Using magic rings under Full Environmental armor

[Samromancer]

Hey guys! Is this a thing or is it just okay with partial or no armor?

[drewkitty ~..~]

So long as the magic only effects the wearer it is allowable.

If the magic ring projects a spell that would effect someone/-thing outside the armor, now that is the question.
There is text that says metal armor interfers with magic and then there are text that say man-made matriales interfer with magic.

Since nearly all the magic rings listed in the canon texts only effect the wearer/user, wearing them under is not a problem.

As a GM I would not allow a magic object inside a FEBA MDC body armor to project a spell outside of the armor onto someone or something else.
As best it would be an auto fail, at worst "I need to see the char sheet for Brian'*papers get passed* "you set off the fireball in your armor. Oh Brian's not MDC" *sound of a shredder* "get your dice out right now and roll up the stats for your new char."
Of course the 2nd option would only be after the player is found out to be a Munchkin, and has been Mucho Annoying.

[kaid]

Probably depends if it something that requires activation. There are not a ton of magic rings in rifts other than stuff ported in from PFRPG and a lot of the PFRPG stuff are continous effect which would work fine under EBA.

[Bill]

I concur with Drew. I don't think any effect on the wearer would be impaired, but the ring's influence on things outside the armor might be impaired.

[Samromancer]

Cool! Thanks, guys!

[Library Ogre]

Generally, assuming it goes no further than the wearer and doesn't need to be manipulated to be activated, it's fine. No rings that shoot fireballs, no rings that make you invisible when you give them a half turn.

[eliakon]

If the ring has an effect outside the person, I would roll on the "casting spells in armor" table, and see what result you get.
For example a result of "reduced range" will have exactly that... your fireball ring will cast at lower range this time.
If you get a result of extra PPE, then the GM needs to make a personal call on if the ring provides exactly the right amount of PPE (in which case the spell fails this time) or if it would make up the difference. As there is no canon on this at all, its totally up to the GM.

One thing that needs to be remembered is that wearing armor does NOT stop spell casting. it simply requires a roll on a table each time that may (or may not) result in a penalty for that particular casting.

[dragonfett]

I would have to say that a Ring of Invisibility worn underneath a full suit of EBA would in fact render it's wearer invisible, but not the armor since that is covering the wearer.

[Tiree]

I would have to say that a Ring of Invisibility worn underneath a full suit of EBA would in fact render it's wearer invisible, but not the armor since that is covering the wearer.

This is where Techno Wizard devices come in.

[ShadowLogan]

I agree with the above generally. But it may also be worth remembering that the "magic ring" might not fit under the armor if it is overly ornate in design (ex. The Swartz Rings from SpaceBalls, you aren't going to wear those under armor if you want an idea of what I mean by overly ornate). Something that is simple isn't going to be much of a problem.

[eliakon]

I would have to say that a Ring of Invisibility worn underneath a full suit of EBA would in fact render it's wearer invisible, but not the armor since that is covering the wearer.

Why?
A wizard casting an Invisibility spell affects their armor, clothes and all their possessions...since that is what the spell does. Ehy would a ring casting the spell be any different?

Basically as I see it a magic item, unless specifically said to be otherwise, should be more or less treated the same as a caster casting a spell. In this case, since wearing armor doesn't make a caster not affect the armor, there is no reason that a ring should be treated differently.

[Marcethus]

I agree with Eliakon. Treat it as the spell being cast and if the spell being cast can't affect those in armor then the spell wouldn't be able to affect outside of armor, if it is worn under the armor, either.

Granted I have always hated how after Federation of Magic they nerfed the mage's ability to wear armor. Before FoM Mages were allowed to wear FEBA. Afterwards they went the way of many fantasy style games and did the "Oh no metal and man-made materials interfere with magic use" Seriously irked me off about that. Now in character a mage doesn't rely on technology. But they will use it where needed. I have many a mage that at low level used FEBA then later when they could afford it upgraded to Techno-Wizard or other form of Magic armor that was better than the FEBA they relied on for so long. Even has one character that doesn't use any FEBA unless he needs the protection from environmental factors, vacuum is a *Bleep*

[Axelmania]

Body armor is fine, possibly exoskeletons, but since you "pilot" power armor I would class that as going above "wear" and not have it go invisibile unless built into it with TW.

[eliakon]

According to the Rules As Written, wizards can cast spells wearing power armor no different than if they are wearing body armor. Thus logically the effect should be the same.

This would be a good place for the 'dual category' armors to have an effect actually. Something like a Glitterboy, or a Ulti-Max might, mystically, be treated as a Robot Vehicle since they are called 'borderline' several places. Which would have the dual effect of making this distinction actually have some sort of relevance and make the top line power armors less attractive to the enterprising mecha-mage.

[Marcethus]

According to the Rules As Written, wizards can cast spells wearing power armor no different than if they are wearing body armor. Thus logically the effect should be the same.

This would be a good place for the 'dual category' armors to have an effect actually. Something like a Glitterboy, or a Ulti-Max might, mystically, be treated as a Robot Vehicle since they are called 'borderline' several places. Which would have the dual effect of making this distinction actually have some sort of relevance and make the top line power armors less attractive to the enterprising mecha-mage.

Where in the rules does it say a mage can cast a spell while wearing power armor?

[Shark_Force]

According to the Rules As Written, wizards can cast spells wearing power armor no different than if they are wearing body armor. Thus logically the effect should be the same.

This would be a good place for the 'dual category' armors to have an effect actually. Something like a Glitterboy, or a Ulti-Max might, mystically, be treated as a Robot Vehicle since they are called 'borderline' several places. Which would have the dual effect of making this distinction actually have some sort of relevance and make the top line power armors less attractive to the enterprising mecha-mage.

Where in the rules does it say a mage can cast a spell while wearing power armor?

- a mage can, by default, cast spells.
- certain kinds of armour can limit, but not deny, the ability to cast spells.
- power armour is silent on the matter, but it would be silly to not at least treat it is armour (particularly since it is, in fact, armour)
- therefore, since power armour has not changed the status quo, power armour should limit, but not deny, the ability to cast spells.

[dragonfett]

Well there are power armor out there specifically for mages (granted they are either TW creations or the Warlock Combat Armor from Phase World), but they are out there.

[eliakon]

According to the Rules As Written, wizards can cast spells wearing power armor no different than if they are wearing body armor. Thus logically the effect should be the same.

This would be a good place for the 'dual category' armors to have an effect actually. Something like a Glitterboy, or a Ulti-Max might, mystically, be treated as a Robot Vehicle since they are called 'borderline' several places. Which would have the dual effect of making this distinction actually have some sort of relevance and make the top line power armors less attractive to the enterprising mecha-mage.

Where in the rules does it say a mage can cast a spell while wearing power armor?

RUE page 188 under the Wearing Body armor section (first paragraph, second column)

"Note: The same considerations and penalties apply to power armor."

[Marcethus]

According to the Rules As Written, wizards can cast spells wearing power armor no different than if they are wearing body armor. Thus logically the effect should be the same.

This would be a good place for the 'dual category' armors to have an effect actually. Something like a Glitterboy, or a Ulti-Max might, mystically, be treated as a Robot Vehicle since they are called 'borderline' several places. Which would have the dual effect of making this distinction actually have some sort of relevance and make the top line power armors less attractive to the enterprising mecha-mage.

Where in the rules does it say a mage can cast a spell while wearing power armor?

RUE page 188 under the Wearing Body armor section (first paragraph, second column)

"Note: The same considerations and penalties apply to power armor."

That's what I figured, it makes you roll on the chart to see what happens to the spell you cast. Hence it is exceedingly difficult to cast a spell in Power Armor. Just as it is if you are wearing full armor that is mostly made of metal.

Though I have always hated that BS regarding casting spells in full armor as that was only introduced in FoM. And as far as I am concerned the only reason they introduced that was to Nerf the mages.

[eliakon]

Its not that difficult though.
You spend 20% more PPE, and roll to see if you lose range, duration, effect, range AND duration, or no additional effect.

I do agree though that it was added to make mages more 'holistic' which bugged me because it doesn't give an exception for techno-wizards AND makes the decision to not wear artificial armor by various OCCs redundant... and the nerfing them so they were not main combatants was silly since the various combat specialist mages don't get any exemption...which makes them suddenly unable to do their job
But it is what it is, and changing it at this point requires a house rule.

[Marcethus]

Its not that difficult though.
You spend 20% more PPE, and roll to see if you lose range, duration, effect, range AND duration, or no additional effect.

I do agree though that it was added to make mages more 'holistic' which bugged me because it doesn't give an exception for techno-wizards AND makes the decision to not wear artificial armor by various OCCs redundant... and the nerfing them so they were not main combatants was silly since the various combat specialist mages don't get any exemption...which makes them suddenly unable to do their job
But it is what it is, and changing it at this point requires a house rule.

Yeah, I know, which for years was my answer to the problem. Lately not so much. But there are other ways around the issue. Most of them learned while playing one of my funnest characters ever. And he's not even a Rifts character. Well his OCC isn't racially well True Atlanteans are megaversal.

[Axelmania]

According to the Rules As Written, wizards can cast spells wearing power armor no different than if they are wearing body armor. Thus logically the effect should be the same.

This would be a good place for the 'dual category' armors to have an effect actually. Something like a Glitterboy, or a Ulti-Max might, mystically, be treated as a Robot Vehicle since they are called 'borderline' several places. Which would have the dual effect of making this distinction actually have some sort of relevance and make the top line power armors less attractive to the enterprising mecha-mage.

Being able to cast spells from within something doesn't necessarily mean that the spells will affect that something, though.

You can cast spells from within a vehicle if you pop your head out the window, for example, but that won't make the vehicle affected by 'make clothing invisible' spells, so I figure PA's the same. Same with a robot horse.

[eliakon]

According to the Rules As Written, wizards can cast spells wearing power armor no different than if they are wearing body armor. Thus logically the effect should be the same.

This would be a good place for the 'dual category' armors to have an effect actually. Something like a Glitterboy, or a Ulti-Max might, mystically, be treated as a Robot Vehicle since they are called 'borderline' several places. Which would have the dual effect of making this distinction actually have some sort of relevance and make the top line power armors less attractive to the enterprising mecha-mage.

Being able to cast spells from within something doesn't necessarily mean that the spells will affect that something, though.

You can cast spells from within a vehicle if you pop your head out the window, for example, but that won't make the vehicle affected by 'make clothing invisible' spells, so I figure PA's the same. Same with a robot horse.

The problem with that logic is that the books already TELL us what happens in all three cases. Not to mention it is a strawman of the first order.
It explicitly says that vehicles require you to do just that or that the spell will be cast on the vehicle. Vehicles have never been affected by spells that work on clothing. Ever.

It explicitly says that power armor is treated the same as any other suit of armor. Thus if a clothing spell works on armor, it works on power armor

And mounts are always treated as a second target. They are not, and never have been, treated as clothing.

For your "make clothing invisible" spell that you have invented. Since it is a new custom spell that you are making up on the spot, when you and your GM invent it, you will have to decide if it works on armor or not. If it does then, theoretically it should also work on power armor. But of course since you are making it up, it can do what you want.


To make the argument that a power armor is different because it is power armor is a house rule that goes against the official printed canon material.

[Zamion138]

Id allow it to work, its not game changing, it would be kind of fun to make a pc worry about light frags utterly removing their hands but, if your worried a magic item is to powerful under some ones eba , dont give them said magic item.

[Killer Cyborg]

Where in the rules does it say a mage can cast a spell while wearing power armor?

RUE page 188 under the Wearing Body armor section (first paragraph, second column)

"Note: The same considerations and penalties apply to power armor."

Yup.

[Axelmania]

The problem with that logic is that the books already TELL us what happens in all three cases. Not to mention it is a strawman of the first order.

Where does it talk about these three cases?

Page 188's "Technological Effects on Magic" section includes power armor under body armor's 'covering the body with over 50% artificial materials' PPE penalty and random effects, but that only refers to the casting of spells, not the actual effects of spells which target clothing or body armor.

Body armor and power armor aren't necessarily the same things in terms of spell effects. That's why some spells can pass through body armor but not power armor.

It explicitly says that vehicles require you to do just that or that the spell will be cast on the vehicle.

Actually I believe it says you would strike those inside the vehicle, not the vehicle itself.

"Inside a vehicle or giant robot" doesn't cover RIDING a robot horse though.

Vehicles have never been affected by spells that work on clothing. Ever.

In this case I am talking about an inanimate object being the direct target of the spell, the 'other'. Not the secondary target (ie the other's clothing).

It explicitly says that power armor is treated the same as any other suit of armor. Thus if a clothing spell works on armor, it works on power armor

Wrong, the note from 188 is only talking about being able to cast spells while wearing them and the penalties.

It isn't talking about the actual targets of the spell.

And mounts are always treated as a second target. They are not, and never have been, treated as clothing.

Right, because they're vehicles. You 'pilot' them. Just as you 'pilot' power armor.

For your "make clothing invisible" spell that you have invented. Since it is a new custom spell that you are making up on the spot, when you and your GM invent it, you will have to decide if it works on armor or not. If it does then, theoretically it should also work on power armor. But of course since you are making it up, it can do what you want.

I'm talking about the effect of Simple/Superior affecting clothing, not a new spell.

[eliakon]

If simple/superior invisibility affects clothes then the GM must rule on if it affects armor.
If it affects some armor, then by the books it affects all armor as there is no statement that it only affects some kinds of armor and not others
If it affects some armor (such as padded armor, or blended clothing armor) then it affects all armor (including plate armor, and power armor)
The GM is free to change this in their own game of course, but RAW if it says it works then it does work.
And since the only statement we have on armor is that power armor is magically treated the same...

And no, animals are not vehicles. They are animals.

[Axelmania]

I guess 'armor' is flexible, however if a spell specified 'body armor' I would say that excludes power since they're usually discrete ideas.

Animals can serve in a role as vehicle the same way a tool can serve in a role as weapon.

Latin term 'vehere' simply meant 'to carry' and 'vehiculum' is conveyence.