Shapechange Question Options

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

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.

Ludicrous is Ludicrous, whether it is Force 16 or Force 100... I understand what your intent was, I just do not agree with your desired goal.

Common Sense does have a place here... My examples above, that you replied to, are both common sense applications to something that has absolutely no coverage in hard rules that I can find... You can say that yes, everything Stacks ad infinitum; I tend to disagree, and say that only the Best spell result functions (Not the first or last one, mind you, just the one with the most successes)...

And for the record... Spell Chaining is never actually addressed. Neither for or against. I prefer to interpret the RAW as somewhat common sensical in this regard; the other route lies madness... BUT, if I was inclined to allow Spell Chaining, any break in the chain would cancel the entire chain... this controls the madness... as it is, I do not allow such tactics. You want to have the Body of a Rhino, Use Increase Body and sustain it, then cast Shapechange... if you cannot satisfy the requirements to get there, too bad...

anyways...

[Yerameyahu]

Or they don't stack; instead, only the strongest identical effect applies. Both interpretations are equally valid.

On that note, I don't think my point about interpreting the Shapechange requirement as 'base Body' was adequately answered.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Or they don't stack; instead, only the strongest identical effect applies. Both interpretations are equally valid.

On that note, I don't think my point about interpreting the Shapechange requirement as 'base Body' was adequately answered.

Indeed, Both Interpretations are... I like yours, the strongest applies, all others may be dropped from sustainment (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

Must have missed that one... what exactly was it?
Let me try from what is listed above here...

Base Body is the Attribute at which the spell is originated... You must have a Base Body equal to +/- 2 points to obtain a new form. If you are outside the requirements, you would need to use either a Decrease/Increase Body Spell to place you within the limits (assuming you could even get there... No Humans to Elephants for example), and then sustain it to cast the shapechange spell... Also, In my interpretation of RAW, You would need to continually sustain the Body Adjustment Spell to keep the Shapechange spell active (and sustained), otherwise the shapechange spell unravels...

Does this work for you?

[Draco18s]

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.

Armor the spell stacks with worn armor, not with Armor the spell, regardless of the effect, therefore multiple castings on the same target have no (additional) benefit.

E.g. if they don't stack with each other, then a F4 and a F4 is only +4.

[Yerameyahu]

My point was that it says "base Body" earlier in the sentence, not augmented Body. If you interpret this to also mean that it uses the *mage's* base Body, it's a built-in limiter on the power of Shapechange, disallowing Increased Body or Shapechange chaining from increasing the Body rating that allows Shapechange options. See?

Incidentally, I'd change Shapechange much more radically if I were houseruling it; this is just a RAW-based discussion. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Mooncrow]

My point was that it says "base Body" earlier in the sentence, not augmented Body. If you interpret this to also mean that it uses the *mage's* base Body, it's a built-in limiter on the power of Shapechange, disallowing Increased Body or Shapechange chaining from increasing the Body rating that allows Shapechange options. See?

Incidentally, I'd change Shapechange much more radically if I were houseruling it; this is just a RAW-based discussion. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Grammatically, the relevant sentence is poorly worded (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif) It could be "greater or less than her own [base body rating]." But since base body rating is really a critter thing, it seems more logical to mean [body rating]. Having it be base body rating would certainly eliminate most of the tricks though^^ Humans could shapechange into critters 1-5 body rating, end of story^^

[Yerameyahu]

Yeah, I'm ignoring the whole 'exactly +/-2' issue, because we all know it's stupid. Personally, I'd make it 'within +/- net hits' and remove the '+net hits to all' aspect, but that's just house rule territory.

[Irion]

Having it be base body rating would certainly eliminate most of the tricks though^^ Humans could shapechange into critters 1-5 body rating, end of story^^

Which would make sense. The kind of animal you are able to turn into is limited by your size.

[sabs]

My point was that it says "base Body" earlier in the sentence, not augmented Body. If you interpret this to also mean that it uses the *mage's* base Body, it's a built-in limiter on the power of Shapechange, disallowing Increased Body or Shapechange chaining from increasing the Body rating that allows Shapechange options. See?

Incidentally, I'd change Shapechange much more radically if I were houseruling it; this is just a RAW-based discussion. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I still think that shapechange chaining is on the top 10 list of stupid ruleslawyer cheese that shouldn't work.

[Mooncrow]

Yeah, I'm ignoring the whole 'exactly +/-2' issue, because we all know it's stupid. Personally, I'd make it 'within +/- net hits' and remove the '+net hits to all' aspect, but that's just house rule territory.

I actually really like that idea; I'm going to steal it for my games^^

[sabs]

What's wrong with +/- 2?

Humans have a body score from 1-9(7 exceptional attribute, 8 genetherapy, 9 surge)
your average human mage can transform from a body 1 to a body 5 creature. from a rat to a dog, but not into a great cat. (body 6)
That body 9 mage (snicker) can go from a 7 to an 11 body creature. (Horse, Rhino, but also not into a great cat)
You need a body of 4,5,6,7,8 to get to turn into a great cat.

Net hits means that if you're at force 6 spell, you can potentially go +/- 6. That's hugely broken. You can transform from a rat to a Sasquash or more with a basic 2 or 3 body.

There is no actual cyber/bioware that increases your body stat.

Net hits makes the spell MUCH more powerful than it is today.

[Mooncrow]

What's wrong with +/- 2?

Humans have a body score from 1-9(7 exceptional attribute, 8 genetherapy, 9 surge)
your average human mage can transform from a body 1 to a body 5 creature. from a rat to a dog, but not into a great cat. (body 6)
That body 9 mage (snicker) can go from a 7 to a 9 body creature. (Horse, Rhino, but also not into a great cat)
You need a body of 4,5,6,7,8 to get to turn into a great cat.

Net hits means that if you're at force 6 spell, you can potentially go +/- 6. That's hugely broken. You can transform from a rat to a Sasquash or more with a basic 2 or 3 body.

There is no actual cyber/bioware that increases your body stat.

Net hits makes the spell MUCH more powerful than it is today.

Well, you can't transform into a Sasquatch - it's not a non-paranormal critter.

I think your math on what's broken is a little off; base stats are generally less broken than lower base stats + net hits. Base stats also mean that if you want the really high stats, you're going to be in a really noticeable shape - no more panthers with str 8 sneaking around. But regardless, the whole limitation based on some handwavy notion of conservation of mass makes me sneer.

As I've mentioned before, I also rule that you can't exceed your normal augmented maximums while shapechanged, so it puts a hard limit on the power of the spell, while he net hits rule means it can still be a fun, versatile spell.

[IKerensky]

You cant shapechange into a human...

"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 forme."

Humans are not critters.

Humans are not on Critters section so I cant use their physical attributes.

[Draco18s]

What's wrong with +/- 2?

That body 9 mage (snicker) can go from a 7 to a 9 body creature. (Horse, Rhino, but also not into a great cat)

Ahem. The body 9 mage can go from a 7 to an 11 body creature.

[Yerameyahu]

IKerensky, that's an FAQ thing. We *know*. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

sabs, nothing *wrong* with +/- 2 (I assume you mean *within* +/- 2, of course), but I would personally rather have a spell that lets you change into a *lot* of different critters (normal, un-buffed) by rewarding net hits, instead of a spell (as RAW) that lets you turn into like 3 super-buffed critters (+net hits to all stats).

[sabs]

I agree that the +net hits to stats thing is.. painful. It turns shapechange into /the/ best combat stat buffing spell in the game. Getting rid of that completely is a nice touch.

It just seems like so much leeway to allow the Mage to go from rat to rhino in alteration.
Maybe its not a big deal. It's just, I can see so many ways that being able to take the Troll and turn him into a mouse would be convenient and useful for doing sneaky sneaky things.

Go to the Johnson Meet with your Troll Street Sam Monstrosity in the shape of a small cat perched on your shoulder.

[Draco18s]

Maybe its not a big deal. It's just, I can see so many ways that being able to take the Troll and turn him into a mouse would be convenient and useful for doing sneaky sneaky things.

A mouse with Troll stats.

[sabs]

A mouse with Troll stats.

Well no, if you go with Y's changes.. it's a mouse with.. mouse stats, and troll mental stats.

[Mooncrow]

I agree that the +net hits to stats thing is.. painful. It turns shapechange into /the/ best combat stat buffing spell in the game. Getting rid of that completely is a nice touch.

It just seems like so much leeway to allow the Mage to go from rat to rhino in alteration.
Maybe its not a big deal. It's just, I can see so many ways that being able to take the Troll and turn him into a mouse would be convenient and useful for doing sneaky sneaky things.

Go to the Johnson Meet with your Troll Street Sam Monstrosity in the shape of a small cat perched on your shoulder.

Troll to cat vs human to cat - does it really matter?

I mean, to get a really buff troll down to kitty cat will take a pretty serious spell^^ And that feels right.

[Neraph]

But regardless, the whole limitation based on some handwavy notion of conservation of mass makes me sneer.

Quoted for truth.

Humans are not critters.

Humans are not on Critters section so I cant use their physical attributes.

Ok, but you can (Critter) Form into them, as that spell only requires a non-paranormal animal. So, Shapechange into human no, (Human) Form yes.

[sabs]

Quoted for truth.


Ok, but you can (Critter) Form into them, as that spell only requires a non-paranormal animal. So, Shapechange into human no, (Human) Form yes.

saying, it requires an animal, so human form is okay.. is stretching it.
Humans are meta-humans, not non-paranormal animals.

[Yerameyahu]

It's an FAQ thing. :/ Choose whatever fits your game and your table better.

[Draco18s]

saying, it requires an animal, so human form is okay.. is stretching it.
Humans are meta-humans, not non-paranormal animals.

Badgers are ok, awakened badgers are not.

Therefore Homo Sapiens Sapeins is ok, an awakened one is not (but already being awakened you still keep that quality).

Trinomial name: H. sapens sapiens
Species: H. sapiens
Genus: Homo
Tribe: Hominini
Subfamily: Homininae
Family: Hominidae
Order: Primates
Class: Mammalia
Phylum: Chordata
Kingdom: Animalia

[Neraph]

Badgers are ok, awakened badgers are not.

Therefore Homo Sapiens Sapeins is ok, an awakened one is not (but already being awakened you still keep that quality).

Trinomial name: H. sapens sapiens
Species: H. sapiens
Genus: Homo
Tribe: Hominini
Subfamily: Homininae
Family: Hominidae
Order: Primates
Class: Mammalia
Phylum: Chordata
Kingdom: Animalia

Thanks, I didn't want to go searching for that information again.

[Yerameyahu]

That's not relevant, though. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) All that matters is what SR4 says is a valid choice. Personally, I'd either allow it, or explicitly limit the spell to non-sapients (effectively, everything but humans).