Shapechange Question Options

[Emy]

In fairness, using Increase Attribute in that situation does constitute 'no reason to do so', because it's ridiculous. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Ridiculous, huh? Ridicule if it pleases you, but your dislike of the reason (increasing an already high attribute into the stratosphere) doesn't make it suddenly become a nonreason.

[Mooncrow]

You're the one that pointed out the Increase Attribute spell from Neraph's bit of idle speculation would require a Force 16 spell.


(bolding mine in both quotes)

I think he meant, say tossing some armor on if you need extra survivability.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Ridiculous, huh? Ridicule if it pleases you, but your dislike of the reason (increasing an already high attribute into the stratosphere) doesn't make it suddenly become a nonreason.

You are defending it? Really? Wow... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

[Mooncrow]

In fairness, using Increase Attribute in that situation does constitute 'no reason to do so', because it's ridiculous. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

How so Yera? Bear Shifter Mystic Adept could get that high without any of the other absurdity we've been discussing at all. Unless you mean it's inefficient, rather than ridiculous; that, I would agree with.

[Yerameyahu]

Inefficient is as good a reason as any. 'Not needed' is another, and so on. I don't particularly care, I was just pointing out that the mechanical possibility of needing Force 16 isn't the same as a *reason* for needing it. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Emy]

Indeed, I did point out the Ludicrousness of the Requirement, which is why I said it was a Ludicrous Proposition in the first place... the condition was on the example (Stat of 15) provided by Neraph... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smokin.gif)

Glad that has been settled now... Whew... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

And for clarification, in case you did not catch it, Edge cases such as this are a waste, as far as I am concerned. You (generic you here, not pointing fingers) take a situation, and then blow it completely beyond anything that is sane to start with and then expect the result to be sane (Since when are Force 16 Spells sane and common, even if it is not all that hard to get there)... Really? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

Inefficient is as good a reason as any. 'Not needed' is another, and so on. I don't particularly care, I was just pointing out that the mechanical possibility of needing Force 16 isn't the same as a *reason* for needing it. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

To both of you:

Hello and good (insert time here). You're in a discussion about the rules of a game (specifically Shadowrun rules as they pretain to the Shapechange spell), and you're complaining that it's "not needed" and "a waste" when someone notes some of the peculiarities of these rules. (After a period where you try to deny the method's feasability.)

You are defending it? Really? Wow... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

Does this post have a point?

I think he meant, say tossing some armor on if you need extra survivability.

I... actually have no idea what you're talking about in relation to my post. Would you mind expanding on this a bit so I can understand what you're saying?

[Mooncrow]

I have yet to see why something of that magnitude would ever be required for any situation. Sure, you COULD use it if you wanted, but I can concieve of no reason to do so, that something less powerful would not be capable of succeeding against.

Using Force 16 spells is certainly possible, but generally there are very few situations where it's the most efficient or reasonable way of doing things. So, my example was meant to be "here's a situation where you could cast a force 16 spell, but you would better off doing something else". Since our initial example was talking about using the spell on something with a Body of 16. I should have been more clear, but I was in a hurry =/

[Yerameyahu]

*shrug* I think the point that just because something is numerically possible doesn't mean it's useful is perfectly valid. YMMV, hehe.

[Emy]

*shrug* I think the point that just because something is numerically possible doesn't mean it's useful is perfectly valid. YMMV, hehe.

Not useful in most game situations, perhaps. However, that's no reason not to include it in a rules discussion.

Though I can think of a couple (silly) game situations where it might become useful, like arm-wrestling with dragons, or dodging wide full bursts.

[Neraph]

Note... It says stacks with Armor Worn... Not armor gained from Spells... so no, no armor spell stacking allowed...

Ok, the +4 armor from one Armor spell stacks with my armor worn, so that increases it by +4, and the +4 from my other spell stacks with armor worn, so that's another +4, and the...

Yes, yes it does. Each spell gives the armor bonus to the armor, not to each other. Good straw man argument though.

2 Cases... Pretty Simple in my opinion...

1. Shapechain fails outright (It does not work that way in my opinion) if you choose to not sustain all spells in the chain...
Alternately: You want a bigger or smaller form, cast "Increase/Decrease Body, Sustain it and then cast Shapechange (and sustain it)... if the Increase/Decrease is dropped, the Shapechange goes along with it.

If using Chaining "Logic" all prerequisites are part of the "Chain" and if a single link of the chain breaks, the entire chain unravels... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

2. The Shifter one is easy as well: the Shifter would look like whatever his Shift Power provides, and he loses any benefit from Shapechange... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smokin.gif)

Point 1 and point 2 are both perspective of yours based not on what the rules say, but on what you want to happen.

1) The chain is not dependant on the previous links except for when the next link is crafted, otherwise you'd never be able to cast Shapechange as when your Body changes from the spell effect itself the spell effect ends. When you are in the form chosen by the spell, your physical attributes from your previous form stop being important - only the new attributes are important. Therefore, if you cast again, only the physical stats from the first spell are neccessary, and only until the physical attributes for the second form are determined, in which case the first casting is no longer required.

2) That's based on absolutely nothing but your own perception. In the case of the Rules, you would have a Shapechange spell active and another Power activated later that changes the appearance of the subject. The real question here is what happens when you have multiple spells or Powers from different sources that try to interact with each other, and your answer is "They don't because I say so," completely without the backing of rules (exempting Rule 0, of course).

The real question I was looking for you people to answer was this: If you have multiple spells that do similar functions, does the most recent spell take effect? (trying to reword, not different question) Are the previous spells' effects overwritten with the most recent effect? If I cast 4 Mask spells, do they all argue with each other or does the most recent take priority?

Already been addressed, but You MUST satisfy all requirements of the spell... in this case, Minimum Force of 16 (Base 1 + 15 Previous sustained Successes)... Have fun trying that one... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smokin.gif)

I never said I didn't have to meet the requirements of the spell. F16 spells can be made through many different ways - someone else listed two different ways. You can also be Infected and use Essence Drain to boost your Magic up to a maximum of 11 with a starting character.

[Neraph]

Indeed, I did point out the Ludicrousness of the Requirement, which is why I said it was a Ludicrous Proposition in the first place... the condition was on the example (Stat of 15) provided by Neraph... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smokin.gif)

Technically it was +15 to the stat of the target.

EDIT: For example, the Rhinocerous would be a Body 27 creature. I didn't help my position any, but even so, the possibility of F100 spells are feasible, if not reasonable, and that was my intent.

[Yerameyahu]

Psh, Neraph. Next you'll be saying that you can wear 3 PPP helmets, because 'they stack with the worn armor, not each other'. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) You can't just handwave away the alternative interpretation that you don't like. The whole point is that there are multiple RAW interpretations, man. And when one is abusive, it's wrong. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Neraph]

Psh, Neraph. Next you'll be saying that you can wear 3 PPP helmets, because 'they stack with the worn armor, not each other'. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) You can't just handwave away the alternative interpretation that you don't like. The whole point is that there are multiple RAW interpretations, man. And when one is abusive, it's wrong. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

*cough cough* From a RAW standpoint you can, since nowhere does it state that the PPP pieces are limited to 1 per slot. Also they can be built in to armor or clothing worn, so you can, from a mechanical standpoint, have three or four such pieces built in to your Helmet (+1/+2) or Hard Hat (+0/+2).

That aside, having to deal with multiple Sustaining Penalties is nowhere near being "abusive." If you get four such spells active, you can expect ~ an extra 10 points of armor, with each spell becoming more difficult because of the mounting dicepool penalty, and the whole thing ending up with you having a -8 to all checks, including Reaction Tests to not get hit in the first place. You end up sacrificing your ability to not get hit by super-turtling in an attempt to be able to survive it.

See? Balance.

[Yerameyahu]

Exactly. You *would* argue that the RAW doesn't disallow wearing 3 PPP helmets, and you'd be totally wrong. That's my point. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) (Might as well mention the crazy 'you can wear multiple FFBA' argument, too. Same thing.)

You describe *a* case. You could also invent *other* radically different cases. Multiple casters (including spirits) turtling another single unit? Etc. I *know* that you can imagine plenty of overpowered uses, of all people. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Neraph]

Exactly. You *would* argue that the RAW doesn't disallow wearing 3 PPP helmets, and you'd be totally wrong. That's my point. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) (Might as well mention the crazy 'you can wear multiple FFBA' argument, too. Same thing.)

You describe *a* case. You could also invent *other* radically different cases. Multiple casters (including spirits) turtling another single unit? Etc. I *know* that you can imagine plenty of overpowered uses, of all people. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Actually, I'm not wrong. The RAW does support it. That's not wrong unless the RAW is wrong, in which case we need errata.

Note that I am not saying that is how it should be, or even that that's how I run it personally - just that is how, by RAW, it is. I think many people around here get confused between what my personal beliefs are and what the RAW states.

In any event, the questions I have posed have not been answered with satisfactory rules, only with personal beliefs coming from other players/GMs. I am not asking the community here their thoughts on this subject, I am asking the community here how, mechanically (RAW), these situations work. I am convinced that I am correct, but that is not because neccessarily I believe it on baseless causes, but because I have proven and shown how, through the Rules of the Game in question, it does in fact work this way.

[Irion]

@Neraph

Actually, I'm not wrong. The RAW does support it. That's not wrong unless the RAW is wrong, in which case we need errata.

Well, if you rule like this you are asking for flying, flame breathing battlecows. (Nothing in the rulebook suggests, that cows don't fly or can't breath fire)

So please stop telling this old munchkin defnition of RAW. (Everything, that is not denied, is allowed)
This is silly and just because you handwave any silly ideas from anybody else, does not mean, that they would not be fair game.

RAW is, that one a Spell may affect one target at one time. Thats RAW.
Telling that spells stack on targets is bending of RAW.

(Like installing two muscle toners rating 3 for a Bonus of 6. Same game here)

[Draco18s]

Ok, the +4 armor from one Armor spell stacks with my armor worn, so that increases it by +4, and the +4 from my other spell stacks with armor worn, so that's another +4, and the...

Where's it say that an Armor spell is "worn armor"? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/indifferent.gif)

[Mooncrow]

@Neraph

Well, if you rule like this you are asking for flying, flame breathing battlecows. (Nothing in the rulebook suggests, that cows don't fly or can't breath fire)

So please stop telling this old munchkin defnition of RAW. (Everything, that is not denied, is allowed)
This is silly and just because you handwave any silly ideas from anybody else, does not mean, that they would not be fair game.

RAW is, that one a Spell may affect one target at one time. Thats RAW.
Telling that spells stack on targets is bending of RAW.

(Like installing two muscle toners rating 3 for a Bonus of 6. Same game here)

It's rather silly to yell at someone for pointing out the vagueness in the rules though.

There's a huge difference between "Everything not forbidden is permissible" and something that is explicitly permitted, but it's limitations are not stated.

Armor Spell stacking was explicitly forbidden in every previous version; it was not in this version. Several other spell limitations that were previously forbidden have been explicitly allowed (Shapechange - Human, for example). I think Tymeaus has given the only argument that might hold some water against it, by RAW.

[Irion]

It is useless to argue with previous editions.

There's a huge difference between "Everything not forbidden is permissible" and something that is explicitly permitted, but it's limitations are not stated.

Well, it can't think of something which is explicitly allowed but with unstated limitations.
If you may have multible datajacks, you may have unlimited (untill you hit the essence cap). Well, after the first 100 it starts to get silly, but anyway.

Well, Shapechange Human Form is in because of the FAQ. You may go the way that Humans are in fact animals, but this is not a very good argument.
(Since considering RAW you would not be allowed to talk in Human Form)

It is not said, that spells stick with themselves. And since it is not explicitly allowed, I would consider it forbidden by RAW.

[Mooncrow]

It is useless to argue with previous editions.


Well, it can't think of something which is explicitly allowed but with unstated limitations.
If you may have multible datajacks, you may have unlimited (untill you hit the essence cap). Well, after the first 100 it starts to get silly, but anyway.

Well, Shapechange Human Form is in because of the FAQ. You may go the way that Humans are in fact animals, but this is not a very good argument.
(Since considering RAW you would not be allowed to talk in Human Form)

It is not said, that spells stick with themselves. And since it is not explicitly allowed, I would consider it forbidden by RAW.

Ok, I'll keep this as simple as I can.

There are rules for spellcasting, correct?
There are rules for sustaining spells, correct?
There are rules for sustaining a spell and then casting another spell, correct?
There are rules for sustaining multiple spells, correct?

So, what happens when you cast the same spell on someone that you (or someone else) is already sustaining a copy of the same spell on?

Clearly, the casting is within the rules - so what happens?

[Inca]

Ok, let's try it this way:



Page 60, SR4, describes Physical attributes as: Agility, Body, Reaction, and Strength. Edge, Essence, the Initiative Score, Initiative Passes, Magic, and Resonance are clearly defined as Special Attributes. Since Shapechange only grants the Physical Attributes, it cannot grant an extra Initiative Pass.

But as opposed to other Special Attributes, player initiative score is Reaction+Intuition so if you gain the physical attributes, you definitely are gaining initiative score from the act of shape-changing...so special attributes are definitely being affected by shape-changing first of all...so your argument that getting the animals IP's is against RAW based on the fact that special attributes cannot be altered through shape-shifting is not a logical certainty. Now, normal critters don't have a magic or resonance score....so with cheetah's it's only down to whether or not you get their IP's. I think that if you are going to get their running rate, then it's silliness that you don't also get their IP's...because then you would look like a really lethargic cheetah and someone with a zoology knowledge skill could spot you out in a perception test....and that's plain dumb. So please don't come with that "well you have to admit that it's a house rule and not RAW"...it's an open question at best.

[Irion]

@Mooncrow

Clearly, the casting is within the rules - so what happens?

RAW: It is not possible, because not stated. It is like trying to get sqrt(-1) in real numbers. It is just outside of the frame.

Well: There are several ways to handle it. (Outside RAW)
1. The spells interact with each other and try to fight the other spell.
2. The second spell applys and the first is disrupted.
3. They add their values together.
4. Both apply, but just the better effect is obtained.
5. The weaker spell is used in the way of a teamwork test.
6. Both spells are sustained, but only the highest benifit is obtained.
7++. Things I have not thought of yet.

See the point? Giving such diversity it is kind of useless to pick one solution and say it is RAW.

[Mooncrow]

@Mooncrow

RAW: It is not possible, because not stated. It is like trying to get sqrt(-1) in real numbers. It is just outside of the frame.

Well: There are several ways to handle it. (Outside RAW)
1. The spells interact with each other and try to fight the other spell.
2. The second spell applys and the first is disrupted.
3. They add their values together.
4. Both apply, but just the better effect is obtained.
5. The weaker spell is used in the way of a teamwork test.
6. Both spells are sustained, but only the highest benifit is obtained.
7++. Things I have not thought of yet.

See the point? Giving such diversity it is kind of useless to pick one solution and say it is RAW.

So, people are magically prevented from following the spellcasting rules as written.

Thanks for elucidating your position.

[Irion]

If you stop by RAW, yes.
But lets but it like that: In this case, it is not one of the top priority problems.

[Neraph]

Where's it say that an Armor spell is "worn armor"? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/indifferent.gif)

It doesn't, and that's not what I was implying.

This is what I was saying. The Armor spell adds to armor worn, so if you have four armor spells active, you've got four different instances of a number adding to armor worn. Therefore, they all stack, albeit indirectly.