DF: Armor Layering and Enchantments

[Kromm]

Here as with Armor spells, Haste spells, Might spells, and almost every other spell with variable levels of effect, only the spell with the most powerful effect counts. As a broad principle, no spell ever stacks with itself or with any spell explicitly ruled out in either spell description.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Here as with Armor spells, Haste spells, Might spells, and almost every other spell with variable levels of effect, only the spell with the most powerful effect counts. As a broad principle, no spell ever stacks with itself or with any spell explicitly ruled out in either spell description.

For some reason I have problems remembering that the static enchantments are spells.

Of course, the armor penetration thing is a separate book-keeping issue; I should spare some brain cells to repricing the enchantments for "no penetrations"

[Stix4armz]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Here as with Armor spells, Haste spells, Might spells, and almost every other spell with variable levels of effect, only the spell with the most powerful effect counts. As a broad principle, no spell ever stacks with itself or with any spell explicitly ruled out in either spell description.

Technically the Fortify and Deflect enchantments are separate spells than Armor or Shield spells though even if they have the same effect. So if my character has Fortified armor he could also benefit from an Armor buff from the party's cleric or wizard right?

I just want to make sure its individual spells cannot stack on themselves and not spells with the same effect cannot stack on each other.

[Kromm]

The rules grow vague when the stacking is of effects (rated as bonuses to DB, DR, ST, or whatever) rather than spells. My feeling is that it's fairest to allow stacking of one instance apiece of different spells that produce the same effect. Thus, someone could fairly benefit from Armor (which increases the DR of a living subject, not her armor) and Fortify (which increases the DR of clothing or armor); she would enjoy the bonus of the biggest Armor spell and the biggest Fortify spell, but never two Armor spells or two Fortify spells. Likewise, she could get bonus IQ – raising Will and Per – from Wisdom, and then extra Will from Strengthen Will and extra Per from Alertness, and then an even better Vision bonus from Keen Eyes . . . but if any of the four spells were cast more than once, only the largest one would matter.

[Gnome]

Originally Posted by Kromm

The rules grow vague when the stacking is of effects (rated as bonuses to DB, DR, ST, or whatever) rather than spells. My feeling is that it's fairest to allow stacking of one instance apiece of different spells that produce the same effect. Thus, someone could fairly benefit from Armor (which increases the DR of a living subject, not her armor) and Fortify (which increases the DR of clothing or armor); she would enjoy the bonus of the biggest Armor spell and the biggest Fortify spell, but never two Armor spells or two Fortify spells. Likewise, she could get bonus IQ – raising Will and Per – from Wisdom, and then extra Will from Strengthen Will and extra Per from Alertness, and then an even better Vision bonus from Keen Eyes . . . but if any of the four spells were cast more than once, only the largest one would matter.

This is how we've always played it. Never any problems, although I generally dislike the Deflect enchantment...

[Culture20]

But if these spells are on different items, how does the proximity of the items affect their stackability? If maille is enchanted with Fortify +3 and plate is enchanted with Fortify +2, the wearer of both doesn't get a cumulative bonus of +5, but if they are worn by two people and a third person stands behind both, using them as cover from manticore spikes, does the third person benefit from both of the Fortifies since each individual benefits from their respective Fortify enchantments? What if the armors have no wearers and are still used as cover? Then brought closer together until essentially worn?

[the_matrix_walker]

Originally Posted by Kromm

The rules grow vague when the stacking is of effects (rated as bonuses to DB, DR, ST, or whatever) rather than spells. My feeling is that it's fairest to allow stacking of one instance apiece of different spells that produce the same effect. Thus, someone could fairly benefit from Armor (which increases the DR of a living subject, not her armor) and Fortify (which increases the DR of clothing or armor); she would enjoy the bonus of the biggest Armor spell and the biggest Fortify spell, but never two Armor spells or two Fortify spells.

So layering Fortified armors causes the lesser Fortify spells to be suppressed while they are layered? These are enchantments cast on different subjects (pieces of armor) so it seems a little odd to compare it to stacking spells cast on a single subject. Fortify specifically improves the armor, not the wearer... it doesn't protect against any damage that targets an exposed area after all.

I was also under the impression that you could benefit from more than one Deflect Enchantment if they were on separate subject item types, for example one on your shield and one on your armor. Is this incorrect as well? It follows the same transitive effect of two items providing bonuses to a single character.

Is this a (relatively) recent determination? I've been playing GURPS for almost 25 years... I've always understood "only the strongest spell of the same type works on a given subject" but never had the impression that this included Fortify on different items that happen to protect the same person. It seems incongruous with the way magic bows and arrows work, where the magic IS cumulative from seperate subjects... Or do you not have +2 to hit when firing an Accuracy +1 Arrow from and Accuracy +1 Bow?

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Here as with Armor spells, Haste spells, Might spells, and almost every other spell with variable levels of effect, only the spell with the most powerful effect counts. As a broad principle, no spell ever stacks with itself or with any spell explicitly ruled out in either spell description.

Why isn't treating Fortify as an ongoing spell effect here rather than a permanent improvement in the material strength of the armor inconsistent with treating it as not a spell effect for meteoric iron (and other anti-magic) weapons?

[Kromm]

Basically, "It's magic!" Use whatever in-world justification you like – or ignore the ruling if you prefer – but the official word has the benefit of explaining why somebody would spend 8,000 energy on a Fortify +5 t-shirt instead of a mere 250 energy on five Fortify +1 t-shirts. And no, it doesn't have to make sense in terms of materials properties or whether the item "knows" it's being worn or layered . . . because it is magic. How does an Armor spell "know" that its subject is living, and how does Body of Flames distinguish 6 lbs. of clothing from 6 lbs. of armor?

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Basically, "It's magic!" Use whatever in-world justification you like – or ignore the ruling if you prefer – but the official word has the benefit of explaining why somebody would spend 8,000 energy on a Fortify +5 t-shirt instead of a mere 250 energy on five Fortify +1 t-shirts. And no, it doesn't have to make sense in terms of materials properties or whether the item "knows" it's being worn or layered . . . because it is magic. How does an Armor spell "know" that its subject is living, and how does Body of Flames distinguish 6 lbs. of clothing from 6 lbs. of armor?

Sure. I actually like this "stacking" ruling! It's the other one that I don't really "get" where you are coming from.