Shapechange Question Options

[Irion]

@Neraph
Lets see what RAW says, shall we:

The subject can only assume the form
of a critter whose base Body rating is 2 points greater or less
than her own.

The rules "mostly" take into account the augmented raiting.

Write affected attributes in this fashion:
Body 4 (6). The first number is the character’s natural Body rating;
the second, the augmented rating. In most situations, your
character will use the augmented rating unless otherwise noted.

Now you would have to argue, that the augmented rating is to be used.
Second you would need to argue, that "own" means "current".

So yes, your trick would not contradict RAW till this point. (It would not be the only interpretation, but it would not contradict)
But now we get to the Point of the max. Augmented Attributes.
Well, here the ones of your human Form do still apply. (Why? Because it is not stated otherwise. And the regular approach is to cap at aug. Max)
You may argue against it, but keep in mind, that increase attribute does not state this cap either. (Nor do most of the augmentations)

[Irion]

@Neraph
Lets see what RAW says, shall we:

The subject can only assume the form
of a critter whose base Body rating is 2 points greater or less
than her own.

The rules "mostly" take into account the augmented raiting.

Write affected attributes in this fashion:
Body 4 (6). The first number is the character’s natural Body rating;
the second, the augmented rating. In most situations, your
character will use the augmented rating unless otherwise noted.

Now you would have to argue, that the augmented rating is to be used.
Second you would need to argue, that "own" means "current".

So yes, your trick would not contradict RAW till this point. (It would not be the only interpretation, but it would not contradict)
But now we get to the Point of the max. Augmented Attributes.
Well, here the ones of your human Form do still apply. (Why? Because it is not stated otherwise. And the regular approach is to cap at aug. Max)
You may argue against it, but keep in mind, that increase attribute does not state this cap either. (Nor do most of the augmentations)

[Mooncrow]

@Neraph
Lets see what RAW says, shall we:

Except that in this case, we're not talking about human maximums, Neraph is talking about a troll, who can still get excellent use out of Rhino form, even if you cap it at augmented attribute max. You're making a completely different argument.

And the devs have had years to clear this up, and they have not, in spite of every previous edition clearly stating that you could not. /shrug

Obviously, it's never going to fly at my table, but w/e.

[jimbo]

Wouldn't stacked Armor spells or stacked Combat Sense spells be teamwork? If two mages Counterspell for others, Counterspell certainly doesn't stack; the lower is treated as teamwork.

[Yerameyahu]

I'm not going into it, but disallowing stacking or chaining certainly does not "destroy the concept of sustaining multiple spells", nor is it
"super-focusing a mage on one purpose". At all.

[jimbo]

I'm not going into it, but disallowing stacking or chaining certainly does not "destroy the concept of sustaining multiple spells", nor is it
"super-focusing a mage on one purpose". At all.

Agree. I'm running a mage with a sustained (focus) F6 Combat Sense spell.

I'm just saying that if the stacked spell is allowed/correct, it seems the default mechanic in SR (4 anyway) is teamworking.

It still provides a benefit, but becomes pretty inefficient.

[phlapjack77]

Ok, but what I'm doing is insisting on something that's plainly RAW and recieving the second part of your statement. If you believe RAW = silly rules, I suggest you go look at the RAW discussion thread.

My point, really. I know I'm being pretty absolutist and silly in my arguments on the other thread.

But when people go around saying "that's plainly RAW"....no, no it's not. It's your interpretation of the rules. Plainly RAI.

Sorry for the crossover, but I felt like you started it (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

[Mooncrow]

Agree. I'm running a mage with a sustained (focus) F6 Combat Sense spell.

I'm just saying that if the stacked spell is allowed/correct, it seems the default mechanic in SR (4 anyway) is teamworking.

It still provides a benefit, but becomes pretty inefficient.

It's fairly inefficient anyway. it's either:

A. 10,000 nuyen + 2 karma per point of armor (sustaining focus)
B. 1 bound spirit service per spell per (spirit force) Combat Turns
C. -2 dice pool per spell (quickly negating anything else you try to do) Neraph's example would have the character at a -8 dicepool on everything, plus having to roll to keep sustaining every time damage was taken, etc.

I mean, I would rather just throw up multiple Physical Barrier spells personally.

[Draco18s]

But when people go around saying "that's plainly RAW"....no, no it's not. It's your interpretation of the rules. Plainly RAI.

"It's plainly RAW that you get 400 built points for chargen and that each one can get you 5,000 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nuyen.gif) (up to a max of 250000 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nuyen.gif) )"

There. Refute that.

[Mordinvan]

"It's plainly RAW that you get 400 built points for chargen and that each one can get you 5,000 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nuyen.gif) (up to a max of 250000 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nuyen.gif) )"

There. Refute that.

Can I attempt to use a sophist argument?

[phlapjack77]

"It's plainly RAW that you get 400 built points for chargen and that each one can get you 5,000 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nuyen.gif) (up to a max of 250000 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nuyen.gif) )"

There. Refute that.

I don't want to derail this shapechange thread - can you ask in the "other" thread please? And quote some actual RAW too with page numbers, so I can try to pick it apart. Emphasis on "try" (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Neraph]

Wouldn't stacked Armor spells or stacked Combat Sense spells be teamwork? If two mages Counterspell for others, Counterspell certainly doesn't stack; the lower is treated as teamwork.

Ok, and as per teamwork tests, the successes are added to the other right? So if I got 4 successes on my second Armor spell, you can call it a "teamwork Armor spell" all you want, but mechanically it remains the same: I add the successes to my armor.

Back to Shapechange: the spell itself actually tells you you use the creature's physical attributes for the duration of the spell, and you add 1 to those stats for every hit of the Spellcasting Test. It does not tell you that those attribute increases are considered an Augmented attribute, nor does it say that your attributes in your new form are limited by your metatype's augmented maximums, which would be ridiculous. It also specifically mentions the critter's base body, not the subject's base body, so that gives us our allowance to use our own Augmented Body attribute to qualify for the spell.

Interesting, I just figured that if you're playing a high-Body troll you can Decrease (Body) to shapechange into the smaller animals. Huh, never thought of that.

[Irion]

@Neraph

Back to Shapechange: the spell itself actually tells you you use the creature's physical attributes for the duration of the spell, and you add 1 to those stats for every hit of the Spellcasting Test. It does not tell you that those attribute increases are considered an Augmented attribute, nor does it say that your attributes in your new form are limited by your metatype's augmented maximums, which would be ridiculous.

No, it would be RAW. Because any change of attributes is limited by the augmented max. (Or not )
Why would it be any less or more ridiculous then limiting increase attribute by the aug. max?

This is actually my point: You do not argue RAW, you argue "subjective view".

As a matter of facts I am unable to find any paragraph, telling me that I may not increase any attribute beyond the aug. max. So I guess the possibility is out there.

So I am unable to find anything preventing me from taking 4 level 4 muscle toners for a + 16 to agility. (As a type O guy, essence wont be a problem)

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

As a matter of facts I am unable to find any paragraph, telling me that I may not increase any attribute beyond the aug. max. So I guess the possibility is out there.

So I am unable to find anything preventing me from taking 4 level 4 muscle toners for a + 16 to agility. (As a type O guy, essence wont be a problem)

Other than the rules you mean, Right?

Augmented MAXIMUM means just that... the Maximum amount to which the Attribute may be raised by Augmentation... For humans, that would be 9's across the board (Barring Genetic Optimizations and such stuff), so your idea of 4 Muscle Toners for +16 Agility is ludicrous at best...

[Yerameyahu]

… That's his point, Tymeaus.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

… That's his point, Tymeaus.

Oooops... Apparently I missed that then... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)
But it seemed to me that he was saying that, because of the lack of specific restrictions, his option to install 4 Muscle Toner 4 systems for that +16 Agility was okay...

[Irion]

@Tymeaus
I will point it out a little better. There are two interpretations of what RAW is. And one is, as far as I am concerned, just silly.
1. Everything which is explicitly allowed is considered RAW and nothing more.
2. Everything not directly contradicted and thinkable is RAW. (silly)

The point of my argument was, that with the second interpretation it would be possible to use multible muscle toners and go over the augmented max.
This is just one of the most obvious examples. I took it to avoid the "but this makes perfect sense and I use it in my games" discussion.

Most of the "funny ideas" work only with the second interpretation.
Well, and there is no surprise there, because it is silly to begin with.
The most common gag about it:"I will ride on my flying cow to battle" "What I can't?! It does not say anywhere that cows are unable to fly!"

Surprisingly the most common interpretation is the second one.
This is actually very easy to explain.
Not many people have the possibility to see far beyond their point of view (I have to admit, I lack this too).
And if something had been ruled one way for many, many games, you do not doubt that ruling, you take it as the only possible option.
So the "thinkable" becomes a clear line for them, but it is more a grey ocean.
The Problem is, that the rules are abstract. Extremly abstract. It does not even consider mass.
A car does not go slower, if you strip tonnes of armour on it (nor does it matter how many people sit inside).
An assult cannon is usable in close quaters as good as an uzi.
By "RAW" a Pixie could fire said assult cannon while flying. (Newton would turn in his grave)

[Mooncrow]

That's actually not what we're discussing in the slightest. 2. is ridiculous, and your example is explicitly not allowed.

The rules clearly say the requirements for shapechange - Body Attribute +/- 2

The rules clearly state that your stats change to (critter base stats) +1 per success

The rules are less clear on whether you are still limited by augmented maximums, on one hand, the augmented maximum explicitly includes magic into it's limitation, however, since the limitation is also clearly stated to be by metatype, and you are effectively changing species...

As far as stacking armor spells, the rules are laid out for sustaining spells, they're laid out for what happens when you cast the Armor Spell - hits are added to armor, cumulative with worn armor. So, those are the written rules, so what happens when you cast multiple Armor spells? You apply the rules.

I'm not willing to go digging around trying to guess what the writers intended (especially since I know for a fact there was a lot of disagreement over the magic rules) so I can only go by what they wrote (RAW), and if that doesn't work, I go by FTRIDWW

You can have some interesting discussions on the gray areas, or where rules contradict each other, etc, but never mistake that for "Everything not directly contradicted and thinkable is RAW". What nonsense.

[Draco18s]

I don't want to derail this shapechange thread - can you ask in the "other" thread please? And quote some actual RAW too with page numbers, so I can try to pick it apart. Emphasis on "try" (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

SR4A, pages 80 and 86. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[jimbo]

Ok, and as per teamwork tests, the successes are added to the other right? So if I got 4 successes on my second Armor spell, you can call it a "teamwork Armor spell" all you want, but mechanically it remains the same: I add the successes to my armor.

I'm thinking no. Let's take someone under two combat sense spells, one F6 and one F5. He is attacked and automatically adds 6 dp to parry (or dodge, etc.) to his defense test. He rolls a 5 dp for the other spell and let's say gets 2 hits. He adds 2 dp to his defense test (or a total of 8 dp from the two spells).

Successes from teamwork add to dice pools of a test, not as successes to the test in question. That is the core mechanic for teamwork, and teamwork is the default mechanic for stacking/helping/aiding...

[Yerameyahu]

I think it's a mistake to consider it a teamwork test; teamwork is, as you say, for aiding. It's not for stacking. The default mechanic for stacking is to not allow it. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Incidentally, Armor doesn't say, 'adds X to armor'. It "provides" X armor, which explicitly stacks with worn armor. That's all; not with itself.

Shapechange is slightly trickier, if you willfully read it so that it can be abused. It says, "The subject can only assume the form of a critter whose base Body rating is 2 points greater or less than her own." The problem is that it uses the phrase "her own" instead of 'her own base Body rating'; this leaves Neraph to assume that it instead means 'her own (current) Body rating'. *shrug* It seems to me more likely that it means caster's *base* Body rating, matching the critter's base Body rating. Now, obviously this is a case where the sentence is ambiguous; one interpretation is abusive, and the other isn't. (Personally, I'd just houserule the whole spell to be different, but that's off topic.)

[jimbo]

I think it's a mistake to consider it a teamwork test; teamwork is, as you say, for aiding. It's not for stacking. The default mechanic for stacking is to not allow it. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

That's rather heretical, Galileo...

[Yerameyahu]

Hehe. I'm just saying, where in the game is there Teamwork for stacking, instead of stacking being explicitly disallowed (except where explicitly re-allowed)?

Anyway. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) In my last post, I was only pointing out those details for curiosity's sake. I still think the real solution is a general 'don't let players break the game' rule; I think we can all agree that the only thing that really matters is that. If the game is hyper-powered, rhino-mages with +6 all could be perfectly fine and fun.

[Irion]

the augmented maximum explicitly includes magic into it's limitation, however, since the limitation is also clearly stated to be by metatype, and you are effectively changing species...

First: Give me the quote, that magic augmentations or augmentations in general are restricted by the augmented cap.
Second: If this statement is made, why should it exlude certain kinds of magic. (By the way, you do not change metatype or species. You just change your form. If you would change completly, you would loose your mental attributes)

[Mooncrow]

First: Give me the quote, that magic augmentations or augmentations in general are restricted by the augmented cap.
Second: If this statement is made, why should it exlude certain kinds of magic. (By the way, you do not change metatype or species. You just change your form. If you would change completly, you would loose your mental attributes)

SR4A page 68:

"Care must be made to distinguish between natural, unmodified attribute ratings and those augmented by cyberware, bioware, adept powers, and magic... Physical and Mental attributes have a maximum natural rating of 6 plus or minus metatype modifiers, depending on metatype (p. 81). The maximum augmented attribute value for for each metatype is equal to 1.5 times this figure, rounded down."

Seems pretty clear on the first point, unless there's a definition of maximum I'm not aware of.

Now, for the second point, the Shapechange spell (SR4A page 211) says:

"Shapechange transforms a voluntary subject into a normal (non-paranormal) critter, though the subject retains human consciousness. The subject can only assume the form of a critter whose base body rating is 2 points greater or less than her own, Consult the Critters section, p. 292, for the subject's physical attributes while in critter form. Add 1 to the critter's base attribute rating for every hit the caster generates. Her Mental attributes remain unchanged." Bolded emphasis mine

So, the question becomes here, "what does the bolded section mean?" On page 68 (and throughout the book) the term "attribute", when not qualified by the terms "natural" or "augmented", means both. So, are the non-transformed Physical attributes (both natural and augmented) set aside and the critter's stats completely substituted? I think it's not clear enough to say either way with certainty. I would certainly rule at my table that they do not, but I wouldn't say that someone who went the other way was wrong.