Possession and Invoking, Does it work? Options

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

It might be a good idea for you (& most in this thread) to actually read the Possession rules?

I will give you a hint:

(Street Magic p.102)
If the vessel is a living creature, the spirit’s
Force is added to the vessel’s Physical attributes.

No mention of increasing Augmented Maximums either. Go figure.

Indeed... that is exactly what it says, with no elaboration...

[Mordinvan]

This has been gone over many times, and all the dev's which have spoken on the subject say it become (vessel's attributes + spirit's) * 1.5 = augmented maximum.
Effectively no limit.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

This has been gone over many times, and all the dev's which have spoken on the subject say it become (vessel's attributes + spirit's) * 1.5 = augmented maximum.
Effectively no limit.

I Remember seeing this at some point, I would have to agree...

[Muspellsheimr]

This has been gone over many times, and all the dev's which have spoken on the subject say it become (vessel's attributes + spirit's) * 1.5 = augmented maximum.
Effectively no limit.

Unless it is included in official errata, that is a house rule.

As written, it is the spirits Force + the vessels Physical Attribute, subject to the vessels augmented maximums.

[Dragnar]

You do get an extra if you summon the biggest you can and then Invoke.

Yes, if you get to have your cake and eat it too, that would be better, obviously. I never argued that having Invocation is somehow worse than not having Invocation. I said that Invocation is worse than whatever else you could have gotten for the karma, like spirits of a simply higher force.
Yes, a character having Invocation is better than another which doesn't, all other things being equal. If that's your line of argument, be my guest, I guess...

So, Invoking sucks, except for the parts that don't suck, which you shouldn't allow?

No, Invoking isn't all that good and using a horrible houserule one of the developers once mentioned is a worse cure than the disease. Doing it that way is not correct and I just advised you that it's a really bad houserule as well, is all.

You are not losing the attack dice if you are using all the spirit you can summon, anyway.(...) Not (broken record here) if you are summoning the most you can summon anyway.

See above. While technically true, that's not a useful assertion. It' comparing apples to oranges. Yes, a character just being up Invocation on another one is obviously better, but he's worse off if he instead used the karma to buy something useful. Which is the point that actually matters.

All that Quickening going on costs extra Karma, every time. A quickened spell is dropped, you need to spend more Karma. A spirit is blasted/banished, you summon another one.

That's.... not true. At all. A destroyed force 4 quickened spell costs you 4 karma, which is 10 grand. Binding (and invoking, if you want) a force 5 spirit costs you 2500 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nuyen.gif) (equivalent to a point of karma) every single time, even if it doesn't get disrupted. Quickening is more likely to be cheaper than binding spirits.


No, Invokation isn't the worst metamagic, far from it. But it's not good, either, not even for a summoner. And most of the power of a summoner doesn't come from the fact that he can have 6 spirits (even invoked ones) bound and on call (a drone rigger can do the same), but from the fact that summoning (not binding) creates something with real value (a spirit) for no cost and no risk as often as you like.

[Adarael]

Unless it is included in official errata, that is a house rule.

As written, it is the spirits Force + the vessels Physical Attribute, subject to the vessels augmented maximums.

Per the Shadowrun 4th Ed. FAQ: "No. Both powers represent a merging (temporary with Possession, permanent with Inhabitation) of the character's physical body with the form of the spirit. For the duration of the possession/inhabitation, the dual entity's maximum augmented attributes are equal to (character's attribute + spirit's Force) x 1.5, rounded down. "

The FAQ is definitely an official document.

[CradleWorm]

Per the Shadowrun 4th Ed. FAQ: "No. Both powers represent a merging (temporary with Possession, permanent with Inhabitation) of the character's physical body with the form of the spirit. For the duration of the possession/inhabitation, the dual entity's maximum augmented attributes are equal to (character's attribute + spirit's Force) x 1.5, rounded down. "

The FAQ is definitely an official document.

All characters, critters, ect have the same augmented max (racial max * 1.5) so that makes since. However this isn't really important since you will always get the entire spirits force added to your physical attributes anyway because character attribute + spirits force is always less than (character attribute + spirits force) * 1.5.

The only time this rule really comes into play is if you have a possessed mage with cyberware, spells, or adept abilities that improve physcal attributes. In that case it only matters if the characters attribute + spirit force is less than the racial maximum for that characters race. For example a mage with a reaction of 1 (5) summons up a force 3 spirit and gets possesed. The racial max for the reaction attribute is 6 and augmented max is 9 until the character is possesed. Then the attribute because a 4 (character attribute 1 + spirit force 3) and the augmented max becomes 6 (character attribute 1 + spirit force 3) * 1.5. In this case the 4 bonus points to reaction can no longer be used because the augmented max is 6 and 4 extra points would give an 8 attribute. So once the mage is possesed the reaction attribute becomes 4(6).

[CradleWorm]

Ah, that'd be why, I'm using the old SR4 book. Wow. So a force 6 spirit would be immune to anything that didn't do at least 12 damage, if I'm reading it right?

No, the damage must exceed the hardened armor or it will have no effect. In addition use the modified hardened armor rating so armor penetration counts.

Your damage with net successes (not bonuses from automatic fire) minus the armor penetration of the weapon must exceed the hardened armor rating.

So a weapon that does 12P +0 AP will not effect a force 6 spirit. 12 >= 12 - 0

A weapon that does 10P -4 AP will effect a force 6 spirit 12 < 10 - (-4)

A weapon that does 15P + 3 AP will not effect a force 6 spirit. 12 >= 15 - 3

Once it is determined if a weapon can effect a target with hardened armor add bonuses from automatic fire to determine the final damage.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Yes, if you get to have your cake and eat it too, that would be better, obviously. I never argued that having Invocation is somehow worse than not having Invocation. I said that Invocation is worse than whatever else you could have gotten for the karma, like spirits of a simply higher force.
Yes, a character having Invocation is better than another which doesn't, all other things being equal. If that's your line of argument, be my guest, I guess...


No, Invoking isn't all that good and using a horrible houserule one of the developers once mentioned is a worse cure than the disease. Doing it that way is not correct and I just advised you that it's a really bad houserule as well, is all.


See above. While technically true, that's not a useful assertion. It' comparing apples to oranges. Yes, a character just being up Invocation on another one is obviously better, but he's worse off if he instead used the karma to buy something useful. Which is the point that actually matters.


That's.... not true. At all. A destroyed force 4 quickened spell costs you 4 karma, which is 10 grand. Binding (and invoking, if you want) a force 5 spirit costs you 2500 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nuyen.gif) (equivalent to a point of karma) every single time, even if it doesn't get disrupted. Quickening is more likely to be cheaper than binding spirits.

Money is an easy commodity to come by in Shadowrun, and is not equated out to BP except at character creation... comparing them after the fact is not a useful argument (Apples to Oranges and all that)...

Expending KARMA is more costly to the Mage than expending Money is... whenever you are forced through a ward, your quickened spells likely are destroyed, your quickened spells can be dispelled, they can be attacked... etc, etc, etc. If you are having to expend 4 Karma on a weekly basis to ensure that your Quickened Reflexes stay up, then you are wasting Karma, whereas the Summoner is just wasting money... an easily acquired commodity in Shadowrun...

Again... Nuyen does not equate to Karma, EVER, after the game starts...

At that point, which is worse? I would say that Quickening quickly takes a back seat to Invoking...

[Muspellsheimr]

Per the Shadowrun 4th Ed. FAQ: "No. Both powers represent a merging (temporary with Possession, permanent with Inhabitation) of the character's physical body with the form of the spirit. For the duration of the possession/inhabitation, the dual entity's maximum augmented attributes are equal to (character's attribute + spirit's Force) x 1.5, rounded down. "

The FAQ is definitely an official document.

1) The FAQ in multiple locations contradicts the Rules as Written
2) The FAQ frequently increases the unclarity of the rules

That being said, in this case, the FAQ adds additional rules to those in the book. Because it is not errata, it remains a "house rule". Further, under the assumption you actually use the official FAQ for some forsaken reason, it actually supports the primary aspect of my quote - possessed creatures Physical Attributes are equal to their base Attributes + the spirit's Force, opposed to the spirit's Physical Attributes as claimed.

[Adarael]

You'd think I'd have learned by now just not argue with you because it's like talking at a wall, but I guess I'm a slow learner.

This is what I say in a nutshell: The FAQ is official, not house rules, as it is a publication of CGL. Your opinions on what the FAQ does to the clarity of the rules are just that: opinions.

Don't bitch that nothing official supports a position and then bury your head in the sand when something official does, just because you don't like it. Simply admit you don't like it and ignore it.

[Muspellsheimr]

I conceed a point when I feel someone else is correct, & has been able to provide support for their position; yes, it has happened on several occasions. This is not one of those times.

The FAQ is not a rules document, it is a Questions & Answers document. It's purpose is to clarify rules & other potentially confusing aspects of the game. It's purpose is not to alter or add rules to the game - that is the domain of the Errata.

If the FAQ contradicts the published rules / errata, the latter takes precedence. This is (granted, to a lesser degree) one of those times.

It is because of multiple instances like this, & apparant lack of support for the FAQ (3 years sence it was last updated) that I, on numerous occasions, have strongly suggested people to consider it a non-existant document; it does not do it's job, increasing the confusion it was intended to clarify.

[Mordinvan]

As things stand, everytime this issue has come up and it has been addressed by anyone from CGL, the ruling in the FAQ has been cited. If you don't like it, don't include it in your game, however it IS the rules as intended. As with any rule however, if you don't think it improves the fun factor at your gaming table then don't use it.

[pbangarth]

The FAQ is not a rules document, it is a Questions & Answers document. It's purpose is to clarify rules & other potentially confusing aspects of the game. It's purpose is not to alter or add rules to the game - that is the domain of the Errata.

I have stayed out of the discussion because I am away from home and my books and won't be back to them for days, and don't want to quote things incorrectly.

It does seem strange to me, however, that a document written by the people who wrote the rules, with the express purpose, as you acknowledge, of clarifying those rules, should be considered as anything but official. The authors have authority. The authors have told us how to work the Attributes of a combined being. It is consistent with the rules as a whole(which, if necessary, I plan to argue with references when I get home by next week). That is good enough for me.

The fact that the FAQ may have problems, contradictions, or errors in it should not constitute proof that it is not official. If that were the case, then I would hazard a guess that every manual for every game ever printed is 'unofficial'. Now, I wholeheartedly agree with you that inconsistencies and errors that have been present for years and not corrected despite interminable arguments such as this one are a crying shame. As much as I enjoy the new material coming out, I wish the authors would spend some more time fixing the books they have written. Or at least addressing the questions which keep coming up. A FAQ is supposed to do that, but it needs way more in it than it currently has. The authors know what the questionable areas are. They could fix a huge batch of them with just a few days work on the FAQ. "Hello!! Put off the next book for a week and answer our questions."

Maybe they think we enjoy interminable arguments on Dumpshock? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sarcastic.gif)

[Apathy]

As if we'd stop arguing on Dumpshock just because our questions were answered? HA!

[Muspellsheimr]

It does seem strange to me, however, that a document written by the people who wrote the rules, with the express purpose, as you acknowledge, of clarifying those rules, should be considered as anything but official.

I did not say it was not official - I said it should just be considered as non-existant, as it does the exact opposite of it's intended purpose.

As I have pointed out, it has not been adjusted in 3 years & it contradicts the Rules as Written. When a contradiction occurs within the published rules / errata and an FAQ document, the published rules / errata takes precedence, as the FAQ is not a rules document, but a clarification document. Further, the newest printing & errata of Street Magic (the section in question) is much more recent than the FAQ.


I don't give a shit what the Rules as Intended are. I care about the Rules as Written. When they do not match, the written rules take precedence, because the intent can be unclear, unkown, or any number of other things - for example, only those that review these forums know the intended rules in this instance. There is a huge number of players who don't view here; most probably don't know Dumpshock even exists.

When there is a discrepency between the RAI & RAW, it can be fixed in one of two methods - clarification or alteration. If you are clarifying a rule, an FAQ is sufficient. If you are altering the rule, it needs to be in Errata.

In this instance, it was not included in Errata, & thus cannot be RAW.



And as a side note, I only give a damn about RAW when debating it on the forums. As most here should know, I have a number of issues with the RAW, which I fix in my games through House Errata.

[pbangarth]

I don't give a shit what the Rules as [b]Intended[/i] are. I care about the Rules as Written. When they do not match, the written rules take precedence, because the intent can be unclear, unkown, or any number of other things
And as a side note, I only give a damn about RAW when debating it on the forums. As most here should know, I have a number of issues with the RAW, which I fix in my games through House Errata.

But ... but ...it doesn't matter one whit what you give a shit about. Your opinion does not outweigh the rules and the clarification of those rules that come from the authors. It is not we who use those rules and interpretations who are house ruling, but as you yourself admit, it is you who are house ruling. Go ahead... it is everyone's right to do so. But do not disparage as house rulers who don't follow the right way those who use the rules and the interpretations of those rules from the authors.