I was looking through RC the other day, and comparing the different shifter costs/benefits. It seems that the wolf shifter (BP 55) is rather expensive when compared to the Leopard/Jaguar (BP 65). The wolf has a 1 base on all his attributes while the cats have 3,5,2,2,1,1,1,1 for theirs. That's essentially 80 BP of attributes difference for 10 BP. (not to mention the Lion/Tiger with 20 BP more attributes for 10 more BP).

Is there some errata I'm missing from RC or is the wolf shifter relatively underpowered?

For some reason the Wolf shifter has always been behind the others, in game mechanic terms. Kind of a bummer to the lycan lovers out there (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

hmm. . . maybe I'll have to house rule some different stats. . .

A wolf or any other large canine could be mistaken for a large dog, especially for city folk whose never seen a real wolf before. The physical attributes of a dog and a wolf in SR4A are nearly the same with only slightly different running speed.

A leopard/jaguar or lion/tiger is not likely to be mistaken for a house cat.

They also are limited due to their mental skills. So having a mage shapechanger does tend to favor the eagle and fox...

Yeah, that was on purpose.

It might happen. A little girl might take it home to daddy, who's about to be extracted. "IT followed me home, can I keep the kitty?" and then spends the evening being forced to wear bright pink bows until it disables the security system.

Or it might just eat everyone and carry him out, I suppose. The idea of a much abused leopard being doted on by a five year old before eating said five year old makes me laugh.

The character options in Runner's Companion don't seem quite as balanced as the main ones. There are definitely ones that give you a lot of bang for your buck, and others that are overpriced for what you get. I don't mind as much as some. I think the system is more interesting for having some options that are not optimal. I prefer that to what I have heard D&D fourth edition is (mechanically indistinguishable characters).

I couldn't disagree more. IMHO it is far better to have real choice in the form of properly balanced options, rather than the haphazard system mastery that used to afflict DnD 3E, and is now creeping into SR4.

The normal claim with regards to the pricing in RC is that it is intended to enforce rarity...
except wolves are one of the most common shifter types.

In either case the notion of "unfair" point values goes back to orcs vs elves in the core book.
At least in that example agility/charisma are high value attributes while strength is a dump stat.

Your best bet here is to start house ruling. There will be no "official" balance.

Normal claims be damned, I wrote shapeshifters and I used a formula.

Although admittedly I could have done a better job on the optional rules. There was very little playtesting.

Can we have the formula? Would be nice to make out own shapeshifters...

If I can find it in the old drafts. It's not complicated - there was a set cost for their innate Magic, powers, and weaknesses, and that was raised or lowered by attribute modifiers and shapeshifter abilities - but I don't remember the exact numbers I used off the top of my head.

Can you at least remember what made wolves so expensive compared to their peers?
The others are off by maybe 5-10 points but wolves are like whoa!

As I recall, it was mostly that werewolves were the "baseline" shapeshifter that the rest were measured against. I'm trying to remember if I added in movement rates before or after the initial calculation.

This is as good a place as any to ask, but I've been mulling the idea of a Rat shifter, but I'm wary about raising the maximum Reaction - it seems a bit overpowered.

The logic behind this is that while rats are agile, they are also very good at dodging and reacting quickly to changes and threats. I suppose that I could raise the max Agility too, but then you've got a class tailor made for the gunslinger adept. Either way, they would have their Body and strength maxed at 4.

I am really interested in seeing this formula, Ancient. I really want to assign fair BP costs, and not just go with my gut.

If it's a rat shapeshifter, it's a R.O.U.S. We had arguments over mass conservation before - we gotta try to work it in to SR as more than a goal at some point.

I'm looking through my old drafts, but I /really/ don't know if I have it still.

That's true. I guess the only reasonable explanation for a rat shifter would be if the alternate form was a gnome, or other extremely small and light variant. Even then, it would be one dense rat.

But what is the real difference between a Rat Shapeshifter and a human mage with a body of 3 that uses magic to shapechange to a rat? as far as density would be concerned anyway, I do understand the underlying differences between the types...

Keep the Faith

I think we could always limit it by the shapechanging rules so the shapeshift is limited to a body of 3.

I can't disagree more too. IMHO it is far far better to have real choice in the form of unbalanced options, such as DnD 3E(as much as I hate cancer causing systems), and has been so in SR.

HAve to agree with you here... it is always better to have choice (D&D 3.5 is Awesome in this regard)... no character is balanced against another character and you should not really take pains to do so... no one is equal all the time (or even part of the time)...

Keep the Faith

I also disagree, although some care should be taken to present various options as apparently balanced, even if they are not. In the case we are discussing, this would come as a decreased BP cost to wolves or an increased cost to large cats. Remember, minimum stats being higher than normal is worth more than the 10 BP it takes to raise the stat by 1, due to the higher maximum, so a balanced cost (+10 bp per stat point) is actually unbalanced (greater worth) leaving both choices meaningful and fair.

Balance and diversity are mutually exclusive, but you can strike a balance between them.

I think balanced in this aspect is that the differences in cost are so overwhelming that it makes the difference in choice very clear.

Example is fomori and cyclops to me are unbalanced because the difference is so clear. A gnome and a dwarf on the other hand seem balanced.

The other thing as you add more and more there is a rate of diminishing returns where the race's cost is so high you get a character that is either very unskilled or very low stats making them weaker at character generation such as a troll drake.

Which part of it was on purpose?