(Critter) Form, Uses and Abuses Options

[hyzmarca]

There are two ways to rule it such that it is neither broken or stupid.

1) Any species or sub-species that has the potential to use magic is considered paranormal, thus humans would be paranormal because they can become magicians and adepts, but dogs would not because they cannot use magical powers unless they goblinize. Dragons don't have the non-paranormal limitation on their Shapechange spells because they're just that baddass.

2) No matter what form you take, you always look like you. Features that don't have to be muted to become the animal aren't. You can shapechange into a metahuman, but you cannot shapechange into a specific metahuman. You'll always look like you no matter what form you take. Elf Form would thus make a human look like himself with pointy ears, while Human Form wouldn't do anything to a human at all. Ork Form and Troll Form make you look like you've Godlinized while Dwarf Form just makes you shorter. And if anyone notices that you're using magic to change your metatype, they'll think you're a poser and treat ou accordingly.

[WeaverMount]

This question is question of terms, Critter, para-critter, meta-human, and animal. Because human is a sub-set of animal, many assume that meta-human is a subset of critter. By RAW that is not the case. The terms are described differently, nowhere does it say there is crossover or inheritance, and by RAW we may not make that assumption. Unless you make another, reasonable but non canonical, assumption first. That assumption is that the IC world operates with the same level of infinite granularity of the real world despite the finite granularity of the rules. let me tease that out a bit be for bring it back to spell terms in question.

As Tarantula put it once vehicular mask would work on a skate board if it's listed as a "human powered vehicle". If however it was listed as gear that effects a character's walk/run speed it would not. There is no "gray area". Everything that exists is specif rules entity. The whole of create is a collection of meta-humans, critters, objects, or devices, space/time, karma, or astral forms, gear, 'ware, etc. Under this view each class of thing must be treated only any and exactly like the rules describe, completely agnostic of OOC similarities, properties, and relationships.

Now you can also claim that that position is is really silly, obviously the "real" IC world is infinitely granular. Obviously meta-humans are critters because humans are animals. Obviously light and heavy pistols use different ammo. Obviously power armor can be modded to the point it's actually a mech-like vehicle. (Mill-spec armor that can move under it's own power, is heavy enough to penalize an average joe to 0 agility and reaction, and has more armor than an armored limo is RAW and viable candidate). But that isn't RAW.

You have to ask yourself how IC the rules are at your table. Once you do that you can put the terms I listed at the start in a rich enough context that you can start making inferences from them. Before you do that you can't. OOC taxonomy has no baring on Rules entities or rules inferences, until you take the non-RAW, but in many ways more logical, second stance.

[Ragewind]

This question is question of terms, Critter, para-critter, meta-human, and animal. Because human is a sub-set of animal, many assume that meta-human is a subset of critter. By RAW that is not the case. The terms are described differently, nowhere does it say there is crossover or inheritance, and by RAW we may not make that assumption. Unless you make another, reasonable but non canonical, assumption first. That assumption is that the IC world operates with the same level of infinite granularity of the real world despite the finite granularity of the rules. let me tease that out a bit be for bring it back to spell terms in question.

As Tarantula put it once vehicular mask would work on a skate board if it's listed as a "human powered vehicle". If however it was listed as gear that effects a character's walk/run speed it would not. There is no "gray area". Everything that exists is specif rules entity. The whole of create is a collection of meta-humans, critters, objects, or devices, space/time, karma, or astral forms, gear, 'ware, etc. Under this view each class of thing must be treated only any and exactly like the rules describe, completely agnostic of OOC similarities, properties, and relationships.

Now you can also claim that that position is is really silly, obviously the "real" IC world is infinitely granular. Obviously meta-humans are critters because humans are animals. Obviously light and heavy pistols use different ammo. Obviously power armor can be modded to the point it's actually a mech-like vehicle. (Mill-spec armor that can move under it's own power, is heavy enough to penalize an average joe to 0 agility and reaction, and has more armor than an armored limo is RAW and viable candidate). But that isn't RAW.

You have to ask yourself how IC the rules are at your table. Once you do that you can put the terms I listed at the start in a rich enough context that you can start making inferences from them. Before you do that you can't. OOC taxonomy has no baring on Rules entities or rules inferences, until you take the non-RAW, but in many ways more logical, second stance.

WeaverMount (IMG:style_emoticons/default/love.gif)

[Ravor]

Hmm, I could'of sworn that the term Namegiver bled through in some of the Earthdawn crossover shadowtalk Ancient History.

[Ancient History]

Stop that. How can I get any sleep with people invoking my name all the time? This is why Candyman and Bloody Mary have the multiples, I bet.

Namegiver (and Patterns, pattern loss, threads, etc.) are Earthdawn magical terms, not Shadowrun magical terms. Different systems, different magical paradigms. "Namegivers" has never bled through in shadowtalk, though certain other terms have (True Fire, f'r example).

[AngelisStorm]

That's amazing! So if we stand in a dark room, before a mirror, and chant your name while spinning around...

... you'll reach out of the mirror... and kill us?

Ahem, nevermind.

[hyzmarca]

This question is question of terms, Critter, para-critter, meta-human, and animal. Because human is a sub-set of animal, many assume that meta-human is a subset of critter. By RAW that is not the case. The terms are described differently, nowhere does it say there is crossover or inheritance, and by RAW we may not make that assumption. Unless you make another, reasonable but non canonical, assumption first. That assumption is that the IC world operates with the same level of infinite granularity of the real world despite the finite granularity of the rules. let me tease that out a bit be for bring it back to spell terms in question.

The difference, however, is somewhat muddied by certain advanced character options. A Vampire is a Critter. A Ghoul is a Critter. A Loup-Garou is a Critter. Unless they're PCs, in which case they aren't Critters. And they aren't Critters if they're NPCs created using the appropriate rules. They're only Critters when you use the generic stats in the BBB.

This suggests that Critter is a specific type of NPC, not unlike Grunts. The critter is thus defined by generic stats, not by being animal, vegetable, or mineral. There are, however, generic stats for every metahuman race, base 3 +- modifiers.

[Tarantula]

The difference, however, is somewhat muddied by certain advanced character options. A Vampire is a Critter. A Ghoul is a Critter. A Loup-Garou is a Critter. Unless they're PCs, in which case they aren't Critters. And they aren't Critters if they're NPCs created using the appropriate rules. They're only Critters when you use the generic stats in the BBB.

This suggests that Critter is a specific type of NPC, not unlike Grunts. The critter is thus defined by generic stats, not by being animal, vegetable, or mineral. There are, however, generic stats for every metahuman race, base 3 +- modifiers.

Except there isn't. Ghouls, vampires, loup-garou, naga, windigoes, dogs, sharks, great cats and the like all have entries in the critters section on SR4, 285. "Generic metahuman" doesn't.

And to throw some more fire on this... SR4, 285, "Critters refer in general to all non-human creatures that
characters may encounter. Some are completely non-magical
but are still dangerous even without magic, like lions and tigers
and bears (Oh my!). Others, like sasquatches and dragons, are
sentient and just as intelligent as metahumans (or sometimes
more). Some are spirits residing primarily in the astral plane,
though they can materialize to affect the physical world.
Critters are always played as NPCs. Gamemasters can
choose to use the rules for grunts for groups of critters, especially
those that operate in a pack or swarm. A gamemaster
can also create prime runner critters, to reflect showcase
critters that will feature prominently in an adventure or campaign.
Prime runner critters are best when limited to sentient
paracritters, such as dragons, sasquatches, or vampires, but the
gamemaster is free to tag any unique critter as a prime runner
if it fits his game."

[Glyph]

Humans may technically be part of the animal kingdom, but someone talking about animals is rarely talking about humans. And other than farmer Vincent Smith, no one refers to human beings as "critters". What it boils down to, in the end, is someone trying to abuse the spell to do away with its disadvantages (no speech, no armor that fits) and get a cheap, easy Attribute boost.

[WeaverMount]

Humans may technically be part of the animal kingdom, but someone talking about animals is rarely talking about humans. And other than farmer Vincent Smith, no one refers to human beings as "critters". What it boils down to, in the end, is someone trying to abuse the spell to do away with its disadvantages (no speech, no armor that fits) and get a cheap, easy Attribute boost.

That is a possible motive, but I know that I got the idea to see if I could could do a Mystique style face-dancer before I even new that spell gave stat boosts.

While no spell written will do the trick, I think that it's clear that sorcery could make such a spell. Shape shift can make more radical changes, and the shape[material] and illusion spells;
___________________________^ lol I've been guess I need to take a break for coding more than I thought

[hyzmarca]

Physical Mask work for that.

[WeaverMount]

The issue with that is how resistance works. Observers can resist the illusion, but a manipulation shape shift would be an actual change. This is a really big deal you want to pass in a crowd. 20-30 people making independent checks means a couple people will almost certainly make it.

[Tarantula]

20-30 people making resistance checks with 1-6 dice will rarely pass a force 4+ illusion spell.

[Neraph]

Humans may technically be part of the animal kingdom, but someone talking about animals is rarely talking about humans.

Just because I refer to muffins as bald cupcakes doesn't stop them from being muffins.

[WeaverMount]

20-30 people making resistance checks with 1-6 dice will rarely pass a force 4+ illusion spell.

eh, it becomes a question of acceptable risk. A person with a willpower of 4 (average dwarf or slightly above average anything else), has a 1/9 of getting all hits. So depending on your take on stat distribution of the meta human population it's actually pretty reasonable to think that 20-30 people 1 or 2 could get 4 hits. 5 hits is really hard, 6 is basically right out. Throw in a few more resisters with a couple more dice from somewhere though, and ... yeah not so in the bag. That doesn't even mention all the non visual aspects that a manipulation spell would cover. It could hold up under IR, radar, ultrasound, pressure sensors, etc. With extended masking it could even hold up the resistance of a shielding initiate, or the assensing of a F6 spirit. At the end of the day it would be a much better spell.

[hyzmarca]

eh, it becomes a question of acceptable risk. A person with a willpower of 4 (average dwarf or slightly above average anything else), has a 1/9 of getting all hits. So depending on your take on stat distribution of the meta human population it's actually pretty reasonable to think that 20-30 people 1 or 2 could get 4 hits. 5 hits is really hard, 6 is basically right out. Throw in a few more resisters with a couple more dice from somewhere though, and ... yeah not so in the bag. That doesn't even mention all the non visual aspects that a manipulation spell would cover. It could hold up under IR, radar, ultrasound, pressure sensors, etc. With extended masking it could even hold up the resistance of a shielding initiate, or the assensing of a F6 spirit. At the end of the day it would be a much better spell.

Actually, that's exactly why you can't use Shapechange to impersonate another person. If you could there would by 50 Emperor Yasuhitos vying for a chance to get in bed with Hitomi Shiawase and just as many Damien Knights ordering around Ares employees, with no reliable way to tell the real from the fakes short of shooting all the motherfraggers into space, and even then it isn't guaranteed for overcasted spells . It would be chaos.

If your character uses the spell dancing in front of large crowds for their pleasure, well they don't want to know so they don't make resistance tests, unless they have Magic Resistence, and then it is, at most, four dice.

[Glyph]

If you want a Mystique-style shapeshifter, you could always make a mystic adept with the adept powers of facial sculpt and melanin control, in conjunction with the fashion and makeover spells.

I probably wouldn't have a problem, though, with a new manipulation spell that let someone physically change their appearance.

[WeaverMount]

... with no reliable way to tell the real from the fakes...

There would still be ways of doing it. Spells can't make up information*. So unless you have personally memorized Damian Knight's retina and finger prints you can't mimic that. Between the memorization, ridiculous level of detail, and possible essence complications you aren't getting the proper DNA. Also remember about having to have the proper 'ware installed when you get screened. Faking that is a bitch. This isn't even touching information verification, like personal experiences, face recognition of friends and staff, passwords etc. I would totally understand if a GM didn't want such a spell at there table, but it would not plunge the world into Chaos.



*let's pretend like the board had a couple back and forths about detection spells.

[Fortune]

I have no real problem with Shapechange turning a metahuman into another generic metahuman. I would not allow the spell to be used for any kind of really effective impersonation though.

[WeaverMount]

I have no real problem with Shapechange turning a metahuman into another generic metahuman. I would not allow the spell to be used for any kind of really effective impersonation though.

Yeah except then you get all those buffs without the penalties. I was talking about an unwritten manipulation spell though for the purpose of impersonation. I was thinking you trade the tacked on stat boosts for the extra control

[Fortune]

The buffs you mention pump up the totally average base stats that you acquire by using the spell. It is immaterial what your actual Physical Attributes are, because you'd get 3's across the board in Physical stats, plus any buffs for extra hits. I'm alright with that.

[WeaverMount]

I'm scared of the squishy mage that shifts into a troll

[Fortune]

Not much different than him turning into a bear. Keep in mind that the spell's inherent restrictions on Body still apply.

[Ravor]

Actually even if you would allow the spell to change you into a specific Namegiver it is still crap for trying to impersonate him/her because all you've managed to do is paint a big glowing sign on the Astral for all to see, and with some of the toys in the Sixth World even mundanes can find you out relatively easily.

Naw, this is just an attempt to get a cheap stat boost by twisting the intent of one sentence.

[Fortune]

Shrug. As a GM, I don't really need to resort to twisting words to justify using stuff in my game.

As an aside, in previous editions of Shadowrun, metahumans were included in the Critter table.