Indestructible Paper Armor

[Glistam]

Just say "No" to paper armor. The book even says Diabolists consider such requests ridiculous and generally don't do it.

[glitterboy2098]

i'd argue that regular paper armor works as normal..
http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythb ... really.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_armour

but the magic of the rune doesn't really work with armor..

[Jefffar]

The Chinese style laminated paper armour would require each sheet to be made into rune paper individually (the silver rune works on a sheet by sheet basis). Given that each scale is going to be dozens of sheets, the price of the armour would be pretty astronomical.

Stat wise I'd probably treat it the same as a suit of Scale armour with an sdc bonus (the scales are indestructible but the rest of the armour isn't).

[Glistam]

The stats for Paper Armor are provided in the book. Just go with that if you must.

[drewkitty ~..~]

When talking about diabolists its mentioned that a silver rune makes the paper indestructible,....

Diabolists can not make paper indestructible.
Paper is not Parchment.
-----------------------

The Chinese style laminated paper armor....

Paper armor is not so crazy. The mythbusters tested the possibility of the chinese having paper armor. And it worked find....but it didn't last as long as metal armor and it was not very sturdy when wet.

[drewkitty ~..~]

And I believe the point about paper armor made with the silver runed parchment is that it will not stop the blunt damage from being attacked and as such does not make good armor. Is the why they can't make parchment armor, Or to say, armor that is just made of said silver runed parchment w/o anything else.

This is other then that it would make really good armor component so KS banned it from being armor.

However, Jefffar has the best ideas for house ruling it.

[Tor]

The RoD fan in me wants there to be a paperkinesis to ruin these folk by slicing them to death with their indestructible armor.

[Tor]

...that's what parchment is?

Have the necromancers taken notice?

[glitterboy2098]

yep. parchment is basically leather that is stretched and pounded as it cures until it is ultra thin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parchment

it was the standard material for writing on for ages, since Papyrus was never very widespread outside africa, and wood pulp paper was a mainly asian thing until the age of exploration brought that tech back to europe.
because it looks and feels so similar to the paper of today, a lot of people forget that it isn't made from plant fibers.

btw, Vellum is a kind of Parchement made from calf skin..

[Tor]

Okay, so TTGD calls, if a Fleshsculptor took the skin off a cow intact and stretched it until it was the proper thin-ness to be considered parchment, how big would my new giant trojan parchment cow be?

[Killer Cyborg]

When talking about diabolists its mentioned that a silver rune makes the paper indestructible, it further goes on to give reasons why this paper cannot be used to make armor by clever players, e.g. noisy, doesn't protect against impact, ect. This is all good until a player sees a special specifically about non-indestructible paper armor....

Actually, it's all good until a player actually reads the passage that Palladium thinks argues that rune parchment armor is a bad thing.

If you actually look at what they're describing, it adds up to something pretty good:
1. No listed AR. That means that attacks hit the armor itself, not the character. That's invaluable, when one understands the problems with the Armor Rating system.
2. You take 1/2 damage from all stabbing/slashing attacks. That's pretty awesome!
3. You take 1/2 damage from fire attacks for the first 1d4 melee rounds.

These two things alone are pretty sweet, better than conventional armor in many ways.

The Downsides of rune parchment armor are:
1. -15% to prowl (Negated by a Noiseless enchantment for 12,000 gold)
2. -5% on physical skills (Negated by a Weightless enchantment for 15,000 gold).
3. Full damage from blunt weapons. (Which you take anyway, if you're not wearing armor.
4. Full damage from fire attacks after 1d4 melees. (Although most fire attacks don't last longer than 1 attack, so unless you're actively set on fire, this nets out as 1/2 damage from fire attacks.... which is better than standard armor provides).

And the Palladium description seems to be the equivalent of just wearing some paper bags on your body, not any kind of proper armor. But if you're wearing paper bags, you could easily do that UNDER normal armor.
So what they're describing is an expensive suit of armor, granted, but for 57,000 gold, you can take 1/2 damage from piercing/slashing attacks ad infinitum, and 1/2 damage from most fire attacks, in addition to wearing a normal (or magical) suit of armor over the paper armor.

... that not only was used up til the 19th century in China but provided equivalent protection as its contemporary steel armor while weighing less, the only real downsides being that the paper was bulkier and slowly broke down. What might the relevant stats be for paper armor constructed in this manner, or should I just say no paper armor on principle? (I typically try to run things as close to accordance with physics as a mystical land full of magic allows, hence the majority of the minor rule tweaks I've made).

Allow parchment armor, if they have the cash.
It's stupid that Palladium is so set against it in the first place.

What would the stats be?
I haven't looked at historical paper armor, but if it's the equivalent of steel armor, then go with that. Give it the same AR, only with infinite SDC. If it's bulkier/louder, then stack the official penalties for paper bag armor on top of the penalties for the equivalent metal armor (then get it enchanted, and ditch all those penalties entirely).

[Tor]

We probably should stop calling it paper to distinguish the plant/animal thing, and for extra fleshsculptor from.

Of course, since parchment armor is boiled cow skin, what would happen if I cast 'destroy dead flesh' on runed parchment armor? Would it be immune?

Of course, if you can't destroy it... other fleshsculptor magic could do stuff like stretch it out, command it to attack the wearer, etc.

[drewkitty ~..~]

We probably should stop calling it paper to distinguish the plant/animal thing, and for extra fleshsculptor from.

Of course, since parchment armor is boiled cow skin, what would happen if I cast 'destroy dead flesh' on runed parchment armor? Would it be immune?

Of course, if you can't destroy it... other fleshsculptor magic could do stuff like stretch it out, command it to attack the wearer, etc.

I would treat it like as if the attacking mage had cast 'negate magic' and give the silver runed parchment a save vs magic.

[Tor]

Something else occurs as a useful way to battle people with such armor...

Couldn't you just cast 'teleport object' on the armor to make it vanish off the person?

Or would that only port the individual piece woven in, requiring multiple castings?

[eliakon]

Something else occurs as a useful way to battle people with such armor...

Couldn't you just cast 'teleport object' on the armor to make it vanish off the person?

Or would that only port the individual piece woven in, requiring multiple castings?

Sure you can cast Teleport: Lesser on the armor. Though it does have a range of 'touch'. There is also the question of if the note that it takes 30 seconds to teleport means that you have to keep touching the item for that 30 seconds, which could be....problematical in a battle. The Teleport Object psi power is faster, but again has a range of touch and with a weight limit of 1 pound/level better be either high level, or hope its light armor.

[Tor]

Range may not be a limit if I build it into a TW device and make a 'port gun'.

[eliakon]

Range may not be a limit if I build it into a TW device and make a 'port gun'.

No, I guess you can make a TW item to do anything you want, and ignore any limits on any spell if your GM allows it. But since that requires a GM to make a ruling, its not very relevant to any discussion out side of a game specific one now is it?

[Tor]

Spells can also be modified via TTGD to extend their range

I'm still not sure whether or not what can be made permanent w/ silver runes is plant parchment or animal skin parchment. Would like to know what spells would affect it.

[eliakon]

Spells can also be modified via TTGD to extend their range

And again its a unique, case by case basis of GM permission. Which again does nothing to advance the discussion since the first step is "Will the GM allow this." and the answer is "Maybe, that depends on your GM and your game."

I'm still not sure whether or not what can be made permanent w/ silver runes is plant parchment or animal skin parchment. Would like to know what spells would affect it.

I would assume that sense the definition of parchment for writing papers is animal hide, that it is animal hide.
As for spells that would work on it...not a lot. You would need a spell that works on animal skins, and doesn't require changing or altering the skin.

[Tor]

Anything in games boil down to GM permission but there are specific spell-creation rules so if the GM ignores them, we might as well say GMs could ignore the existence of spells to begin with. We may as well not discuss Annihilate if GMs won't let players learn the spell.

Does indestructible mean un-changeable or un-alterable? I feel like that's kinda something different...

If parchment scrolls couldn't be changed, you shouldn't even be able to roll them up.

[eliakon]

Anything in games boil down to GM permission but there are specific spell-creation rules so if the GM ignores them, we might as well say GMs could ignore the existence of spells to begin with. We may as well not discuss Annihilate if GMs won't let players learn the spell.

False.
First the 'rules' on changing spells have specific caveats that explicitly state that any alterations need the GMs approval. This would be either the TtGD page 40 section D, or MoM page 61 Game Masters Note.
Second please note they don't have 'specific rules' they have guide lines, there is a difference. A rule would imply that there is a set formula to determine how something would work, and that deviations from that are house rules. Guide lines let us know that there are some general benchmarks for approximating things, and that we will have to fudge from there.
So claiming that a GM is making a house rule or disregarding a rule, when they are in fact following the published material is, well, false.

Does indestructible mean un-changeable or un-alterable? I feel like that's kinda something different...

If parchment scrolls couldn't be changed, you shouldn't even be able to roll them up.

You can bend it that's not a 'change' to the parchment. You cant turn the parchment into cheese though, since that would effectively destroy the parchment. A 'change' that still leaves the target as parchment would likely be okay, since that doesn't get around the 'can not destroy' a change that does not is not okay since that violates the 'can not destroy' (since you did in fact, just destroy the parchment)

[Tor]

Everything needs GM approval already, that's merely a reminder, not a separate classification.

Bending something is changing it, it is shape-changing. Also I'm not sure I agree that changing something into cheese destroys it.

[eliakon]

Everything needs GM approval already, that's merely a reminder, not a separate classification.

Actually yes it is separate, and its there for the exact reason I mentioned. Because the spell creation system is NOT a hard and fast set of rules but a fast and loose set of guide lines that needs explicit supervision.

Bending something is changing it, it is shape-changing. Also I'm not sure I agree that changing something into cheese destroys it.

And I guess we could get into a semantics argument about 'what is shape' and 'what is change' although I would take as my stance 'what would be the simplest way of looking at this, as seen by the common person' So rolling up a paper doesn't change it, but magically stretching it to be longer does. YMMV

As for the cheese? You destroyed the parchment. It is now NOT parchment, ergo the parchment is destroyed.

[Tor]

Changing something into cheese does not destroy it. If I change a human into a mouse, have I destroyed the human? Does their soul go on to the next plane? Nope.

[eliakon]

Changing something into cheese does not destroy it. If I change a human into a mouse, have I destroyed the human? Does their soul go on to the next plane? Nope.

Then we are going to have to disagree here. But I would at a minimum say that since this would allow one to get around the 'rune parchment is indestructible' simply by turning it to something else that isn't affected and removing the rune, that its Not Allowed.

[Tor]

That seems like a creative way around the restriction, why not allow it? It's not like indestructible parchment's such a big deal, the ink written on it is always destroyable so you can always vandalize them.

[eliakon]

That seems like a creative way around the restriction, why not allow it? It's not like indestructible parchment's such a big deal, the ink written on it is always destroyable so you can always vandalize them.

The reason not to allow it is that the parchment (and the silver writing on it) are explicitly said to be indestructible. Period, dot, full stop. If it can be destroyed (like for instance being turned into cheese, and then eaten) it is not indestructible. Ergo it can not be transformed. If you want to make a house rule for your game that indestructible does not, in fact mean that "Can not be destroyed" that's fine. But that is not the RAW, nor is it what the words in the book say or mean.

[Tor]

Changing parchment into cheese would not violate the indestructibility rule. You'd have 1 of 2 things occur:
*It remains indestructible as cheese because its true form is the parchment.
*Cheese with a silver rune doesn't benefit from being indestructible, so it loses the power.

In either case, you're not destroying something indestructible.

You're twisting the argument, I am not saying indestructible things can be destroyed, I'm saying that 'destroy' and 'transform' are not synonyms.

If transformation were destruction, then True Atlanteans and Nightbanes would be much tougher cookies to deal with.

RAW only forbids destruction, not transformation. The result of that transformation is probably up to the GM, as I'm a bit fuzzy on how to interpret the silver-runed cheese dilemma, but in no way do I see something being indestructible meaning that it is immune to transformation, or vice versa.

Artifacts and Magic/Rune weapons for example, can transform by changing size, even though they are indestructible. For all I know they might even be able to benefit from metamorphosis: human spells.

[eliakon]

Changing parchment into cheese would not violate the indestructibility rule. You'd have 1 of 2 things occur:
*It remains indestructible as cheese because its true form is the parchment.
*Cheese with a silver rune doesn't benefit from being indestructible, so it loses the power.

In either case, you're not destroying something indestructible.

You're twisting the argument, I am not saying indestructible things can be destroyed, I'm saying that 'destroy' and 'transform' are not synonyms.

If transformation were destruction, then True Atlanteans and Nightbanes would be much tougher cookies to deal with.

RAW only forbids destruction, not transformation. The result of that transformation is probably up to the GM, as I'm a bit fuzzy on how to interpret the silver-runed cheese dilemma, but in no way do I see something being indestructible meaning that it is immune to transformation, or vice versa.

Artifacts and Magic/Rune weapons for example, can transform by changing size, even though they are indestructible. For all I know they might even be able to benefit from metamorphosis: human spells.

Because its NOT vice-versa.
I am saying that 'Can not be destroyed' includes 'can not be transformed'. I am NOT saying that the reverse is true.

[Tor]

I am saying that 'Can not be destroyed' includes 'can not be transformed'.

Mkay, but then explain how in Nightlands the Greatest Artifacts are simultaneously indestructible (p18) and can shape-shift (p19) ?

"all artifacts are indestructible"
"a sword could transform into a dagger or arm band or vambrace"

Seems to clearly contradict such an assumption.

[eliakon]

I am saying that 'Can not be destroyed' includes 'can not be transformed'.

Mkay, but then explain how in Nightlands the Greatest Artifacts are simultaneously indestructible (p18) and can shape-shift (p19) ?

"all artifacts are indestructible"
"a sword could transform into a dagger or arm band or vambrace"

Seems to clearly contradict such an assumption.

*facepalms*
I guess that's what I get for making a short reply to you.
Okay, long explaination.
I do not think that you can transform an indestructible object into another object that is no longer the same as the first.
So a Greatest Artifact can transform from a ring to a dagger, but its still a Greatest Artifact. But you cant turn it into cheese, since its now NOT a Greatest Artifact.
Is that clearer?

[Thinyser]

The Chinese style laminated paper armour would require each sheet to be made into rune paper individually (the silver rune works on a sheet by sheet basis). Given that each scale is going to be dozens of sheets, the price of the armour would be pretty astronomical.

Stat wise I'd probably treat it the same as a suit of Scale armour with an sdc bonus (the scales are indestructible but the rest of the armour isn't).

^This^ Exactly this.

[Tor]

I do not think that you can transform an indestructible object into another object that is no longer the same as the first.
So a Greatest Artifact can transform from a ring to a dagger, but its still a Greatest Artifact. But you cant turn it into cheese, since its now NOT a Greatest Artifact.
Is that clearer?

No, unless there is some rule preventing cheese from being a greatest artifact.

[eliakon]

I do not think that you can transform an indestructible object into another object that is no longer the same as the first.
So a Greatest Artifact can transform from a ring to a dagger, but its still a Greatest Artifact. But you cant turn it into cheese, since its now NOT a Greatest Artifact.
Is that clearer?

No, unless there is some rule preventing cheese from being a greatest artifact.

Then I guess you and I are probably not going to see eye to eye on this on.
Though I guess as long as the 'cheese' has all of the same properties as the original then it might be acceptable. ( I wouldn't think so, but from a rules stand point as long as there is no difference then what its made of is a special effect.)
So I guess if you turned the parchment into cheese...and the cheese was still indestructible, with indestructible silver runes then it might be acceptable (Though partial transformations like that is a can of worms that I would not wish to open, and would find it simpler to just say 'no' rather than have to decide what properties can, and what properties can not be transformed)

[Thinyser]

Tor if you burn a log have you destroyed it?

[Tor]

Whatever our real-world definitions of destruction and transformation may be, we must tailor them to the game, and the game tells us that something indestructible can be transformed, so transformation is not destruction.

Of course, there might be a subtle difference between transformation and transmutation.

[Mouser13]

Personally when I though about it in the past here is what I came up with.

The paper wouldn't do much though with peiceing weapons like lasers it could do a bit. I would give 1/2 damage to any attack that you think have peneration power. Rail guns, lasers, swords. Some of the energy would transfer though but some of it wouldn't.

Damage normal on all other weapons.

[Killer Cyborg]

(Ah, thread resurrection.
I'd already answered this one last year, but I assumed that the topic had cycled around again and this was a new thread.
So here's my new answer.
I actually looked into the historical paper armor a bit more, this time.)

When talking about diabolists its mentioned that a silver rune makes the paper indestructible, it further goes on to give reasons why this paper cannot be used to make armor by clever players, e.g. noisy, doesn't protect against impact, ect. This is all good until a player sees a special specifically about non-indestructible paper armor that not only was used up til the 19th century in China but provided equivalent protection as its contemporary steel armor while weighing less, the only real downsides being that the paper was bulkier and slowly broke down. What might the relevant stats be for paper armor constructed in this manner, or should I just say no paper armor on principle? (I typically try to run things as close to accordance with physics as a mystical land full of magic allows, hence the majority of the minor rule tweaks I've made).

Palladium's idea of "paper armor" seems to be the equivalent of wearing paper bags.
Even then, if you look at it, the stats that they give their paper-bag armor in order to prove how "useless" it would be are actually pretty impressive compared to normal armor.
Especially since the downsides (noise, lack of mobility, etc.) can pretty much be eliminated with the right enchantment (Noiseless, Weightless, etc.)
There have been a number of discussions about this in the past, in the Rifts forums and the PFRPG forums.

It wouldn't take a genius to come up with a better form of paper bag armor than "let's wear some bags on our heads."
Just layering indestructible parchment onto existing armor would be a simple start.
If you layer it on the outside, then your armor takes less damage from certain attacks. If you layer it on the inside, then you take less damage when your armor is bypassed.

Historical paper armor was lamellar. The main downside is that you'd need a silver rune for each piece of parchment, which would end up getting VERY expensive.
The paper armor would already be lighter than metal armor, so that would be one advantage. Just don't get it WET, because it would likely absorb enough water to make it just as heavy (if not heavier) than metal.
Palladium doesn't have lamellar armor statted out for their normal system (AR & SDC), but p. 87 of the CoWAC claims that lamellar and splint are the same thing, and p. 270 of PFRPG stat out suits of splint armor.
So I'd say that you could use that as your base.
Keep the same AR, as it covers the same part of the body.
The SDC wouldn't matter- it's indestructible.
A cubic inch of steel weighs approximately 0.2904 pounds.
A cubic inch of paper weighs approximately 0.043375 pounds.
Let's do some serious rounding off, and assume that means that paper weighs about 1/7th the amount of steel.
That would mean that paper armor would weigh roughly 1/7th as much as the steel equivalent. So a half suit of paper splint would weigh just over 3 lbs, and a full suit would weigh just over 7 lbs.

As I said, the main issue is price. You'd need to find out how many pieces would be needed for lamellar armor, and calculate the cost from there.
I'd help, but it's late, and I'm tired.

[Thinyser]

(Ah, thread resurrection.
I'd already answered this one last year, but I assumed that the topic had cycled around again and this was a new thread.
So here's my new answer.
I actually looked into the historical paper armor a bit more, this time.)

When talking about diabolists its mentioned that a silver rune makes the paper indestructible, it further goes on to give reasons why this paper cannot be used to make armor by clever players, e.g. noisy, doesn't protect against impact, ect. This is all good until a player sees a special specifically about non-indestructible paper armor that not only was used up til the 19th century in China but provided equivalent protection as its contemporary steel armor while weighing less, the only real downsides being that the paper was bulkier and slowly broke down. What might the relevant stats be for paper armor constructed in this manner, or should I just say no paper armor on principle? (I typically try to run things as close to accordance with physics as a mystical land full of magic allows, hence the majority of the minor rule tweaks I've made).

Palladium's idea of "paper armor" seems to be the equivalent of wearing paper bags.
Even then, if you look at it, the stats that they give their paper-bag armor in order to prove how "useless" it would be are actually pretty impressive compared to normal armor.
Especially since the downsides (noise, lack of mobility, etc.) can pretty much be eliminated with the right enchantment (Noiseless, Weightless, etc.)
There have been a number of discussions about this in the past, in the Rifts forums and the PFRPG forums.

It wouldn't take a genius to come up with a better form of paper bag armor than "let's wear some bags on our heads."
Just layering indestructible parchment onto existing armor would be a simple start.
If you layer it on the outside, then your armor takes less damage from certain attacks. If you layer it on the inside, then you take less damage when your armor is bypassed.

Historical paper armor was lamellar. The main downside is that you'd need a silver rune for each piece of parchment, which would end up getting VERY expensive.
The paper armor would already be lighter than metal armor, so that would be one advantage. Just don't get it WET, because it would likely absorb enough water to make it just as heavy (if not heavier) than metal.
Palladium doesn't have lamellar armor statted out for their normal system (AR & SDC), but p. 87 of the CoWAC claims that lamellar and splint are the same thing, and p. 270 of PFRPG stat out suits of splint armor.
So I'd say that you could use that as your base.
Keep the same AR, as it covers the same part of the body.
The SDC wouldn't matter- it's indestructible.
A cubic inch of steel weighs approximately 0.2904 pounds.
A cubic inch of paper weighs approximately 0.043375 pounds.
Let's do some serious rounding off, and assume that means that paper weighs about 1/7th the amount of steel.
That would mean that paper armor would weigh roughly 1/7th as much as the steel equivalent. So a half suit of paper splint would weigh just over 3 lbs, and a full suit would weigh just over 7 lbs.

As I said, the main issue is price. You'd need to find out how many pieces would be needed for lamellar armor, and calculate the cost from there.
I'd help, but it's late, and I'm tired.

Two things I take issue with. The paper, while 1/7th the weight, has to be much thicker than the metal to offer similar protection (the scales on splint armor were much thinner than the scales of paper armor which were between 1 and 3 INCHES thick). So in the end if you consider this thickness difference its probably not 1/7th the weight since the cubic inches of paper used are much more than cubic inches of steel used. Its probably closer to 1/4 the weight maybe even 1/2 the weight of steel for comparable protection. Still very nice to save 1/2 or 3/4 of the weight.

Second issue is that the laminations do not need to be made of individual sheets of parchment each with their own rune. One could use a long strip of parchment and by "fan folding" it back and forth on itself come up with a very thick resulting "stack" that is really just one folded piece. Poke the holes to lace it onto the "shirt" that will allow it to be worn and then write the rune, stick in the laces, glue the folds together under pressure and then lace it onto the shirt. Saves time and money. How much time and money does it save? Who knows but its lots cheaper and less time consuming to fold a piece of parchment back and forth 20 times than it is to cut out 20 individual sheets and rune each one.

Another issue that is not addressed is that the laces and the glue used to hold the laminated sheets to the shirt and that make the laminations act as a single solid piece are not themselves indestructible. The glue would probably last for a very long time depending on what its made from and how its cared for. If leather or silk or cotton was used for the laces they would probably have to be replaced every few years or so depending on wear n tear. The laces might be made of very thin strips of parchment that are also made indestructible in which case you have pretty much indestructible armor.

My Idea would be to make a laminated breast plate out of 20 or so layers of parchment. Each sheet is placed on a form (made from the person to be armored), holes poked for laces, inscribed for invulnerability, glued down to the sheet beneath. It would end up looking like a stiff boiled leather breast plate something like this http://www.evenlodestudio.com/acatalog/ ... uirass.jpg but a few shades lighter (or whatever color you want just dye the outer most layer of parchment before you rune it.)

Repeat for the rest of the body and you have a full suit of plate mail that is made of indestructible parchment at about 1/2 to 1/4 of the weight.

Each part would be made of 2 halves each consisting of 20 layers, so thats 40 silver runes per segment of armor. There are a damn lot of segments in a suit of full plate but not nearly as many as scales on a suit of traditional paper armor. Again a time and money saver and better protection as the design of plate mail would mean higher AR as there was fewer gaps compared to scale/paper armor. Combine this with an undersuit that was made of a single layer of parchment sewn together so that the weakest areas of the plate armor were protected by this underlayer (no seams in the underlayer near the gaps in armpits, groin, behind the knee etc.) would prevent piercing attacks to these areas which was the weakness of full plate.

I would say that it would cost about 50-100 (maybe as much as 1000) times as much as a full suit of steel plate but would offer the same AR (plus if the attack does bypass the AR the you basically take 1/2 damage from being pierced in the armpits groin etc.) and infinite SDC! Add some enchantments for silent (it would be only a little louder than leather W/O this IMO) and weightless and you have a nearly ideal suit of armor.

[Killer Cyborg]

Two things I take issue with. The paper, while 1/7th the weight, has to be much thicker than the metal to offer similar protection (the scales on splint armor were much thinner than the scales of paper armor which were between 1 and 3 INCHES thick). So in the end if you consider this thickness difference its probably not 1/7th the weight since the cubic inches of paper used are much more than cubic inches of steel used. Its probably closer to 1/4 the weight maybe even 1/2 the weight of steel for comparable protection. Still very nice to save 1/2 or 3/4 of the weight.

Fair enough.
I'd get mine enchanted to be Weightless regardless.

Second issue is that the laminations do not need to be made of individual sheets of parchment each with their own rune. One could use a long strip of parchment and by "fan folding" it back and forth on itself come up with a very thick resulting "stack" that is really just one folded piece. Poke the holes to lace it onto the "shirt" that will allow it to be worn and then write the rune, stick in the laces, glue the folds together under pressure and then lace it onto the shirt. Saves time and money. How much time and money does it save? Who knows but its lots cheaper and less time consuming to fold a piece of parchment back and forth 20 times than it is to cut out 20 individual sheets and rune each one.

That's the kind of thing that I was assuming: folded pieces.
You'd want to origami the thing as best you could.

The laces might be made of very thin strips of parchment that are also made indestructible in which case you have pretty much indestructible armor.

Right- that's how I'd do it.

My Idea would be to make a laminated breast plate out of 20 or so layers of parchment. Each sheet is placed on a form (made from the person to be armored), holes poked for laces, inscribed for invulnerability, glued down to the sheet beneath. It would end up looking like a stiff boiled leather breast plate something like this http://www.evenlodestudio.com/acatalog/ ... uirass.jpg but a few shades lighter (or whatever color you want just dye the outer most layer of parchment before you rune it.)

The glue would be problematic.
I'd rather weave pieces together or something.

[Thinyser]

Two things I take issue with. The paper, while 1/7th the weight, has to be much thicker than the metal to offer similar protection (the scales on splint armor were much thinner than the scales of paper armor which were between 1 and 3 INCHES thick). So in the end if you consider this thickness difference its probably not 1/7th the weight since the cubic inches of paper used are much more than cubic inches of steel used. Its probably closer to 1/4 the weight maybe even 1/2 the weight of steel for comparable protection. Still very nice to save 1/2 or 3/4 of the weight.

Fair enough.
I'd get mine enchanted to be Weightless regardless.

Second issue is that the laminations do not need to be made of individual sheets of parchment each with their own rune. One could use a long strip of parchment and by "fan folding" it back and forth on itself come up with a very thick resulting "stack" that is really just one folded piece. Poke the holes to lace it onto the "shirt" that will allow it to be worn and then write the rune, stick in the laces, glue the folds together under pressure and then lace it onto the shirt. Saves time and money. How much time and money does it save? Who knows but its lots cheaper and less time consuming to fold a piece of parchment back and forth 20 times than it is to cut out 20 individual sheets and rune each one.

That's the kind of thing that I was assuming: folded pieces.
You'd want to origami the thing as best you could.

The laces might be made of very thin strips of parchment that are also made indestructible in which case you have pretty much indestructible armor.

Right- that's how I'd do it.

My Idea would be to make a laminated breast plate out of 20 or so layers of parchment. Each sheet is placed on a form (made from the person to be armored), holes poked for laces, inscribed for invulnerability, glued down to the sheet beneath. It would end up looking like a stiff boiled leather breast plate something like this http://www.evenlodestudio.com/acatalog/ ... uirass.jpg but a few shades lighter (or whatever color you want just dye the outer most layer of parchment before you rune it.)

The glue would be problematic.
I'd rather weave pieces together or something.

Depends on what glue was used. If it was a rubber like compound like organic latex the layers of parchment could shift slightly and bounce back without losing their bond to adjoining layers. It wouldn't be as rigid this way so for more plate like protection more layers and more weight would need to be added but that can be overcome with the weightless enchantment.

If a rigid bonding agent was used (like epoxy) it would be incredibly stiff and pretty durable (Imagine a 20 layer thick carbon-fiber composite that the fiber is replaced with indestructible parchment) but if sufficient force was applied and the laminations did "delaminate" it would be impossible to repair and would need to be replaced.

That said I recently completed a degree in wind power technology and part of the training was on composites. The strength of the composite is determined by the reinforcement material (the fiber cloth or in our case indestructible parchment) while the stiffness or rigidity comes from the matrix (the resin or binding agent that permeates the reinforcement material as a liquid then hardens). Parchment is porous so the resin would have tons of tiny spaces to seep into and bond very securely. If the technology was available (such as on Rifts Earth) for one to pull a vacuum on the mold (which has the layers of reinforcement already laid out inside) and then introduce the resin (called Vacuum Infusion Process or VIP) then the resin fills all the spaces where air was, and the layers are bonded together with minimal resin. What this means is there is very little "glue" between the layers and no air voids thus making a composite that is nearly impervious to delamination as one sheet of reinforcement is essentially bonded directly to the next without a true "layer" of glue between them.

When you get into weaving then you have again the issue of many individual strips of parchment that need their own rune and then several layers of this woven parchment fabric somehow bonded together (possibly with a weave that connects the layers with more parchment strips). Significantly upping the time and expense.

[Killer Cyborg]

Depends on what glue was used. If it was a rubber like compound like organic latex the layers of parchment could shift slightly and bounce back without losing their bond to adjoining layers. It wouldn't be as rigid this way so for more plate like protection more layers and more weight would need to be added but that can be overcome with the weightless enchantment.

Sure, but what about getting hit by a fireball?
Or general wear and tear from movement?
Or whatever?
I mean, semi-indestructible is better than nothing, but I'd rather have it be as indestructible as possible.
Especially due to simplicity in gaming.

[quote[If a rigid bonding agent was used (like epoxy) it would be incredibly stiff and pretty durable (Imagine a 20 layer thick carbon-fiber composite that the fiber is replaced with indestructible parchment) but if sufficient force was applied and the laminations did "delaminate" it would be impossible to repair and would need to be replaced. [/quote]

Hell. It's indestructible. You could probably weld it.

That said I recently completed a degree in wind power technology and part of the training was on composites. The strength of the composite is determined by the reinforcement material (the fiber cloth or in our case indestructible parchment) while the stiffness or rigidity comes from the matrix (the resin or binding agent that permeates the reinforcement material as a liquid then hardens). Parchment is porous so the resin would have tons of tiny spaces to seep into and bond very securely. If the technology was available (such as on Rifts Earth) for one to pull a vacuum on the mold (which has the layers of reinforcement already laid out inside) and then introduce the resin (called Vacuum Infusion Process or VIP) then the resin fills all the spaces where air was, and the layers are bonded together with minimal resin. What this means is there is very little "glue" between the layers and no air voids thus making a composite that is nearly impervious to delamination as one sheet of reinforcement is essentially bonded directly to the next without a true "layer" of glue between them.

That has some intriguing possibilities.

When you get into weaving then you have again the issue of many individual strips of parchment that need their own rune and then several layers of this woven parchment fabric somehow bonded together (possibly with a weave that connects the layers with more parchment strips). Significantly upping the time and expense.

IF you took the time, and had the right origami skills, you could theoretically have it all be just one piece, attached together with string-like strips at some point.
But who knows what the cost would be.

I'd rather pay more for armor that can't be destroyed no matter what.

[Thinyser]

Depends on what glue was used. If it was a rubber like compound like organic latex the layers of parchment could shift slightly and bounce back without losing their bond to adjoining layers. It wouldn't be as rigid this way so for more plate like protection more layers and more weight would need to be added but that can be overcome with the weightless enchantment.

Sure, but what about getting hit by a fireball?
Or general wear and tear from movement?
Or whatever?
I mean, semi-indestructible is better than nothing, but I'd rather have it be as indestructible as possible.
Especially due to simplicity in gaming.

If a rigid bonding agent was used (like epoxy) it would be incredibly stiff and pretty durable (Imagine a 20 layer thick carbon-fiber composite that the fiber is replaced with indestructible parchment) but if sufficient force was applied and the laminations did "delaminate" it would be impossible to repair and would need to be replaced.

Hell. It's indestructible. You could probably weld it.

Wow that just sparked my imagination! I thought of using the parchment as a core material sandwiched between thin layers of hammered and tempered steel. You could put it between the sheets of metal and heat in the forge as normal without any ill effect to the parchment. Alternately you could face a single sheet of steel in parchment (front and back sewn around the edges with laces of parchment). The process of heating an pounding would essentially weld the steel to the parchment (as stated it is porous so the metal would have lots of places to get forced into). One could even dip the indestructible parchment into molten metal let it absorb what it can and then bend it (no cutting or poking holes) into a useful shape. But I have an even better idea, see below.

That said I recently completed a degree in wind power technology and part of the training was on composites. The strength of the composite is determined by the reinforcement material (the fiber cloth or in our case indestructible parchment) while the stiffness or rigidity comes from the matrix (the resin or binding agent that permeates the reinforcement material as a liquid then hardens). Parchment is porous so the resin would have tons of tiny spaces to seep into and bond very securely. If the technology was available (such as on Rifts Earth) for one to pull a vacuum on the mold (which has the layers of reinforcement already laid out inside) and then introduce the resin (called Vacuum Infusion Process or VIP) then the resin fills all the spaces where air was, and the layers are bonded together with minimal resin. What this means is there is very little "glue" between the layers and no air voids thus making a composite that is nearly impervious to delamination as one sheet of reinforcement is essentially bonded directly to the next without a true "layer" of glue between them.

That has some intriguing possibilities.

Yeah, now that I have the idea that molten metal doesn't harm the parchment you could actually use it as the resin in the VIP process above and suck it into a mold that has been layered with parchment. While not fully indestructible it would have $#!+ tons more SDC than regular plate and would never delaminate since the metal would be ductile enough to bend or stretch instead of separating. The metal could never be pierced or torn as its reinforced by the parchment. Most damage would be surface nicks and scratches in the outermost layer of metal (once the parchment was reached it would prevent further intrusion) Any dents or dings (which would take massive force to achieve) could be hammered out (also with sufficiently massive force)

When you get into weaving then you have again the issue of many individual strips of parchment that need their own rune and then several layers of this woven parchment fabric somehow bonded together (possibly with a weave that connects the layers with more parchment strips). Significantly upping the time and expense.

IF you took the time, and had the right origami skills, you could theoretically have it all be just one piece, attached together with string-like strips at some point.
But who knows what the cost would be.

I'd rather pay more for armor that can't be destroyed no matter what.

Well a single cow hide can only be so big and the useful area of that is even smaller (the edges are trimmed off in the parchment making process) so there will likely be a limit to how much of your body you could protect with a single hide no matter how you cut it up or fold it prior to making it indestructable. I do agree however that several big pieces woven together and then made indestructible would be a very good approach.

Or you could just cut a head hole in the middle of the hide and make an indestructible poncho! JK

[Tor]

you'd need a silver rune for each piece of parchment, which would end up getting VERY expensive.

I have no idea how much it would cost because I don't think we've given a thorough breakdown of ingredient costs for Diabolists. How much component you use would depend on how small you made the rune/ward and aside from that vague 1-inch minimum (I think most of us assume this to mean diameter?) there isn't anything like skill rolls to make a ward, or skill penalties when you try to make it smaller, or perception roll penalties to notice small wards/runes compared to larger ones...

[Thinyser]

you'd need a silver rune for each piece of parchment, which would end up getting VERY expensive.

I have no idea how much it would cost because I don't think we've given a thorough breakdown of ingredient costs for Diabolists. How much component you use would depend on how small you made the rune/ward and aside from that vague 1-inch minimum (I think most of us assume this to mean diameter?) there isn't anything like skill rolls to make a ward, or skill penalties when you try to make it smaller, or perception roll penalties to notice small wards/runes compared to larger ones...

For how long and detailed the diabolist write-up is they sure did a botched job of it in my opinion.

[Thinyser]

What paper armor may look like

http://themetapicture.com/please-take-note/

[Tor]

I think Palladium could schedule a Diabolist update in their Mysteries of Magic series, telling us the cost of components, giving us a ward-writing skill and list of penalties for miniaturization or being a giant, for example, and component cost.

[Thinyser]

Hey I found these wallets/cases/satchels that are made with just leather no glue, no stitching.

Reminded me of this parchment origami idea to make paper armor without worrying about binders not being indestructible also.