Living the Fantasy (fan website)

Rifter #45; Of Bows & Arrows (Archery; expanding rules and abilities)
Rifter #52; From Ruins to Runes (Living Rune Weapons; playable characters and NPC)
Rifter #55; Home Away From Home (Quorian Culture; expanded from PF Book 9: Baalgor Wastelands)

Official PDF versions of Rifter #45, #52, and #55 can be found at DriveThruRPG.
User avatar
Killer Cyborg
Priest
Posts: 27954
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 2:01 am
Comment: "Your Eloquence with a sledge hammer is a beautiful thing..." -Zer0 Kay
Location: In the ocean, punching oncoming waves
Contact:

Re: Talismans and Body Armor

Unread post by Killer Cyborg »

Prysus wrote:There are at least 3 references to bicycles being a vehicle, and 2 to a kayak. So it doesn't need to be high tech (or even modern tech) to be a vehicle. With that said, neither of these examples would benefit from the rule, as that mentions the walls of the vehicle. Neither the bicycle nor a kayak are typically walled vehicles. Your head and torso will already be out of the vehicle, so having to stick your head and torso out would be moot.


I'd interpret the old "the skin of a vehicle cannot be penetrated by magic" to apply to bicycles, but since the pilot isn't INSIDE the bike, it doesn't matter.
:-D

With Kayaks and such, I'd say there's plenty of open air to cast spells out of.

On Page 122, the Shifter O.C.C., ability #3, we're told that a Shifter can redirect certain types of spells. Included is the line ...

In the case of a Teleport spell, he can have the person or object appear right in front of him, or at some other specific location (inside a vehicle, a prison cell, etc.).

So we now have a Rifts specific line (from the main book no less!) that tells us a Teleport can land inside of a vehicle. One could argue that this is an ability specific to the Shifter and not the general Teleport spell power, but in addition we have on page 213, Life Drain spell ...


Nice find!
:ok:

Well, Rifts does (apparently) describe Power Armor as a vehicle ... sometimes. However, whether or not it is at times is irrelevant, since the passage on page 188 specifically states Power Armor will follow the same rules as body armor, and NOT included in the vehicle rules.

So is power armor a vehicle in Rifts? Yes. Is a power armor treated as a vehicle in relation to the spell casting rules on page 188? No.


Exactly!
:-D

It can certainly be argued that in some contexts power armor is considered a vehicle, but in the specific context of blocking magic it's shown to be considered armor.

However, there is some consideration to the fact that the spell caster must stick the whole head and upper torso out of the window to cast the spell. If it was simply the barrier, the spell caster should be able to just cast through the open window or just stick out a hand. Instead, the caster must effectively stick out 50% of their body, which is the same ratio listed in the body armor affecting spell casting. This would give some support that it's more than just wall, but the material itself. So armor is tight fitting and the material hampers the flow of magic, but can still be worked around. Inside a vehicle, the mage's body is not directly covered, so s/he can still cast without the material hampering the spell. However, if the material hampers the flow of magical energy, the material of the vehicle may prevent the magic from going through the material would end up forming within the vehicle (unless the caster sticks out 50% of their body as not to be restricted any longer).


My take is that the writer is simply imagining something different and non-technical, and is trying to point out that a caster would have to stick himself out of the car to cast a spell out when targeting anybody not directly outside of the open window.
I think it's more of a "I'm going to cast a spell at the car chasing us" or "I'm going to cast a spell at the skycycle overhead" sort of situation that the writers had in mind, rather than a "a cop just pulled me over, and is standing directly outside my window, and I'd like to cast a spell on him to get out of this ticket" sort of situation.
It's common sense that you'd have to stick yourself partly out the window in the first two situations, but not common sense in the 2nd. With Palladium's "just use common sense approach," I don't see reason to believe that they were positing a kind of anti-spell forcefield covering open windows of vehicles forcing mages to partly leave the vehicle to cast spells.
It seems much more likely they were just trying to keep players from trying stuff like "Okay, I open the top turret of the Spider Skull Walker, then return to the pilot's compartment and look at the viewscreen so I can cast spells at enemies from this not-fully-enclosed vehicle."
Or to avoid players trying to just stick their hand out of the window, but keeping the rest of them inside.
Or just peaking their head out.

I'd interpret it more as "the spellcasting parts of the mage (i.e., head, arms, and maybe torso) need to have a clear path to the target, so the spell doesn't get interfered with."
Annual Best Poster of the Year Awards (2012)

"That rifle on the wall of the laborer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there." -George Orwell

Check out my Author Page on Amazon!
User avatar
Killer Cyborg
Priest
Posts: 27954
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 2:01 am
Comment: "Your Eloquence with a sledge hammer is a beautiful thing..." -Zer0 Kay
Location: In the ocean, punching oncoming waves
Contact:

Re: Talismans and Body Armor

Unread post by Killer Cyborg »

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:
drewkitty ~..~ wrote:And what vehicles In Rifts, that players would use or be fighting, that ate not MDC? :roll:


Any SDC vehicle, obviously.
Vagabonds start with a rusty junker that's probably not MDC, and it's not like SDC vehicles don't exist in the game; they do and they're common.
Palladium just doesn't like to stat out the "boring" stuff.

Thank you for answering a rhetorical question that anyone could see that answer for.


Don't ask questions with obvious answers as if they were rebuttals, if you don't want people to give you the obvious answer.

And megavercial just means that rules are easy for GMs to import into their personal games.


Source?
Another Factual statement is that PB encourages individual GMs to Import or Barrow rules and other stuff from their different games for their personal games.


Seems like there's a lot of opinion in there, like the bolded.
If you want a fact:
Palladium regularly advertises that their games are compatible with one another.
For example, SB1 says on the back, "Compatible with the entire Palladium Books Megaverse."

They're different games, but they're compatible because they're all the same megaversal system.
Capiche?

as to where it is said...the RCB1.
Ahhh...hummmm.......Gee wow, you rebutted me by saying I'm correct....Now why did you put a 'DK is wrong' spin on the 1st lines of the rebuttal when your last lines said that I'm correct?
My only guess that my paraphrasing what the RCB1 said confused you.[/quote]

Huh?
Have you quoted CB1 at ALL in this conversation...?
If so, where/when?
:?

Did I not say it as my opinion? ........Yes I did.


Not in the post I was responding to.

Killer Cyborg wrote:*BoM is more generalized:
Magic can not penetrate the skin of giant robots, or vehicles. Any spell cast inside will only affect the occupants and the internal systems of the vehicle/robot. Likewise, any spell directed at vehicles/robots outside, only affect the robot itself and can not affect the occupants inside.


Hello, I'm quoting you because you seam to have forgotten what you posted.
Since this talk about magic passing through vehicles bodies when I said that Mack's post about How He Would Rule On This In His Games, that is would not violate the no magic in or out of vehicles. The RBoM rule is what was being referenced.[/quote]

Yes, and what I keep telling you is that you did not interpret that rule correctly.
Have you not picked up on that?
:?

Now since EVERYBODY knows where my opinion is about whether or not PAs are vehicles, drop it.


As long as you understand that the official rules are that PA does NOT count as a vehicle in the context of magic interference, sure.
I kinda already had.

If you continue one this argument even though you and everyone knows where where my opinion are AND I have told you my opinion will not be changed, I will report you for disruptive behavior.


Believe me, at least one of us isn't understanding the other one in this conversation.
I'm not asking you to change your opinion; I'm simply telling you that you have misinterpreted one rule, and missed another rule entirely until it was pointed out to you.

I'll remind you:
Your post that started all this was exactly THIS:
drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
Mack wrote:
Personally, I'd draw a line between body armor and power armor.

Power Armor is a vehicle.
So the above is in line with the rule that magic, in rifts, can't pass through a vehicle's hull.


No mention of opinion.
No mention of Conversion Book 1.
No mention of anything indicating that you understand what the rule about vehicles blocking magic actually means.
No indication that you understand that power armor is not a vehicle in this context.

So I corrected you on the latter two points.
if you stand corrected, then cool; we're done. Like if you're saying, "Okay, that post was incorrect, but my opinion is...." then fine; you're free to your opinion. My objection is that when somebody's wrong about the rules, that's not just an "opinion," but rather a problem with their understanding, and it's not something that they should be spreading around the forums as if it were fact.
If you don't stand corrected, then while you're free to leave the conversation at any point, communication has somehow not yet been achieved.
Annual Best Poster of the Year Awards (2012)

"That rifle on the wall of the laborer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there." -George Orwell

Check out my Author Page on Amazon!
User avatar
drewkitty ~..~
Monk
Posts: 17737
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2000 1:01 am
Location: Eastvale, calif
Contact:

Re: Talismans and Body Armor

Unread post by drewkitty ~..~ »

Well I though it was sooooooooo Obvious that you would get the "hint" that is should be 'dropped'
--
You asked where the idea that GMs were encouraged to use rules and items from the different PB games in their personal games. In other words: what the megaversal term meant. And I told you the book location.
--
That I quoted you should of reminded you you are conveniently bringing things up again and agin that I've already answered. I hate that because it is soooo much like a tactic of people who just can't accept that they are wrong. But then again it is also like reporters asking the same already answered question 7 different ways but can't seam to understand the answer to the same question is the same as those same questions that already have been answered.

The text below is an example of this, of a question that has already be %^&*% answered and you bringing the %RTYIU back up to make your self LOOK like you are in the right.
Killer Cyborg wrote:
drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
Mack wrote:
Personally, I'd draw a line between body armor and power armor.

Power Armor is a vehicle.
So the above is in line with the rule that magic, in rifts, can't pass through a vehicle's hull.


No mention of opinion.
No mention of Conversion Book 1.
No mention of anything indicating that you understand what the rule about vehicles blocking magic actually means.
No indication that you understand that power armor is not a vehicle in this context.

S

➣One The Mack's ruling does not violate the text from the RBoM about magic not penetrating the hull of a vehicle.(ie; the rule I quoted you quoting.) So I was correct in what I said in reference to the rule I was referencing. So your objections are noted, and that they are Stupidly irrelevant because PAs are vehicles.

➢There is no mention of the RCB1 there, in reference to mack's ruling because that was in reference to the objection of yours was about whether or not the PB games were different games or one game. And no they are not just one game which is the core idea you were promoting. Since it was not related to my comments about mack's ruling, it was stupid to bringing up as if it was a part of your objections to it.

➣since the rule was the one in the RBoM, and I stated the core idea of what it 'is' in my comment, that in itself said I understood what I was talking about. You objection is noted as stupid and that they are designed to prolong the argument so you can appear to be right.

➢Since I do understand that PAs are vehicles, even if some of them have been demoted to be considered as body armor for the new pass through rules in RUE. So your objections are noted and that they are designed to prolong the argument so you can appear to be right.

However, since I know the in some cultures admitting you were wrong is tantamount to giving up your social pecking order; which is Stupid, being correct is a much better place to be; I doubt the stupid 17 versions of the same question will end. So any further objections will be seen by me as a desperate attempt to desperately seam to be in the right.

Now that I've answered ALL of your objections, multiple times....take a hint.
May you be blessed with the ability to change course when you are off the mark.
Each question should be give the canon answer 1st, then you can proclaim your house rules.
Reading and writing (literacy) is how people on BBS interact.
User avatar
Killer Cyborg
Priest
Posts: 27954
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 2:01 am
Comment: "Your Eloquence with a sledge hammer is a beautiful thing..." -Zer0 Kay
Location: In the ocean, punching oncoming waves
Contact:

Re: Talismans and Body Armor

Unread post by Killer Cyborg »

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:Well I though it was sooooooooo Obvious that you would get the "hint" that is should be 'dropped'


I've understood from the first that you didn't want to have this conversation at all, and that's been by go-to explanation for why you've spent so much time here talking around my points and engaging in bizarre tangents.

--
You asked where the idea that GMs were encouraged to use rules and items from the different PB games in their personal games. In other words: what the megaversal term meant. And I told you the book location.


Incorrect.
What I said was:
Seems like there's a lot of opinion in there, like the bolded.
If you want a fact:
Palladium regularly advertises that their games are compatible with one another.
For example, SB1 says on the back, "Compatible with the entire Palladium Books Megaverse."

They're different games, but they're compatible because they're all the same megaversal system.
Capiche?


See, the issue isn't that "GMs were encouraged to use rules and items from the different PB games"; THAT isn't the issue.
The issue is that you like to pretend that--even though we're literally told by the publishers that Palladium's megaversal games all USE THE SAME SYSTEM, and that they're "compatible" with one another, they're not the same system, and are only loosely related to each other.

Which is not something affected by whether and where Palladium "encourages customers to use rules and items from the different PB games," which would be true whether the Megaversal system was a single system as Palladium claims, or whether it was a bunch of different systems that Palladium wanted us to borrow from unofficially (as you claim).


That I quoted you should of reminded you you are conveniently bringing things up again and agin that I've already answered.


Untrue, again.
Frankly, I don't feel like you're even in the same conversation, much less answering anything I've actually said.
Mostly all I've seen is stuff like the above, with you pretending I asked something I haven't, and giving me an "answer" that has nothing to do with any of my points.

The text below is an example of this, of a question that has already be %^&*% answered and you bringing the %RTYIU back up to make your self LOOK like you are in the right.
Killer Cyborg wrote:
drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
Mack wrote:
Personally, I'd draw a line between body armor and power armor.

Power Armor is a vehicle.
So the above is in line with the rule that magic, in rifts, can't pass through a vehicle's hull.


No mention of opinion.
No mention of Conversion Book 1.
No mention of anything indicating that you understand what the rule about vehicles blocking magic actually means.
No indication that you understand that power armor is not a vehicle in this context.


➣One The Mack's ruling does not violate the text from the RBoM about magic not penetrating the hull of a vehicle.(ie; the rule I quoted you quoting.) So I was correct in what I said in reference to the rule I was referencing. So your objections are noted, and that they are Stupidly irrelevant because PAs are vehicles.


Mack gave an opinion.
YOU jumped in making factual claims that turned out to be inaccurate.
I don't know what "the rule I quoted you quoting" means; just say which rule you're talking about. I'm not going to guess.
"So I was correct in what I said in reference to the rule I was referencing" is just nonsense; it tells me nothing about what you're trying to say,.
What rule?
What about it do you think you were correct about? Why?

All I see here is you making the claim "Armor counts as a vehicle" in the context of drawing the line between armor and vehicles when it comes to magic.
Which has been repeatedly shown with direct quotes from the book to be incorrect
AND
You follow that up by saying "So the above is in line with the rule that magic, in rifts, can't pass through a vehicle's hull," which is also incorrect, in that whether magic can pass through the skin of something isn't affected by whether it's technically a "vehicle" or not, but rather about whether it's a solid wall-like object.
Which, again, has been supported with citations from the books which you have ignored.

You said two things there, as far as I can tell, and they're both incorrect.
Really, I only initially was pointing out the latter error in interpreting the BoM's rule way too literally, but when it was pointed out that the BoM flat-out states on p. 20:
The same considerations that apply to body armor apply to power armor, requiring more PPE to be used and rolling on the same table
And you still refused for unknown reasons to retract your claim, I also mention that mistake.

➢There is no mention of the RCB1 there, in reference to mack's ruling because that was in reference to the objection of yours was about whether or not the PB games were different games or one game. And no they are not just one game which is the core idea you were promoting. Since it was not related to my comments about mack's ruling, it was stupid to bringing up as if it was a part of your objections to it.


Dude, either explain why you're talking about RCB1, or quit talking about it.
Again, as far as I can tell, the first time you mentioned the book at all here was to ask me why I was ignoring some unspecified part of it.
Which is nonsense on at least two levels.

Again, I've never said all the games in the Megaversal System were "one game."
I've flat-out said that they're different games.
MY claim, based on direct quotes from Palladium, is that they use the same rules as a default because they're the same system.
Do you understand the difference between a game and a system?
If not, then I can explain it to you.
If you DO understand, then quit pretending that I've said "they're the same game" when I've only said "they're the same system."
It's intellectually dishonest, a lazy strawman argument.

➣since the rule was the one in the RBoM, and I stated the core idea of what it 'is' in my comment, that in itself said I understood what I was talking about. You objection is noted as stupid and that they are designed to prolong the argument so you can appear to be right.


You're typing indecipherable gibberish here.
I literally have on idea what you're on about, what you're trying to say.
What rule was what rule, and what comment showed what...?
You're comparing or equating unspecified things to unspecified things; it means absolutely nothing coherent.

In your own words, without referencing unspecified things, can you just say why you think that "The same considerations that apply to body armor apply to power armor, requiring more PPE to be used, and the roll on the same table" could possibly on any plane or in any way mean "Power armor is to be treated as vehicles in this context"...?
If not, perhaps reconsider your stance.
If so, please do that instead of smoke and mirrors.

Or just give up on the conversation entirely, and don't bother to respond.
Annual Best Poster of the Year Awards (2012)

"That rifle on the wall of the laborer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there." -George Orwell

Check out my Author Page on Amazon!
User avatar
ITWastrel
Dungeon Crawler
Posts: 297
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 11:49 pm

Re: Talismans and Body Armor

Unread post by ITWastrel »

I'm glad to see someone else be frustrated at some board members when they talk unsupported garbage.

I learned to hit the "Foe" button, just the one time, and now these forums have 85% less stupidity.

Foe button, 5 stars, do recommend.
Locked

Return to “Guild of Magic & Psionics”