Does the Psychic Body Field work over armor?

[Cafe Truck]

Forgive the (likely) obvious question, but I'm relatively new to Rifts and I'm playing a character with the Psychic Body Field. My reading of the ability's description from the RUE makes it sound like it wouldn't work over a suit of MDC armor, but the blurb in the Psyscape book about "The Rattler" indicates that it does. Which interpretation should I go with? My preference as a character would obviously be to have it work over my armor.

[Bill]

Items held in his hands, hung from his back, or worn on top of his head are not protected.

RUE's description is a copy and paste from Psyscape's. No hats, backpacks, or handheld weapons. Armor is in.

[Tor]

Examples of what is out doesn't mean anything not mentioned is automatically in. We're told the psychic 'surrounds himself' and it 'conforms to the shape of his body' (sorry ladies) and that it surrounds "the body of the psychic". Nothing about armor.

Psyscape, which introduced the power, had a scenario describing its use which does suggest armor being protected though. It's under the Psi-Slayer and it mentions a juicer firing a plasma blast which depletes his body field and singes his armor underneath it. So based on that I would say it does.

Although possibly not all armor. I would think bulky stuff like power armor or exoskeletons would be a bit of a stretch. The Psi-Slayer might've been wearing light armor. Maybe use the same guidelines as with mages?

[Bill]

Anything beyond what's published is the GM's call. Armor absolutely would be mentioned if it were not included though.

[Tor]

I would say 'probably' rather than 'absolutely'. We have to go by what it says it protects though, not assume it protects absolutely everything except things we're told it doesn't. Psi-Slayer scenario includes at least light armors though.

Perhaps non-environmental armors, seeing as how environmental stuff tends to interfere with supernatural energies. This shouldn't get to help protect a SAMAS if dressed in one. I think even full EBA shouldn't allow it. Could explain why the Mind Melter Special Forces guy liked to keep his helmet off in the Soul Harvest scenario.

In this example the Psi-Slayer had used Mentally Possess Others on the juicer, which requires 'touch', which probably means the Psi-Slayer had removed a glove from his armor, sacrificing environmental closure if his had any.

[Cafe Truck]

Thanks for the input. I'll check with my GM on how he wants me to play it.

[Mechghost]

OK I would agree about exo-suits or PAs not being covered bur and personal armor would be, the description says surrounds the body of the psychic not that it's skin tight. And EBA suits can be less bulky than some Non-EBA suits, so I don't see a problem there, if you want to say it can't be sealed, easy the face plate is open or something to satisfy some house rules.

Also the Range on the Mentally Dominate Others is Touch, which means make physical contact, it doesn't say it has to be skin on skin contact.

[Tor]

Unless we're told that it surrounds things other than the body, I would assume the body's the only thing surrounded. Whatever armor the Psi-Slayer was wearing was surrounded, but my guess it was probably pretty light.

Considering they just marched 50 miles and climbed a 100ft cliff, and Jean Raneau also had to make that climb (unless perhaps he snuck ahead and was waiting for them at the top?) it would be harder to climb in heavy armor.

Since using Mentally Possess Others requires touch and Jean-the-Rattler possessed Bud-the-Juicer (a class with enhanced senses) he probably had to sneak up on him, and noisy armor seems like it would've interfered with that. Bud was sitting among some rocks (not sure if on or behind) so if it had been clunky armor that probably would've screwed up a prowl roll before Jean got close enough to do physical contact.

Jean (if they ever NPC him) would have to be at least 4th level, to have Bio-Mani and MPO in addition to his Body Field.

I had a guess that he's least 5th, since I think he probably used Psionic Invisibility to get close enough to the rocks, seeing as how Claude was looking around with infra-red binoculars. But then again, it seems like he had the intention of attacking and hurting them, so maybe not. It has a weird restriction like Invisibility Superior there.

One possibility: maybe it doesn't count as ill intent if Jean Raneau was using psionic invisibility to stay in place undetected while he took a break, and just got lucky that the juicer snuck up to him? Perhaps possessing him was initially self defense, then he realized who the people were, and then changed his mind to attack?

[Blue_Lion]

I typically say defensive powers cover personnel gear unless it says they do not.

But there are two train of thoughts on this type of subject.
A power only does something if it says it does.
B a power only has the limits it says it has ie unless it says can't move it can move unless it says does not protect gear it does.

It is really up to you and your game group to decide for yourself.

[Tor]

Going with interpretation B means that Psychic Body Field can protect your pet dog on the other side of the planet because it doesn't say it doesn't =/

There's a pattern of us being told when powers do stuff like protect gear. Impervious to Fire has that benefit, Impervious to Energy does not. Psychic Body Field doesn't say that under the power but the Psi-Slayer story sneaks it in.

[Mechghost]

Actually Tor, it does say the pet dog across the planet isn't protected.

It surrounds the psychic's body (so unless the psychic is half a world big...) and excludes in his/her hands, worn on his/her head, and hanging from his/her back

sounds like it won't protect something in your example.

[Tor]

What if the dog is standing on the ground between your legs? That's between the feet but not in the hands or on the head.

[Prysus]

Actually Tor, it does say the pet dog across the planet isn't protected.

It surrounds the psychic's body (so unless the psychic is half a world big...) and excludes in his/her hands, worn on his/her head, and hanging from his/her back

sounds like it won't protect something in your example.

Greetings and Salutations. So your stance is that body armor is part of your body? Gauntlets aren't on your hands but a part of them, helmets aren't worn on the head but a part of the head, and the shirt on your back isn't on your back but a part of it? Because otherwise your own statement contradicts the stance of body armor being included. But instead of just focusing on your quote, I'll go one further. The book says "conforms to the shape of his body." Clothes generally don't conform to your body unless they're a bit tight (leotards are a great example, but a fat guy in a shirt too small for him is another). Body armor ... you'd have to make a good case before I'd even consider that one. And the stance it won't protect a hat (so if I'm wearing a ski cap it's not protected), but a helmet (which is even bulkier) is totally protected just irks me.

With that said, I'd probably let the Psychic Body Field protect body armor anyways. *Shrugs.* If for no other reason than if I get too strict on the matter (where it doesn't protect some level of aura around you), it'll result in characters running around naked. Somehow that just becomes awkward for everyone involved. Personal body armor is probably the extent I'd allow it to cover though. Farewell and safe journeys for now.



P.S. An interesting problem of letting it conform over body armor (so, a decent bubble around the body) could cause conflicts with things such as drawing a gun holstered at your side, or the knife strapped to your leg, or an armor with vibro spikes built-in now unable to use them.

[Mechghost]

I never claimed the items somehow became a part of the character's body, please don't put words in my mouth.

Items held in his hands, hung from his back, or worn on top of his head are not protected.

I read that as Something being carried or held - not worn on his hands, so yes gloves and gauntlets seem to be covered. Hung from his back would be a pack as its hanging from the back while a shirt or body armor would be worn on the torso, and worn on top of his head like a hat lets say, although maybe a helmet, I'll debate that one as over not on top. Conforming to the body can man the appropriate number of arms and legs plus head and not a sphere around you, So it doesn't have to be skin tight.

And no, something on the ground between your feet wouldn't be protected (sorry Rover) as the field conforms to the body - not a sphere or blobbish shape etc.

[Prysus]

I never claimed the items somehow became a part of the character's body, please don't put words in my mouth.

Greetings and Salutations. Not really putting words in your mouth. A hat or helmet is worn on the head. A shirt (for example) will hang on your back (more like your shoulders, but the same is true of a backpack). I mean, ever hear of "I'd give you the shirt off my back"? I'll admit, gloves/gauntlets are generally considered in your hand. And, I'm really curious why you think a helmet is acceptable but a ski cap would be too much for the power (though apparently you think a ski mask is okay). So yes, when you take a stance that something on your back, or something on your head will NOT be covered ... then you should consider what that means when you say that armor is covered. Because armor is on your head and on your back, unless you think they're a part of you.

And by the logic "appropriate number of arms and legs plus head" means that a doll on the shelf just conformed to the body of every human on the planet. I can pick up a G.I. Joe action figure and say that it conformed to my body right now. Hey, gorillas all just conformed to the human body as well. Awesome! I mean same number of arms and legs, plus a head. Wait ... just looked out the window and saw another person. Same number of limbs and a head ... yup, that person just conformed to my body. Weird. Now, interestingly, that way of defining conform also means that most leotards do NOT conform to the body (because they'd be missing a head, as well as often being split into two parts and therefore lacking the proper number of appendages).

[Mechghost]

Conforming to the character's body = the field not being a sphere or blob shape around the character but following the shape of the body. Did I clarify what I meant this time? I thought we were talking about the Field's shape and coverage, if the character has 4 arms then it would cover the 4 arms not just 2. If a toy is the same shape as you it may be because it represents the same species not that it shapechanged to match you. As for the written term in the book (RAW) "worn on top of his head" I read that as something sitting on top of your head not over your head, maybe the Field pushed it off as it forms? A facemask is worn on your face, not on the top of your head. I'm just going by what is written. A shirt is worn over your torso, a backpack hangs off your back. I read the description as covering what you're wearing, but not carrying. Maybe the head part referred to a package being carried on your head as done in many parts of the world?

[Prysus]

Greetings and Salutations. Okay, I'll start by apologizing because I was probably a bit more sarcastic with that last post than needed. This time I'll try to express my objections in a more intelligent manner. Now I'll also add I'm fairly sure I understand what you're trying to say (as I did last time). I also agree that the book's intent is probably (at least my take on it) similar to what you're saying. However both your wording and the book's wording isn't what's actually being said.

The problem I'm having with trying to split hairs with the wording is that the words can be used as synonyms often. A backpack doesn't hang from your back, it hangs from your shoulders and over your back. See, totally different. Now a Psychic Body Field covers backpacks too. Trying to argue anything covering your face is okay because it's not on top of your head is more trying to split hairs (though I admit, the book doesn't call those out specifically). Dividing that line means that a large sack (even larger than my backpack) strapped to my belt is fine, because it's not on my back. See the problem?

And the concept of the Body Field pushing off the hat or ski cap is good and fine. This of course implies that the field is forming from the person and moving outward (the direction required to push it off). Of course, that also means it would be forming between the psychic and any clothing. So even if a shirt or face mask isn't pushed all the way off, it wouldn't be covered. Honestly, I think it's about the only way the power works with any type of logic. Note: As I said earlier, I'd still allow it to work over other stuff such as Body Armor, because I'd rather that than characters running around naked to prove a point.

Now, since it describes it as a TK field that conforms to the body, I'd personally think of it as an outward force (such as the TK bubble, but smaller) that then contracts to form around the character. This would allow it to cover things such as body armor (because it's being pulled in). This would (more or less) continue until it hits a hard-ish surface, such as your body or body armor. Clothes might look smooshed in, the brim of a hat might be contorted and ruin the hat, etc. However, that defies the logic of it not covering items held in your hand, because the field would somehow need to be able to slide between your hand and the item first, and that doesn't really work well either. Of course, as I said earlier, I'd probably allow it to work, but items already on you wouldn't be able to be accessed. You can't grab the holstered weapon, or even fire the pistol in your hand because the field is surround it, and any attack using the gun would be attacking the field. However, if you pick up a new gun (off the floor or a rack, etc.) then you'd be good.

For the record, the package being carried on your head is an interesting interpretation. I doubt that's what they meant and I don't think it changes much of how the power would work, but I like it all the same. Thanks for your time and patience, please have a nice day. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

[Tor]

I was thinking about how PBF should protect a cyber-knight's cyber-armor at later levels when it becomes alive.

But then, even when it's not alive, it should still be protected since it's part of you, right?

This led me back to thinking of the Psi-Slayer.

Although they 'avoid implants' and 'will only consider bionic prosthetics .. if absolutely necessary', being able to survive MD seems like a necessity to me (particularly if you want to be protected while exposing flesh to possess people) so I could see a Psi-Slayer possible getting this. Bio-systems are merely preferred, preference doesn't mean only option.

This could actually be what happened to Jean. We are only told armor on his right shoulder is charred. Not that it is body/cyber/power armor. So it could've been cyber, indicating that cybernetic implants are protected by Psychic Body Field, but that Body Armor and Power Armor are not, since they are worn, rather than being built into being part of the character.

This is an interesting balancing factor, since cybernetics can eventually interfere with psionics.

Stuff like this ought to be more popular anyway. It costs only 5k more than the Gladiator and gives 5/7 the MDC. Sure, no environmental protection and an AR with a chance of getting 1-shotted, but being able to conceal it under clothes is a big advantage.

I do wonder about this:

"additional armor would greatly impair movement (reduce attacks, bonuses, and speed by half)."

I think initially I interpreted this as being "well, if you want cyber-armor with more MDC than we tell you here", but now I'm not so sure.

After all, it doesn't even tell us just how much MDC such cyber-armor would have, or how much more it would cost.

So I don't know in what context we are supposed to apply these penalties.

It occurs to me: could we perhaps apply them to someone with cyber-armor who opts to wear other MDC armor (either body armor or power armor) on top of it?

I think I really like that idea. Would help slow down mega-tank Cyber-Knights a bit until they're actually vulnerable. Those guys are so strong, they could use a handicap.

Course you could get around that by wearing a force field or something. The high-tier powergamed Cyber-Knights will also probably be master psis who select Psychic Body Field too.

I wouldn't apply those penalties to piloting a vehicle or robot though, I think you'd have enough space that there would be any friction like there would be with cyber+body or cyber+power.

[guardiandashi]

my 2 cents...

I would have to read the description again... but I would tend to allow it to cover armor the doesn't protect a hat along with the conforms to the shape of the body... I would define it as it generally follows the shape of the body but may extend say an inch or 2 from the body. this would cover all but the bulkiest armor in most cases. while still having issues with things like hats or spikes depending on the style of hat. for instance a stocking cap or sky mask would in general be covered, whereas something like a "cowboy, or baseball" cap/hat wouldn't be fully covered because of the brim or bill would protrude out , be shoved off, or damaged by the field.

so sorry rover but you wouldn't be covered (unless the shot tried to pass through the protected user) then rover gets protected by the "cover"

IMO this is a reasonable compromise.

[Tor]

Why do we need to compromise to help psychics get their free bonus armor? I like the idea of being literal and forcing them to undress if they want this 'I don't have to pay for repairs' benefit.

[kaid]

The description is sorta vague but it specifically says it does not cover backpacks or items that are held which would imply it does protect your clothing or things you are wearing in contact with your body. It also mentions you can't feel things touched or picked up after the field is up which implies you can feel/touch things you were holding/wearing prior to shield activation which would seem to indicate it covers clothing at minimum.

Really if you look at the ISP cost and protection its basically armor of ithan psychic style.

[Tor]

I get the sense that if you're touching something then you won't be able to feel it once you activate the field too. Either the field supports the held object, or the field somehow passes through it, severs the object, or the power doesn't activate. Can't think of another explanation.

If it's Armor of Ithan style, well, unless AoI is built into armor via a TW addition, I see no reason why it would protect armor. In fact, wearing armor would probably interfere with it since it's taking up the space your new magical armor would take up.

[Blue_Lion]

I get the sense that if you're touching something then you won't be able to feel it once you activate the field too. Either the field supports the held object, or the field somehow passes through it, severs the object, or the power doesn't activate. Can't think of another explanation.

If it's Armor of Ithan style, well, unless AoI is built into armor via a TW addition, I see no reason why it would protect armor. In fact, wearing armor would probably interfere with it since it's taking up the space your new magical armor would take up.

Mage PCs must hate your games. You take option A to the extreme it seams. But as I said there are two different chain of thoughts on this. (I would point out damage example in RUE seams to treat armor as part of the person.)

As some one earlier pointed out it list several things the person is caring as not being covered, why bother if it only protected him and not any of his gear. So there is a reason for saying it does.

[kaid]

I get the sense that if you're touching something then you won't be able to feel it once you activate the field too. Either the field supports the held object, or the field somehow passes through it, severs the object, or the power doesn't activate. Can't think of another explanation.

If it's Armor of Ithan style, well, unless AoI is built into armor via a TW addition, I see no reason why it would protect armor. In fact, wearing armor would probably interfere with it since it's taking up the space your new magical armor would take up.

It says specifically you cannot feel things you pick up or hold after the shield enables. It seems to imply that you can still feel the stuff you already had but if you dropped it and picked it up again you would suffer the penalties. Frankly I don't really see much reason to make extra penalties.

As for armor of ithan I have never seen it used where it went behind your armor. The whole point of using it and its advantage is blunting damage without needing to sport heavy armor. Seems like going out of the way to make one of the perks of being a psychic or magic user less useful for little reason.

[kaid]

I get the sense that if you're touching something then you won't be able to feel it once you activate the field too. Either the field supports the held object, or the field somehow passes through it, severs the object, or the power doesn't activate. Can't think of another explanation.

If it's Armor of Ithan style, well, unless AoI is built into armor via a TW addition, I see no reason why it would protect armor. In fact, wearing armor would probably interfere with it since it's taking up the space your new magical armor would take up.

Mage PCs must hate your games. You take option A to the extreme it seams. But as I said there are two different chain of thoughts on this. (I would point out damage example in RUE seams to treat armor as part of the person.)

As some one earlier pointed out it list several things the person is caring as not being covered, why bother if it only protected him and not any of his gear. So there is a reason for saying it does.

Also note there are some abilities such as one of the shields the elemental fusionists have in the RUE that specifically state they don't protect the wearers armor. Most cases I have seen where that is true they call it out specifically because it is a pretty important thing to denote.

[Blue_Lion]

I get the sense that if you're touching something then you won't be able to feel it once you activate the field too. Either the field supports the held object, or the field somehow passes through it, severs the object, or the power doesn't activate. Can't think of another explanation.

If it's Armor of Ithan style, well, unless AoI is built into armor via a TW addition, I see no reason why it would protect armor. In fact, wearing armor would probably interfere with it since it's taking up the space your new magical armor would take up.

Mage PCs must hate your games. You take option A to the extreme it seams. But as I said there are two different chain of thoughts on this. (I would point out damage example in RUE seams to treat armor as part of the person.)

As some one earlier pointed out it list several things the person is caring as not being covered, why bother if it only protected him and not any of his gear. So there is a reason for saying it does.

Also note there are some abilities such as one of the shields the elemental fusionists have in the RUE that specifically state they don't protect the wearers armor. Most cases I have seen where that is true they call it out specifically because it is a pretty important thing to denote.

They base option A off of the spell impervious to fire. which unlike most spells states it does protect. So this is a matter of inconsistent way of righting where 1 spell says it does and others say they do not.
Personally I favor B over A.

[Tor]

Mage PCs must hate your games. You take option A to the extreme it seams.

If a mage wants to have AoI protect his armor he can get a TW addition. Most mages don't even start with this spell, not sure what the big deal is.

But as I said there are two different chain of thoughts on this. (I would point out damage example in RUE seams to treat armor as part of the person.)

Which part are we talking about?

As some one earlier pointed out it list several things the person is caring as not being covered, why bother if it only protected him and not any of his gear. So there is a reason for saying it does.

I agree that explicitly excluding some things does imply the inclusion of some others, but I just don't want to go so far as to assume it's anything not excluded since it can get silly, like being able to protect a Glitter Boy PA in a psychic body field but not a helmet you're wearing even though the Glitter Boy includes a helmet.

Doesn't most environmental body armor also include helmets? Does this mean that a psychic body field surrounds everything but the helmet? Like someone can snipe the helmet unhindered but then have to get through the PBF to mist the skull?

It says specifically you cannot feel things you pick up or hold after the shield enables. It seems to imply that you can still feel the stuff you already had but if you dropped it and picked it up again you would suffer the penalties. Frankly I don't really see much reason to make extra penalties.

The penalties are because you're surrounded in a field which compromises your tactile sensation.

We are told that the field does not protect items held in your hands, this means that it's surrounding your hand and even if you were holding it before activation, it would still be compromised.

"The field is between him and all objects/material outside the force field". Held objects remain out, so they're hard to feel.

The chronological context "after the field is erected" I believe is describing the condition when you cannot feel held objects, not when you have to hold the object to have trouble feeling it.

As for armor of ithan I have never seen it used where it went behind your armor. The whole point of using it and its advantage is blunting damage without needing to sport heavy armor. Seems like going out of the way to make one of the perks of being a psychic or magic user less useful for little reason.

The reason is not little. It creates a suit of armor around you. If you're already wearing armor, it'd get in the way.

Techno-Wizardry on the other hand, accommodates the spell into armor to allow it to be protected.

Regarding seeing it used, how often have we seen the spell used in combat examples or artwork?

Especially with RUE making spell-casting a lot quicker, and there being a GI Joe rule, if you did lose your armor and had to quickly put up an AoI, it wouldn't be all that hard.

Sounds like mages just be mad that they can't walk around in heavy armor protected by AoI without splurging for a TW upgrade.

It's not as if I'm saying absolutely no armor can be worn underneath, just very light armor that could be worn under a suit of platemail. There's plenty of light armor that'd fit the bill.

note there are some abilities such as one of the shields the elemental fusionists have in the RUE that specifically state they don't protect the wearers armor. Most cases I have seen where that is true they call it out specifically because it is a pretty important thing to denote.

There are also things which explicitly say that they do protect clothing or armor, like Impervious to Fire.

Reminding someone their armor is unprotected is nice, but a lack of a reminder does not imbue the ability to encapsulate armor if it is not described elsewhere.

[kaid]

Why would the spell work differently when used as a TW enhancement. Its still casting the same spell so by the logic above it would mean the armor of ithan when powered up would appear behind the armor like a backing. All in all it seems a very convoluted way to make useful spells and psychic abilities not very useful.

The psychic body field specifically says you cannot feel things you pick up after the shield is active. It does not say you cannot touch/feel anything after the shield is active. Why make the distinction of items you had prior to the shield going active and things up pick up after if there otherwise.


In general with spells and psychic abilities that are protective it typically is considered to cover personal body armor and clothing unless stated otherwise and most spells psychic ability descriptions seem to bolster that. Protection to fire and a few other ones are the rarities that call out not protecting your clothing or armor.

It is possible to house rule whatever a person wants and if somebody wants to really really parse something down to make magic spells and psychic abilities worse that is their call as a GM.

[Tor]

I think because it's technically the armor casting the spell, not the person pumping energy in, which is why it would be protected. We can see explicitly under some of the features that it affects the vehicle or all occupants. Moreso under the Vehicle enhancments.

Chameleon "works same as the spell, except it applies to the entire vehicle and passengers"
Impervious to Fire also has an 'except that the entire vehicle' and Impervious to Energy has 'except that it applies to the vehicle, not the passengers' and Invisibility Superior has 'except that it is the vehicle' and Shadow Meld also has 'except the magic applies to the vehicles, not the passengers.

You do have a point though, technically all the power/body armor stuff says "same as the spell" with no "except" clauses like the vehicle enhancements have.

I suppose I only inferred that Impervious to Energy protects power/body armor as a TW enhancement based on the statement of how it protects a vehicle, but I could be wrong to do so.

It is plausible with some smaller body armors that an Armor of Ithan could fit outside it, but it's harder to imagine a big suit of magic platemail worn overtop of a giant power armor suit.

The psychic body field specifically says you cannot feel things you pick up after the shield is active. It does not say you cannot touch/feel anything after the shield is active.

Why make the distinction of items you had prior to the shield going active and things up pick up after if there otherwise.

I think this is a case of us reading this differently, will try to make what I mean clear.

the psychic instantly surrounds himself with a telekinetic force field that conforms to the shape of his body
..
aura that completely surrounds and encloses the body of the psychic
..
Items held in his hands, hung from his back, or worn on top of his head are not protected
..
the psychic loses his sense of touch, because the field is between him and all objects/materials outside the force field
..
the character cannot feel much of anything he picks up or touches after the field has been erected

The final 6 words are a chronological context. "After the field has been erected". What I think we disagree on is what this context is describing.

How I view it:

"the character cannot A of B when C"
A= feel much
B= anything he picks up or touches
C= after the field has been erected

I think C is discussing A. You can't feel much when the field is up. I do not think it is discussing B, as in you can only not feel much of things grabbed after.

I think this is consistent with the previous lines describing the power.

Items held in the hands are not protected. You lose the sense of touch because the field is between you and objects outside of it. Therefore, even if you were holding an item to begin with, it would still be unprotected by the field, outside of it, so the barrier would interfere with feeling it.

Feeling-interference is a result of trying to touch something outside of the field. The condition that determines it is whether or not the GM rules the field protects something.

In general with spells and psychic abilities that are protective it typically is considered to cover personal body armor and clothing unless stated otherwise and most spells psychic ability descriptions seem to bolster that. Protection to fire and a few other ones are the rarities that call out not protecting your clothing or armor.

The spell Impervious to Fire is actually one of the rare ones which does specifically protect your clothing.

I understand that many consider ItE and stuff to cover armor because it is convenient for them, but I don't know what actual source material this view relies on.