Paralyzing Howl Options

[Machiavelli]

Hi Folks. We had a small session yesterday and were attacked by a critter with paralyzing howl. The GM ruled, that the effect can apply mutiple times, but we are not absolutely sure if this is the truth. The touch-version of this power states explicticly, that it can be applied multiple times and that the effects add up. The description of "howl" didn´t state anything like that. Older versions of SR mention, that the "howl" is easier to resist, but if i stick to the RAW, the "howl" is far superior. Ranged attack, area-effect and you can only resist with willpower, while for the "touch"-version, you can make at least a close-combat-defense test and the critter needs to be in range.

So there must be something wrong. Does anybody of you know a reference, that can clear the problem?

[JesterZero]

From what I can see, SR4, SR4A, and Howling Shadows all have identical text, with nothing to lend weight to the pro- or anti-stacking reading. AFAIK there isn't a clear-cut reference for this specifically.

That being said, the general principle that shows up repeatedly (albeit not entirely consistently) throughout SR4 magic mechanics is that when multiple versions of an effect are in play, then only the most powerful one applies; they do not stack.

Flip the example around: instead of having multiple paralyzing howls affecting a runner, what if a given runner were able to benefit from multiple instances of the Concealment critter power? If your GM insists on stacking critter powers, see what he thinks of that. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

To be clear, I'm not advocating some player vs. GM arms race; I'm just trying to show that consistently stacking critter powers would get problematic really quickly. I'm assuming your GM is a reasonable human and doesn't subscribe to any "toys for me but not for thee" nonsense.

All that lends support to an anti-stacking reading. To be fair, there is also an argument that lends support to a pro-stacking reading. I assume the stacking that you're referring to specifically is the whole "minus Reaction" part, which is akin to a Decrease Attribute spell. And one could point out (rightfully) that while Increase Attribute explicitly is limited to one effect at a time, that text is nowhere to be found for Decrease Attribute. Given that, the implication seems to be...stack away.

Personally I think that anti-stacking makes for a cleaner game...but...there you go.

[Patrick Goodman]

I can assure you with some degree of authority that the intent was "no stack."

[Stingray]

..and the funny fact: Barghest's are not immune to other's paralyzing howl.. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)