Forums of the Megaverse®

The Spell Impervious to Energy from the Book of Magic page 113.

Does it protect before or after MD armor?

I mean if the player casts it on NPC with MD armor.
Then are shot by CS grunt with an energy Rifle.
Does the armor take damage first then the character is immune or does the spell also protect the armor and clothes?

darthauthor wrote: ↑Sun Jan 21, 2024 9:52 pm The Spell Impervious to Energy from the Book of Magic page 113.

Does it protect before or after MD armor?

I mean if the player casts it on NPC with MD armor.
Then are shot by CS grunt with an energy Rifle.
Does the armor take damage first then the character is immune or does the spell also protect the armor and clothes?

Good question!

I've always assumed yes, however, reading closely, the spell itself does not say, while Impervious to Fire does specifically clarify that anything the caster is wearing/on their person is also immune.
I would still say the intention was that it covers armor/wearables, but a strict rules lawyer could argue otherwise.

darthauthor wrote: ↑Sun Jan 21, 2024 9:52 pm The Spell Impervious to Energy from the Book of Magic page 113.

Does it protect before or after MD armor?

I mean if the player casts it on NPC with MD armor.
Then are shot by CS grunt with an energy Rifle.
Does the armor take damage first then the character is immune or does the spell also protect the armor and clothes?

In Rifts...

If Cast on the MDC Armor, yes.

Part of the equation that was misinterpreted (or left out of the thought process) was the bit about how MDC stuff blocks (most) magic, in Rifts. So, for the most part, the only part of the NPC that magic can be cast on, is its MDC armor.

Armor is ether SDC or MDC.
Damage is ether SD or MD.
See the pattern?
There have been times I wish that PB would take a good proofreader and edit all the " SDC damage"s and the "MDC Damage"s to SD and MD respectively. So they can look good, instead of having legacy wording needing to be updated.

I will have to say this is the 1st time I've seen (that I can remember) the typical mistake inverted.

I'm trying to be fair.

IF the spell can be cast upon armor, can it be cast on vehicles and power armor?

IF it does work the way of being cast upon armor, does a head shot or hand shot kill a guy?

GM's or players choice?

Imp. to E is on page 210 in RUE.

If the EBA has Imp. E cast on it, than the armor does not get damaged by energy attacks, while the spell is in effect. Head shots don't by-pass the Imp.E protections unless the character was stupid and took off their helmet.

Why would hitting the hand with an energy attack kill the character? It's not like getting hit with rail gun rounds that would bounce back and forth inside the armor.

The spell Impervious to Energy would protect anything the character is wearing or holding (w/n reason of course) IMHO.

So if an NPC had ItE cast on them and then was shot by an energy weapon, the ItE enchantment would be at the top of the stack (so ItE, then MD armor, then the NPC's body). And itE would also cover any/all limbs.

Technically a TW could enchant a vehicle or power armor to work with ItE as a TW device (and is a feature option), however I'm going to assume you don't mean this way. Size isn't really an issue as an Adult Dragon still gets full protection for them enchantment (nothing indicates that the Dragon gets an ItE "leotard" in terms of coverage) weather they cast it themself or another cast it on them. However the wording of the text would seem to preclude something like a vehicle but would allow a Power Armor (though something that is more "vehiclular" than body armor might be exempt).

Thanks

With regards to ones hand being shot.
I meant if they had Imperivous to Energy on their armor and were not wearing their gloves/guantlets, just like not wearing a helmet.

Yep you left that bit out of your post.

If the char has a glove off then there is no seal vs the magic, so the magic can be cast on the char.
--
If cast on the char the enchantment, as per a strict reading of the text, does not protect the char's stuff.
However, with most GMs, the GMs as a part of their house rules make the spell protect what the stuff char is wearing. There might also be a official Q&A in one of the rifters about situations like this.

The spell is cast on self ... or "others by ritual". It says nothing about casting on inanimate objects. TWs may be able to add to armor as a feature, but the spell as written neither allows or prohibits this form of use for ordinary mages. It's a GM's call, but given the need for a ritual, I'd say no. I've always seen this played similar to a superpower... it protects the person, not their stuff. Presumably, the ritual would require a person to remove armor to participate as the non-organic components of the armor might impact the ritual's energies.

Otherwise, as a Rifts setting side note, why would factions such as the CS rely so much on energy weapons when their magical Tolkeen or FoM opponents could just make themselves impervious to energy attacks? It's only a six level spell. I could see the "berserker" type going out onto a battlefield wearing nothing but a loincloth and war paint, engaging deadboys in H2H as laserfire proves ineffective. But to allow it to generally be cast on armor seems a bit too munchkin.

My rule of thumb is that it will cover personal armor (including environmental), but it won't cover power armor.