Topic: Tree Skin plus Armour worn

[munchy]

I guess this has been asked before but do spells like tree skin, mage armour and steel skin stack with armour worn? And if so, how?
Basically I'm open to the concept of wearing double armour but the question would be how does it stack in this case. I there a special hindrance due to the skin being less flexible or something?

How is damage adjustment according to Martial Law handled in this case?

[Ecthelion]

The HARP Fan Compiled Errata & FAQ says that the bonuses do stack.

[Dr_Sage]

How is damage adjustment according to Martial Law handled in this case?

I do not say I agree,

but they do stack in terms of total DB and I believe I was an official answer long time ago saying that use only actual armor with ML rules.

[munchy]

In RM there were rules for say Trolls wearing armour. Have to look that up maybe this works somehow for HARP. Maybe increasing the protection from damage somewhat but not as good as wearing the next higher armour type or something ... will check this.

@Ecthelion: thanks a lot. Keep forgetting that manuscript.

[Cormac Doyle]

With regard to ML, only "real" armor can be used to adjust the damage (e.g. a mage with "steel Skin" has an enhanced DB, but still takes damage as an unarmored character)

A Mage with Leather armor who also casts steel skin gets the db modification from both the armor and the spell, but their damage modifier assumes leather armor.

[munchy]

Ehm, Tree Skin says that the skin "becomes as protective as Soft Leather armor, +20" which in my opinion with the effect describtion means that he is considered wearing Soft Leather armor. Otherwise this Tree Skin spell would make absolutely no sense as it would just be a Bless spell with a bonus on DB under another name.

[Alwyn]

munchy,

Our group plays it that the spell acts as the armor, so they get the damage reduction.

[Dr_Sage]

munchy,

Our group plays it that the spell acts as the armor, so they get the damage reduction.

As I left implicit above: I would agree with your group. I just answered according to the official posts of the past.

The only issue for me is the unbalancing combo.

[Right Wing Wacko]

Oh Boy...has my group wasted time arquing over this one!
I suggest that each spell be read carefully to determine armor reduction... for example: Treeskin does, indeed, say the casters skin takes on the form of the armor..blah..blah..blah.... so the reduction is gained!

However, Mage Armor creates a glowing, protective aura...so DOES NOT get the reduction!
See where I am going with this?

[Dr_Sage]

Oh Boy...has my group wasted time arquing over this one!
I suggest that each spell be read carefully to determine armor reduction... for example: Treeskin does, indeed, say the casters skin takes on the form of the armor..blah..blah..blah.... so the reduction is gained!

However, Mage Armor creates a glowing, protective aura...so DOES NOT get the reduction!
See where I am going with this?

Dear wacko,

I know its a matter of taste, but don?t you noticed that these spells are the same spell with diferent clothing?

We could even argue by the same token that a "nimbus of light" is like a force field, so even way more protective than armor.

My point is: these 2 spells like some others are just different in appearence, thats all.

Regards.

[Right Wing Wacko]

I really don't care enough to argue with you about it...
The wording in the spell descriptions makes them different enough for me to play my game the way I described above.