[The Bald Man]

Are vehicles and drones valid targets for the Armor Spell? 
"Creates a glowing field of magical energy around the subject"  Is a vehicle a "subject"?

[Quatar]

I would say yes, but the car would resist with its Object resistance.

[firebug]

It is a physical spell, so I don't see why it couldn't.  You could even use it on an object if you needed to, theoretically.  Anything that has or could-have an armor rating.  Though of course, if you tried to cast it on "a building" that presumably would be too big to affect.  For anything that have stats like a character does though, you definitely can.  I'd say if it has a single condition monitor (so, individual objects, drones, vehicles...  but not anything that is primarily a structure as opposed to object, like a wall) then you can target it with the spell.

I would say yes, but the car would resist with its Object resistance.

Armor isn't a resisted spell, so that wouldn't make any sense.

[Marcus]

spell is los so it would probably work, for devil advocate it might be to big. but if so armor vehicle is an easy spell to make.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

I would say yes, but the car would resist with its Object resistance.

Armor isn't a resisted spell, so that wouldn't make any sense.

I think I'm on board with Quatar.  But then again it may be because I want to imprint some older editions' metaphysics into 5th ed.  It used to be that you cast anything on a nonliving object, you have to overcome OR.

I suppose one could look at 5th edition in a vacuum (and maybe for the rules, you should).  Magic "magically" works in that OR only works against hostile spells and not against friendly spells.  It's head scratching, but then again it's magic.

One thing that may (or may not) be problematic with saying OR only applies when it's explicitly invoked is that a Rigger can get the party mage to Heal his battlewagon rather than paying for repairs.

I'm thinking the best way to adjudicate Armor on a vehicle is to say the spell becomes a resisted spell, even though it it isn't one when cast on a living subject.

[SpellBinder]

Well, the Armor spell doesn't state it requires a voluntary target or that'd be an automatic failure, and other manipulation spells that are more intended to be used on something like a vehicle (Animate, Fix, etc.) do state that the OR must be overcome first, so I'd rule that OR applies against Armor as well.  I take it that, by the wording of the spell, whoever wrote the description hadn't considered someone wanting to use Armor (and a few other such spells) on a vehicle or drone.

[ShadowcatX]

spell is los so it would probably work, for devil advocate it might be to big. but if so armor vehicle is an easy spell to make.

If it is too big for a mage to cast a spell on then it is too big for anyone to  shoot, either. After all, you're not biased against magic, right.

[ShadowcatX]

I would say yes, but the car would resist with its Object resistance.

Armor isn't a resisted spell, so that wouldn't make any sense.

One thing that may (or may not) be problematic with saying OR only applies when it's explicitly invoked is that a Rigger can get the party mage to Heal his battlewagon rather than paying for repairs.

Please tell me you are writing this as a joke. Object resistance is not why heal doesn't work on the rigger's van.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

Please tell me you are writing this as a joke. Object resistance is not why heal doesn't work on the rigger's van.

No, it's not a joke.  I do suspect however that you missed my point, as the point was that the reason Heal doesn't work on a nonliving target is because GM imposes sanity/common sense and RAW is indeed not necessarily the LAW!  In a hypothetical absence of GM judgement, there's nothing in the Heal spell category rules nor the Heal spell itself that precludes it targeting a vehicle.  A vehicle can't even have a deficiency in essence, so again absent a GM's "bulldrek flag" it's even easier to heal a GMC Bulldog than many Shadowrunners!

So again my point is: The GM imposes common sense limitations on spells.  Like how you can't heal a truck.  And like how I was arguing a car ought to have OR factor in on a Manipulation spell even if the spell doesn't normally call for a resistance test.  You don't go "no GM judgement allowed" for Armor but then expect it for Heal.

[ShadowcatX]

Other than the English language which says living things heal and non-living things do not, which Shadowrun never changes. Furthermore, heal and health spells target characters, which a van is not.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

Other than the English language which says living things heal and non-living things do not, which Shadowrun never changes.

You say tomato, I say tomato.  Removing damage from a damage track is "healing".  Either way, trucks have damage tracks and can have damage removed from the damage track.. whether you call that healing or repair is semantics.  Not rules.

The funny thing about the "fluff" descriptions is the fuzzy nature of natural language.  What's not fuzzy is technical language.  In the technical language (e.g. "the crunch" of the rules) there's no restriction.  Let's not make this more than it should be: I agree with you that the INTENT is clear.  The argument is pedantic since I'm agreeing with you that the GM absolutely should be shutting down the argument that RAW says you can heal trucks.    What is the more productive topic to explore is whether or not "obviously" a truck gets OR vs an Armor spell is as equally "obvious" as whether or not you can Heal a truck.  I say it is.  The crunch of the rules for Armor never says there's a resistance test.

I'm saying that the Armor spell, just as the Heal spell, was written with the "obvious" assumption of being cast on a living target.  Since the GM still runs the game, he can/should say the Heal spell can't work on a truck at all and I'm saying he also can/should say the Armor spell becomes resisted if cast on a non-living target.

Furthermore, heal and health spells target characters, which a van is not.

Debatable, as you can absolutely put AIs (sentient and otherwise) into a truck.  NPCs are still characters.

[Kiirnodel]

Furthermore, heal and health spells target characters, which a van is not.

Debatable, as you can absolutely put AIs (sentient and otherwise) into a truck.  NPCs are still characters.

Health spells target living things. They "affect the condition and performance of a living body." It isn't explicitly restricted in the spell characteristics, but based on the description of the entire category it is clear that Health spells are not meant to affect non-living targets.

Now, as far as a reason that the Armor spell would be inappropriate to use on non-living targets, objects have their own spell for this purpose. The Reinforce spell increases the Armor and Structure rating of objects. This is not to say that Armor can't be used on objects (there is no proof-positive on that), but there is definitely precedence to say that there is a different spell for that purpose.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

Health spells target living things. They "affect the condition and performance of a living body."

Per the definition of Health spells on page 287, it never says that.  There's reasonable interpretation however, segueing into:

It isn't explicitly restricted in the spell characteristics, but based on the description of the entire category it is clear that Health spells are not meant to affect non-living targets.

And now you're agreeing with me.  The GM has the "No of course you can't do that" veto when a player tries to Heal the truck.  Doesn't matter what RAW says on this topic.  Common sense says you can't so there you go. (and if there's an argument over what's "common sense", then the GM wins)

Common sense ALSO says, imo, that non-living targets get OR against physical manipulations even if the spell is not resisted when cast on a living target.

Now, as far as a reason that the Armor spell would be inappropriate to use on non-living targets, objects have their own spell for this purpose. The Reinforce spell increases the Armor and Structure rating of objects. This is not to say that Armor can't be used on objects (there is no proof-positive on that), but there is definitely precedence to say that there is a different spell for that purpose.

Or there's that.  Also perfectly reasonable, imo.  I'd quibble that Armor would still be the more appropriate spell as vehicles have Body instead of Structure, but again tomato tomato. 

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

Here's another wrinkle:

What if the Armor spell is undesired by the target?  It's generally a buff so that'd be a corner case, sure.  But hardly contrived... if the target has a mid-range armor value and is nearly full up on the Stun condition track, it may well be in your benefit to "attack" him by raising his armor value so your weapons will do stun damage instead of physical.

In such a case, is the spell still unresisted, and finding a way to harm someone with an unresistable spell is clever gamesmanship?

Would it be a house rule or an "of course it works this way" ruling to say there is a resistance check if the subject for whatever reason actively doesn't want the spell?


Whether an offensive Armor spell gets a resistance check is probably the same answer as to whether it becomes resisted when cast on an object.

[Kiirnodel]

Health spells target living things. They "affect the condition and performance of a living body."

Per the definition of Health spells on page 287, it never says that.

Page 282, the definitions of the categories, it does say that.