Shapechange Question Options

[sabs]

The spell says non-paranormal critters.
Critter form says : non-paranormal animals. But the name is "Critter form"

Humans, Dwarves, Elves, Trolls, Orks are all meta-humans, not 'critters'

I know the FAQ says critterform(human) is okay.. but really that FAQ isn't exactly filled with good information.

[Neraph]

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).

That is relevant, as it shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that Humans are in fact non-paranormal animals, which the (Critter) Form spell requires. This is proved by the FAQ, even though people don't like the FAQ.

EDIT:

The spell says non-paranormal critters.
Critter form says : non-paranormal animals. But the name is "Critter form"

Humans, Dwarves, Elves, Trolls, Orks are all meta-humans, not 'critters'

I know the FAQ says critterform(human) is okay.. but really that FAQ isn't exactly filled with good information.

We can name it Banana Form, and so long as it requires any non-paranormal animal Humans are still a valid choice.

[Yerameyahu]

Again, no. Real world biology isn't part of the rules. We didn't need that 'proof' to answer the question, and it doesn't aid us at all in deciding. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Neraph]

Again, no. Real world biology isn't part of the rules. We didn't need that 'proof' to answer the question, and it doesn't aid us at all in deciding. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

We've been through this.

As soon as they decided to base the names for the metatypes on real-world taxonomy (Ingentis, Robustus, ect.) then that allows taxonomy to be used as part of the rules.

[sabs]

That is relevant, as it shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that Humans are in fact non-paranormal animals, which the (Critter) Form spell requires. This is proved by the FAQ, even though people don't like the FAQ.

EDIT:


We can name it Banana Form, and so long as it requires any non-paranormal animal Humans are still a valid choice.

They are non-paranormal animals as far as science is concerned. And I wouldn't say beyond a shadow of a doubt. There's several Intelligent Design people who might argue with you. But does Magic make a distinction between Sapient and Non-Sapients? What Tradition, What is their philosophy.

[Yerameyahu]

No, it doesn't, Neraph. That's just fluff. Science-y fluff. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

You of all people should know not to argue the rules with outside material, right? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) Anyway, my point is that it doesn't matter: either SR classes humans as 'non-paranormal animals' or it doesn't. GM decides; the FAQ, indeed, gives us a decision, but people are always whining about the FAQ.

[Neraph]

They are non-paranormal animals as far as science is concerned. And I wouldn't say beyond a shadow of a doubt. There's several Intelligent Design people who might argue with you. But does Magic make a distinction between Sapient and Non-Sapients? What Tradition, What is their philosophy.

I'm one of those Intelligent Design peoples myself, and I have to tell you, under the rules for biology that the scientists have determined, humans are animals. If you define animal differently, humans may no longer qualify. Heck, depending on how you define "life," insects, fish, and plants are not alive.

My point being that in a game of rules, where they give reference to humans being animals (they quoted a part of their taxonomy as part of the rules for the game), and later they have a spell that only asks for a non-paranormal animal, by their own definitions humans fulfill that requirement.

[sabs]

I had no idea Harvard gave out degrees in Rules Lawyering.

[Yerameyahu]

Not the rules, the *fluff* for the game. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) I'm not arguing that humans aren't animals, by the way. My point is that the only source that matters is the rules.

Animal Empathy, for example, specifically doesn't work on 'sentient' critters (I think they mean 'sapient'), which stops it from affecting humans. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Animal Control specifically excludes things with Sapience power or a Magic attribute (do metahumans *have* the Sapience power?).

SR4A, p261, implies a distinction: "Capacitance wire, or proximity wire, detects the electrical charge of a metahuman body (or animal) within 2 meters."

As does SR4A, p262: "Pheromone scanners are sophisticated enough to tell the difference between a metahuman and an animal and can also pinpoint gender, but are otherwise not advanced enough to single out an individual."

As does SR4A, p298: "Ordinary Critters
Like metahumans, the large majority of the animal kingdom remains unaffected by the Awakening."

As does SM, p38: "When manifest, ashuras often take either animal or humanoid forms—though the latter often have extra limbs, oddly colored skin, or animal features."

So. You can see why I consider a restriction of 'no sapient animals, i.e. humans', to be a perfectly valid GM interpretation. You'll find that many spells and affects in SM *do* stipulate non-sapient (because it's clearer and makes sense).

[Draco18s]

SR4A, p261, implies a distinction: "Capacitance wire, or proximity wire, detects the electrical charge of a metahuman body (or animal) within 2 meters."

I think the reason for that one is that you'd want to detect people in the area, but that animals will also set it off.

[Yerameyahu]

Sure. My point is that the rules, like the general public, uses a human/animal distinction in most cases; even though we all know that humans are animals.

[Mordinvan]

My point is that the only source that matters is the rules.

Then I believe you need to reread the definition of "Game"

[Yerameyahu]

Nope. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) We're having a rules discussion.

[Neraph]

Sure. My point is that the rules, like the general public, uses a human/animal distinction in most cases; even though we all know that humans are animals.

Thank you for a self-contradictory statement.

[Mordinvan]

Nope. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) We're having a rules discussion.

And here I thought I was the only one allowed to take things too seriously. Goes to show what I know.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

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

I also have no issues with this...

[Yerameyahu]

It's not contradictory, Neraph; it's contextual. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Language is like that.

[IKerensky]

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.

But the spell also specifically that "Consult the Critters section, p. 292, for the subject’s Physical attributes while in critter forme."

As you were adamant on using the specific of the spell rules I am too. I am ok with the FAQ saying you can transform into a human. I am just asking you to point me out in the Critters section the Physical attributes I am to use when I am in Human shape...

Or do I have to interpret the spell rules and refer to another stats somewhere else that aren't specified to be used ? tricky as it would open the door to using the IP that aren't into the spell specification too. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

[Neraph]

But the spell also specifically that "Consult the Critters section, p. 292, for the subject’s Physical attributes while in critter forme."

As you were adamant on using the specific of the spell rules I am too. I am ok with the FAQ saying you can transform into a human. I am just asking you to point me out in the Critters section the Physical attributes I am to use when I am in Human shape...

Or do I have to interpret the spell rules and refer to another stats somewhere else that aren't specified to be used ? tricky as it would open the door to using the IP that aren't into the spell specification too. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

No, the spell that tells you to consult the critters section is Shapechange. (Critter) Form's text appears later and does not include that.

EDIT: Also, interestingly, the Shapechange spell does not allow forms from Running Wild, as they are not listed in the Critter section of the core rulebook.