FASA Games, Inc.

Don't bother freid78.

Once labeled as a rabble-rouser Josh ignores what is said and goes all passive aggressive

Panda was addressing the questions in the OP, and not the other conversation I believe. Mataxes got snarky (who knows why, he does work another full time job, yah), but reeled it back in my opinion.

Personally, I'm here to build the ED community, interact with everyone, and improve the game.

ED simply doesn't have the community that other games do, and let's face it - ever since D&D 3+ the math and mechanics of role-playing games has gotten a lot more scrutiny by players looking to optimize (I kinda hated how D&D 3+ had so much of it's "play cycle" involved planning out your future build in minute detail while not even "playing"). This has made players more aware of system interactions.

But seriously, I have never heard this question in over ~20 years of playing the game and talking about it on the internet. Panda and Mataxes answered according to their understanding of the rules and metaphysics (I really think that's the key here alongside all the casters now having Willforce). The metaphysics are also key in Earthdawn as the mechanics are so closely tied to it. I wouldn't let some-one attempt to Avoid Blow an Earthdarts spell (based on the spell metaphysics, it'll swerve to hit you). Mystic Armor has also always been much lower then Phys Armor. I've been giving it some more thought and based on those three points, I'd say Spot/Show Armor Flaw does not apply to spells in my game.

It looks like it started with the "Did you even read the book?" snarky remark. The developers have done a lot of work and they logged on and answered the question . Personally, I would have read it as working on both Physical and Mystic armor against Armored opponents only. However, seeing that isn't the intent, I'm okay with using it as it was intended.

I'd always hoped that Earthdawn was beyond these arguments. In such a rich and developed world with a great story, does an additional 2 steps of damage really warrant such behavior. I heard a player say at DunDraCon one year "Quit arguing and roll dice." That sounds appropriate here.

Very well written, Baravakar. Good to have you in the community. Personally, I'm leaning towards running as Panda and Mataxes have laid out, and then making a Talent Knack for the Spells.

Okay. So.

There's a lot of things to unpack as a result of this thread.

There is no such thing as a perfect game. Despite best intentions and efforts, there will be things that are not clear, inconsistencies, things that are not provided to people who want them. Even with playtesting, some edge cases will not be caught.

I appreciate the questions and the discussion that can result (really, I do). I am not disputing the rules for Spot Armor Flaw can be read to provide a benefit to spells. It's not specific. It hasn't been specific in any prior edition. All I can say when asked the question is, "That wasn't the intention."

Doesn't mean you can't play it that way, or that it can't be interpreted that way. The unclear wording didn't get 'caught' because, to the dozens of people involved in the development and revision of the Player's Guide, it wasn't unclear. As Telarus said, the question has never really come up before (and we've both been involved in the online Earthdawn community for about as long as its been around). As a result it didn't twig on anybody's radar as a potential problem.

This sort of thing happens all the time in RPG development. No matter how thorough you think you are being, stuff is going to 'slip through'. It even happens to the big guns. What was D&D 3.5 but the result of (among other things) a massive "in the wild" playtest by thousands of gamers?

I am human (as much as I might like to be t'skrang). I make mistakes. I get tired, frustrated, baffled, and all the rest. I try not to post while my gahad burns, but sometimes I fail my Willpower test. I love this game. You have questions, concerns, feedback, constructive criticism and the like? I'm all for it.

Just want to shit on things, or insult people? Do it somewhere else.

Help me make the game better. We may not always see eye to eye, but as long as you do your best to approach the community with respect, I will strive to do the same. I may stumble from time to time, but that is our lot as humans.

In the end, the best I can do is offer insight into the thought process and reasoning behind the choices made. If you don't agree, that's fine. At your table, it is your game and you can do as you wish. The rules are a starting point, not an end point.

To wrap up, if anybody feels that I have belittled or disrespected their opinion in the midst of all this, I apologize. It was certainly not my intention, but that doesn't change the consequences of my words or actions.

Thank you for your time.

But most mystic armor is innate ... I would not allow it for mystic armor unless the armor is granted by armor or shields. Even then, I would think the adept would need to be pretty familiar with astral space to analyze armor structure. Maybe a technical reading of the rules support Baravakar, but I'd come down on the spirit of the rules with Panda. As always, your game, your decision.

Perhaps the problem come from the fact that instead of removing armor value, the adept with this talent gain bonus to attack test. If it lowers the enemy armor instead, you get something similar but with less confusion.

Now is the innate mystic armor really an "armor", that's another question :p

P.S. Thanks Josh for you time. It's appreciated.