1st Ed vs 2nd Ed

[kiralon]

@Mark

Evil eye death still had a save, and since the mind mage started with way less ISP, and its level 3, and at level 3 its 30+3d6 damage. (Save for none, or save for 1/4)
Level 1 mind mage from second ed
Mind bolt averages 16 - 20 d6 damage at level 1 with +8 strike, so if they don't know its coming they cant dodge, so 48-60 damage average.
Up to a possible 34d6 damage at level 1

Psychic Surgery was very High level and required touch, so you had to touch the person, which often meant combat and penetrating armour, and penetrating armour takes an attack and you cant use psychic surgery and touch someone at the same time in combat (that's 2 actions at once) and there aren't any grapple rules so the person basically had to be standing still waiting for it to happen, which did happen. But at least it was level locked.

Most people forget just how much more isp 2nd ed mind mages get, and the crazy rate they get it back, and that they start with most of the powerful psionics, where its all level locked for first ed.

Instakill at level 7
Mind mage gets psychic surgery - kills one guy no save
fire and earth warlocks - river of lava, insta gibs an army with no save.

But i did play with super munchkins back in the day, and they way preferred 2nd ed mind mages over first ed

[Axelmania]

Page numbers are useful for reference...

1ePg130 (Evil Eye: Death) vs 2ePg177 (Mind Bolt)

Another point of comparison you didn't mention: EE is fixed at 150ft and you can't get it under 3rd level... Mind Bolt is 100ft per level and you can get it at FIRST level.

Pg 129 of 1e is also important, it had "Mental Bolt of Force" which more resembles the mind bolt. It has 120ft range and took 12 ISP to do 2d6 damage. This is the same damage per ISP as 2nd edition, the only difference being it's fixed and not variable.

One other difference I think is that Evil Eye would be direct to HP (ignores armor SDC) but MBOF/MB would not (armor SDC protects). Non-Armor SDC also exists to avoid death-by-Mind-Bolt in 2nd edition whereas non-Armor SDC doesn't exist in 1st ed and would not protect against Mental Bolt of Force (I think worn armor would though).

The "psionic balance" between the editions I think isn't necessarily as much about "Mind Mage OCC v Mind Mage PCC" but rather about the common access to dangerous powers among the general population.

1st ed Pg 125 had 10% of the population being "major psionic". In 1st ed, rather than a fixed number of powers, characters who weren't mind mages would roll 60% for every ability to determine which they had of levels they had access (1 for minor, 1-3 for major, 1-10 for master). This is also covered on pg 123 "PSEUDO-MIND MAGE".

Evil Eye was a 3rd level ability, meaning you didn't have to be a master psychic to get it: 21% of non-mind-mage psychic-capable races who reached 3rd level had a 60% chance of getting it (mind mages were GUARANTEED to, they got ALL the powers, they were all the same at any given level, basically, aside from base ME)

Weirdly in 1e there appear to be more (11%) master-psis (roll 90-00) than (10%) major-psis (roll 80-89).

With ME+3D8 ISP, even if someone got Evil Eye they might not have enough ISP to actually USE it, but a lot of people would. Certainly a human making average rolls would.

That's probably the central problem: there's likely far fewer humans of the Mind Mage PCC in 2nd edition (and what % of those would actually have the Mind Bolt power?) than there were 3rd-level Pseudo-Mind Mages (which isn't even an OCC, just a character with major psi) in 1st ed, and 3/5 of those who got to 3rd level would be capable of doing 20 HP of damage at the drop of a hat.

1ePg132 "psychic surgery" doesn't appear to require several minutes of meditative prep like the 2nd-e version and mentions "removal of internal organs" so I can see why this would be frightening as a "heart-rip" kind of attack at close range to you. Since range is "touch", I imagine that this refers to touching the target's actual flesh, so someone wearing a breast plate should probably be protected against having their heart pulled out for 19 ISP.

Given that you could do 20 HP of damage at 150ft for 20 ISP (enough to kill most people in 1e) an automatic death attack for 19 ISP that requires touching flesh doesn't seem that unbalanced. Where it would really shine is against high-HP creatures like greater demons, dragons or gods. Of course, it is a 6th level ability (like resisting the vacuum of space, teleporting self, mass hyponotic suggestion) so it being better than a 3rd level power in odd situations sounds good.

Maybe in 1e knowledge of heart-ripping master psi (keep in mind, 1e this is merely 60% of 11% compared to 60% of 21% who can use evil eye or mental bolt of force) is why many creatures would be wary of mortals of races they know have psychic potential?

Pg 3 lists possible psi for human/elf/dwarf/goblin/kobold/ogre/changeling/wolfen while the hob-goblin/orc/troll/troglodyte/gnome lacked it: so demons/gods and the like would be less fearful of the 2nd group of non-psi races since they could not possibly be a 6th level master psi who could heart-rip them with psychic surgery.

Of course: changelings (not to mention magic shape-shifting) throws "judge by appearances" up in the air, and gives incentive to be wary of ALL mortal races. To keep at a distance, not engage them directly. Feel them out, make sure they're not dangerous.

That said: "Detect Psionics" (620 yards = 1860 feet!) is a 1st level ability which all minor psychics potentially had access to, so finding out who is psychic and who isn't in a well-knit community might be simple enough, causing gods/demons to let down their guard around people who they know aren't psychic.

That's one major difference with 2e: pg 163 only gives "Detect Psionics" a pathetic range of 30 feet per level (ie 10 yards per level). It will never be as good as the long-range 1st-edition version. Since minor psi are category-locked in 2e, those selecting from the physical or sensitive (ironically) would not have access to it, though sensitives would have "See Aura" (pg 171) which could substitute well enough.

[Kraynic]

One thing people seem to miss in 1E is that while Psychic Surgery doesn't give an "operation time", it does give some hints on how it works. The book says that it is a combination of object reading, bio-regeneration, and limited telekinesis. Since bio-regeneration takes 10 minutes, I have always run surgery as needing the 10 minutes. I compare it to Heal Others which also lists permanent as the duration (since the repairs done are permanent), but also lists it as working like bio-regeneration. I suppose it is up to the person running the game whether the references back to bio-regeneration mean anything.

On the other hand, if it is run that way, psychic surgery is suddenly not an offensive ability unless your opponent is willing to stand still and not resist for multiple minutes while you rip their innards out.

[kiralon]

Evil eye doesn't say it does damage direct to hp, whereas the death spell does, so unless it says straight to hp I play armour takes damage first with magic, psionics and anything else that does damage. Negating armour is a potent power, and it really needs to be defined by the ability since we have the ability defined. Lightning bolt should go straight to hp for people wearing metal helmets, but it doesn't even do more damage to metal wearing folk (like some of the other electrical attacks do)

and 20 hp damage to level 3 people isn't likely to kill them, even level 1 characters are likely to survive unless they rolled badly for PE and HP (go to negative pe before death)

And unlike first ed, you could come across a town or a country where everyone has chosen to be a mind mage in second ed, so they are.

[Axelmania]

Evil Eye: Death says "the victim of this vicious assault takes..."

The note at the bottom about non-psionics taking 1/4 damage if they save would make more sense if you were avoiding damage to your HP, rather than a savings throw somehow protecting your armor.

The description of the ability is "affecting a different part of the brain", so there's absolutely no reason at all to think in PRPG that the damage would come off of armor SDC first.

[kiralon]

But it doesn't say that it does either, and there are things that do. So if there is a modifier that says it special thing a occurs, then other other things have to have that modifier for me anyway, because palladium has lots of issues like this and trying to figure out what was meant and what was written causes arguments, so I try to stick to what was written, unless there is a house rule. House ruling that it goes straight hp makes a little bit of sense, but only a little, because 20 pts of damage to anyones brain would make it explode, and if it didn't explode you would have all sorts of brain damage, which doesn't occur and the damage is done to the body as a whole, so armour can stop it.

[Axelmania]

If it directly states that you / the target takes the damage, that's what happens, not your armor.

Although the attack operates through the brain, it probably goes brain>body causing damage all over.

I don't see how attacking the brain would somehow damage armor as a side effect. That's what happens when worn armor normally blocks damage.

[kiralon]

Does magic damage auto penetrate armour for you? (I suspect im totally wrong and it's not supposed like d&d)
To me if it seems to have an external source it hits armour, if it has an internal source it ignores armour, and to me it comes from the outside and has to blast its way in, which is just as probable as the hit doing damage to the whole body rather than just the brain as it doesn't say either way. That's why if it says it goes direct to hp or automatically penetrates armour needs to be said if it is an external source.

[Axelmania]

The damage originates from the brain itself being manipulated to cause it to the body.

[kiralon]

Sounds too overly complicated, the damage would be much more likely just to the brainand what sort of damage is it, does fire resistance or another resistance type stop it? does a pulse of energy shoot out from the brain through the entire body because what can you manipulate in the brain that does direct damage to the rest of the body. Because doing to a dragon or whale would take more energy to hit the entire body than say a gnome.

[Axelmania]

It isn't given any sort of elemental description so I don't think it would count as fire, no.

Dragons had a tad more HP than gnomes which would reflect a need to pump in more ISP to kill them.

[kiralon]

I wasn't talking about killing them. I was talking about the amount of energy to effect the whole body from the brain, but im just saying you are saying it specifically effects the brain then doesn't in a roundabout way. It either specifically hits the brain and kablooey, or it doesn't. Saying it does something to the brain that effects the whole body is as likely as Armour stopping it.

[Axelmania]

The damage originates in the brain and presumably extends to an unspecified % of the body. It's not like we're actually told how much HP a brain has, unless you want to go by Dead Reign's zombies.

How would armor stopping this be as likely as it doing something to the brain that affects other parts of the body?

That's exactly what the other Evil Eye outcomes do.

[kiralon]

I will say is mostly the lack of saying it auto penetrates armour, just because it hits the brain doesn't mean armour has no effect on this damage on the way there, as the damage could be interfered with by armour, you could certainly aim a fireball so it doesn't hit armour by the description (I hit him in his left nostril, it says it can target anything). There are effects which ignore armour and specifically say so I just go by that as its easier. Does it say anywhere that armour doesn't interfere with evil eye, nope. Does it say armour does interfere with evil eye - nope. Does it say in a couple of other things that armour is ignored - yes, so ill go by that. Less guesswork and more certainty for my players. Does this one, does that one, how about havok, or cloud of steam, im totally covered etc.

Do magic spells ignore armour in your campaigns?
or anyone elses?
I have never really heard a satisfactory answer to this question but since d&d doesn't, from what I have seen over the years its more likely to be the same as d&d than not.

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

I have never really heard a satisfactory answer to this question but since d&d doesn't, from what I have seen over the years its more likely to be the same as d&d than not.

Armor in D&D doesn't absorb damage. So yes, spells ignore armor in most cases (even if they require a touch attack, AC from armor is usually not factored in to touch AC).

[kiralon]

So then do spells that require a strike roll auto penetrate armour?
if yes why?
if no why?

[Axelmania]

I will say is mostly the lack of saying it auto penetrates armour, just because it hits the brain doesn't mean armour has no effect on this damage on the way there, as the damage could be interfered with by armour

If armor helped against bio-manipulation / evil eye, it would say so. It doesn't impede any of the other things, so why would it impede this?

The damage comes from inside-out. If it could damage armor on the way in then you could use evil eye: death to blast down castle walls or something. It doesn't affect inanimate objects like mental bolt of force does.

[kiralon]

I will say is mostly the lack of saying it auto penetrates armour, just because it hits the brain doesn't mean armour has no effect on this damage on the way there, as the damage could be interfered with by armour

If armor helped against bio-manipulation / evil eye, it would say so. It doesn't impede any of the other things, so why would it impede this?

The damage comes from inside-out. If it could damage armor on the way in then you could use evil eye: death to blast down castle walls or something. It doesn't affect inanimate objects like mental bolt of force does.

If armour helped against evil eye logic also works by saying if it auto penetrated armour it would say so, because it does on a couple of things.
And 20 points of blast damage in inside the head would mulch the brain. 4pts of damage would mulch the brain. Thre is a reason there is a skull. Brain is soft and easily splattered, Protections around brain aren't.

If you found a mummies brain in a jar could you evil eye it to hurt the mummy itself. Would evil eye on the mummy make the brain in the jar miles away explode.

Does evil eye work on spirits and the non corporeal, they don't have brains

But mostly ill ask again, for you does magic auto penetrate armour, does someone in full plate so you cant actually see anything of the person inside still count as a legitimate target?
Do you only have to hit their aura?

[Axelmania]

Page 43 under "STRUCTURAL DAMAGE CAPACITY" says "When the armor is struck, damage is subtracted from its SDC"

Evil Eye doesn't strike armor.

"ARMOUR RATING" also says "Die rolls under the AR strike the proetctive armour damaging ONLY the armor". Evil Eye cannot possibly roll under AR, so this never happens.

I mean what's next, if I want to cast (p61) the 1st level spell "Charm" on a foe, I need to roll a d20 and get above their AR, otherwise my spells hit their armor instead of them and I don't charm them?

How do you think "Paralysis Bolt" functions in relation to body armor?

And 20 points of blast damage in inside the head would mulch the brain. 4pts of damage would mulch the brain. Thre is a reason there is a skull. Brain is soft and easily splattered, Protections around brain aren't.

Cool house rules, but the only time I've seen brain HP (Dead Reign) it's equal to full HP.

You're also arguing a straw man here, because I said the damage originates from the brain, not that the effects of the damage are limited to brain damage.

It might well be that it tells the brain to create programmed cell death throughout the body, as an example. We don't know the specific mechanics of EE:Death, just that all EE stuff manipulates the brain into doing stuff to the target.

If there was a place for armor to stop EE it would be when making the initial savings throw, like giving some kind of bonus. Once you start making the save, it's implied to have already hit the brain.

A better question might be, for those behind cover, is whether you need to see the head to zap the brain or if you could EE an exposed hand, or even EE someone who is completely behind cover but who you know the location of.

If you found a mummies brain in a jar could you evil eye it to hurt the mummy itself. Would evil eye on the mummy make the brain in the jar miles away explode.

Unless the mummy is still linked to the brain in some way, I wouldn't think so. Much like if I donated a kidney, harming that kidney could no longer harm me.

Does evil eye work on spirits and the non corporeal, they don't have brains

The "affecting a different part of the brain" description does sound like lacking a brain would be grounds to be immune to Evil Eye, much like lacking a sword makes you immune to "swords to snakes".

Of course, the GM is free to assume anything has a brain unless it's explicitly noted as lacking one, even if they might be assumed/implied to lack one like spirits. There's also a possibility of some kind of "ethereal ectoplasmic brain".

But mostly ill ask again, for you does magic auto penetrate armour, does someone in full plate so you cant actually see anything of the person inside still count as a legitimate target?
Do you only have to hit their aura?

I think it depends a lot on the description, but unless there's a die roll involved (where you could roll below AR) I'm not inclined to think armor helps.

If it did, then that would probably be noted somewhere. Immunity to stuff like "Charm" or "Paralysis Bolt" (neither which involve d20 rolls) simply by putting on a leather vest, would be AMAZING and make the spells not-very-useful if it could only be cast on naked folk.

[kiralon]

If it has to hit a person it should have to penetrate armour because the flesh is hidden, and armour isn't the person, but like a lot of magical things it automatically hits so you could aim for anything you see, including flesh, just like fireball.
Does minifireball need to penetrate armour for you, it has a + to strike.
Or does it just have to hit a person aura


And if 20 points of damage originates in the brain its going to be a weird release of energy that only lets a tiny amount effect the brain and the rest gets absorbed by the body, so i would disagree to the strawman analogy. If the damage effects the brain, then it just effects the brain, saying it damages something else is more along the lines of a strawman.

But as you see there are a lot of questions that can't easily be answered because the wording is so terrible. That's why I make things just blanket one way, or you can argue about them all night, and one of those rules I use is for something to automatically penetrate armour it has to specifically say. Armour is useless enough already.

I think a person in full plate should be protected from line of sight attacks yes, if you cant see the person you shouldn't be able to hit them, otherwise why cant you charm someone who is leaning against the other side of a door for example. However when you get close enough, if the person in armour can see you, you can see him (eyes/face).
I believe rifts is like this (cant cast spells on people inside sealed power armour) but not totally sure as its been a long time since i played it.

Can a spell/power effect someone in a glass box? What can magic auto penetrate? Do you need an airgap to be able to target something. Is there a line of effect between a caster and his target when he casts charm or the like?

If I could get an answer it would be great, but since I never will and there is no answer to the magic penetrating armour issue I am happy to continue the way i play. My nights of arguing over rules are mostly over due to making house rules that cover issues that the players can easily figure out for themselves.
e.g
Does this power automatically penetrate armour to do damage
If it says
yes, then it does.
no, then it doesn't.

I'm always up for a discussion but sticking to the rule is easier than making exceptions for every second thing, Palladium has trouble with consistency amongst rules, and consistency makes life easier for everyone.

[The Beast]

I have never really heard a satisfactory answer to this question but since d&d doesn't, from what I have seen over the years its more likely to be the same as d&d than not.

Armor in D&D doesn't absorb damage. So yes, spells ignore armor in most cases (even if they require a touch attack, AC from armor is usually not factored in to touch AC).

I'd say it depends on the spell (or psychic power) as to whether or not it's meant to bypass armor. There's plenty of them around that specifically state they bypass armor (Havoc is the first one that comes to mind), so clearly there's some magic that doesn't bypass armor.

[kiralon]

I'd say it depends on the spell (or psychic power) as to whether or not it's meant to bypass armor. There's plenty of them around that specifically state they bypass armor (Havoc is the first one that comes to mind), so clearly there's some magic that doesn't bypass armor.

Truly, and it would be nice to have them stated as such rather than explicitly saying it for some and not others so you have to argue work it out.

[Kraynic]

Truly, and it would be nice to have them stated as such rather than explicitly saying it for some and not others so you have to argue work it out.

Yeah, I can definitely understand that desire. And there are some things that are mentioned in the basic magic rules (in 1E anyway) that don't seem to ever actually be used in the spell descriptions like the very basic "line of sight".

As far as the Evil Eye goes, I actually restrict that to eye contact. You can't do it to anything/anyone that has no eyes or isn't looking at you. Mainly, because allowing things like that to be done from cover through a peephole just seems like something that would be horribly unfair if I did that to PCs. Since Evil Eye has no visible effect other than on the victim after a failed save, it would be the perfect assassination tool, even if someone was walking in a crowd if it was just able to target an aura. I generally run things from the perspective that I won't allow NPCs to use abilities in any way that PCs can't. But if players want me to open up a certain strategy or tactic, they better be fine with it being used against them.

To a certain extent, it is the product of a different era. It isn't a complete set of exhaustive rules (like pathfinder or something), but is instead more of a framework to build a game on. Definitely not everyone's "cup of tea". That said, I am satisfied with it, and the flex room the rules (or lack thereof) give me.

[Axelmania]

As far as the Evil Eye goes, I actually restrict that to eye contact. You can't do it to anything/anyone that has no eyes or isn't looking at you. Mainly, because allowing things like that to be done from cover through a peephole just seems like something that would be horribly unfair if I did that to PCs.

An interesting house rule which I agree does make the standard PRPG a bit more survivable.

Another option might be to give a penalty to the savings throw based on eye contact one way or the other.

I'd say it depends on the spell (or psychic power) as to whether or not it's meant to bypass armor. There's plenty of them around that specifically state they bypass armor (Havoc is the first one that comes to mind), so clearly there's some magic that doesn't bypass armor.

If there is no strike roll involved and no note about armor stopping it, I'd say armor doesn't stop it. Otherwise Charm and Paralyze Limb would be incredibly easy to stop with some pathetic AR 8 vest.

If it has to hit a person it should have to penetrate armour because the flesh is hidden, and armour isn't the person, but like a lot of magical things it automatically hits so you could aim for anything you see, including flesh, just like fireball.

Since "Evil Eye" targets the brain, I'd prefer you to need to be able to see a creature's skull to get a general idea of where to aim it, and if any armor helped, it ought to be helmets rather than vests.

Of course you could use the "it targets the aura then affects the brain" sort of approach too, I guess.

That does seem to be how other stuff works, after all. There isn't any Magneto-like effect where steel helmets stop stuff like Telepathy or Empathy, after all.

Does minifireball need to penetrate armour for you, it has a + to strike.
Or does it just have to hit a person aura

Cases like this where there is a strike roll involved, I think it is reasonable to allow armor or dodging to stop it.

Where there isn't any strike roll (or target number) I don't think a dodge or armor stopping a spell or psionic power would be appropriate.

And if 20 points of damage originates in the brain its going to be a weird release of energy that only lets a tiny amount effect the brain and the rest gets absorbed by the body, so i would disagree to the strawman analogy. If the damage effects the brain, then it just effects the brain, saying it damages something else is more along the lines of a strawman.

Affecting the brain can affect other things as a side effect.

Telling the brain to "shut off the lungs" for example, would deprive the entire body of oxygen and cause cell death throughout the body, as an example.

We simply don't know the exact mechanical effects of this.

If you're thinking that "well, the brain couldn't possibly survive 20 damage", perhaps the ability already takes into effect appropriate modifiers. For example if you had some rule like head shots did x2 or x4 damage then maybe 20 damage is actually 10*2 or 5*4.

But as you see there are a lot of questions that can't easily be answered because the wording is so terrible. That's why I make things just blanket one way, or you can argue about them all night, and one of those rules I use is for something to automatically penetrate armour it has to specifically say. Armour is useless enough already.

In that case: everyone wearing quilted armor (AR 6 or so I believe?) is impervious to the vast majority of magical spells and psionic powers, making them niche-level things usable only against naked animals. I don't believe that's the intent.

I think a person in full plate should be protected from line of sight attacks yes, if you cant see the person you shouldn't be able to hit them, otherwise why cant you charm someone who is leaning against the other side of a door for example. However when you get close enough, if the person in armour can see you, you can see him (eyes/face).

If only 1st ed had perception rules.

I believe rifts is like this (cant cast spells on people inside sealed power armour) but not totally sure as its been a long time since i played it.

I'd need to review general policies. Some spells specifically note that they penetrate certain armor levels, or that certain armor levels stop them. I don't know if there's a default level for non-specific spells.

Can a spell/power effect someone in a glass box? What can magic auto penetrate? Do you need an airgap to be able to target something. Is there a line of effect between a caster and his target when he casts charm or the like?

Very good questions. Probably errata has answered some, though also probably inconsistently. We should compare examples of things and how different rules interpretations would affect their utility.

If I could get an answer it would be great, but since I never will and there is no answer to the magic penetrating armour issue I am happy to continue the way i play. My nights of arguing over rules are mostly over due to making house rules that cover issues that the players can easily figure out for themselves.
e.g
Does this power automatically penetrate armour to do damage
If it says
yes, then it does.
no, then it doesn't.

Why is "to do damage" a condition of this?

I think a simpler take is: does it involve a strike roll?

Another interesting field is things that don't involve strike rolls, but do have target "roll X or higher to dodge" numbers which might be interpreted as akin to a strike roll in determining what AR it might be capable of surpassing.

[kiralon]

The Armour Rating is an idea of how covered and protected the body is, and the non rigid armours don't cover as much as the body as the full metal versions, especially in the face area, so for the auto targeting spells they will always be able to hit flesh, and as you can penetrate full plate with a some uncooked broccoli (%15 chance with no training), even the rigid armours have uncovered areas so things like charm will be able to get through easily.

I generally go by area effect damages armour and the person as both get hit, and single target hits armour.

I was always curious, does armour with fire resistance reduce the damage to itself, or to the wearer? or both?

[Axelmania]

I'd go conservative and say armor-only, since the other effects seem to work that way (ie being weightless doesn't make the wearer weightless, invisibility doesn't make the use invisible)

[kiralon]

and that's where the fun starts, does it protect against fireball which auto hits and I guess auto penetrates, or does it only help against the couple of roll to strike fire spells (Which really reduces its usefulness).
And say walls of flame, can you walk through the flame and take no damage to the character and have the armour absorb it, or does the armour take no damage and the character take it all, or do both take damage

[Axelmania]

The 3rd level warlock spell on pg 93 mentions "seldom misses", which might refer to being dodgeable on an 18+

Due to the whole "defenders win ties" it would seem reasonable enough to treat 18 as the effective strike roll, allowing AR 18 stuff to stop it...

Pg 44 only goes as high as AR 17 for full plate, "Superior Armor" on 47 says "armor ratings cannot really be increased (except magically)" but pg 136 doesn't list a net way to improve AR for stuff like plate, you only get a couple weird examples like "Cloak of armor" and "Leather of iron" and 139's "Cloak of protection" which only involves making low-AR stuff a bit better.

I think maybe we didn't get this until "Armor Rating Enhancement" (max +1) was introduced in PF2p249 under Magic Armor Features? I don't think that was present in pre-2nd MAF lists.

I guess this means only "The Armour of Ithan" (pg 65... the later-dropped definite-article "The" makes it a little tricky to notice) could stop a fireball, if you took that interpretation.

That spell has a weird description...

fire, lightning and cold do one-half damage making the wearer nearly impervious to normal weapons

How are fire/lightning/cold "normal weapons"? It seems like that is a note referencing the high AR and high SDC, and should probably have been included prior to the 1/2 damage note for the 3 elements.

Perhaps another good house rule to broaden this would be to change the effective strike roll of 18 for fireball to a lower number if used when an attacker would normally suffer "to strike" penalties? Like for example pg 81 "Cloud of Steam" inflicting -7 to dodge: maybe someone shooting fireballs from inside one of those ought to be less likely to hit accurately enough to bypass small chinks in armor, or make harder-to-dodge attacks?