Possession Tradition Tactical Manual, for GMs as well as players Options

[Muspellsheimr]

A little late to the party, but...

Knasser:
The FAQ is out of date.
The FAQ directly contradicts the Rules as Written in multiple instances.
The FAQ does not serve as Errata.
The FAQ is no longer supported; one of the developers (I forget who, & search fails on "FAQ") recently declared such - the FAQ no longer has any relevance whatsoever to the game.

Street Magic explicitly states that the Force of the possessing spirit is added to the Physical Attributes of the Vessel. Possession does not "create a new entity", and is not exempt from Augmented Maximums. On a guess, I would say you are thinking of Inhabitation. Your little "Ghost Cartels" example fails because there are several instances (if I remember correctly) of the NPC's "cheating" - as in they do not follow the rules.



Falconer:
Possession spirits are poorly written, but are not overpowering. Despite his failure in regards to the FAQ, Knasser has adequately addressed most of your issues.

On the subject of Immunity to Normal Weapons and armor stacking, it does. This is not because it fails to specify in it's description (which is a miserable failure of writing), or fluff, or whatever other reason, but because the rules for stacking armor apply to worn armor. I'm pretty sure you don't "wear" an immunity.

Armor and Encumbrance
If a character is wearing more than one piece of armor at a time, only
the highest value (for either Ballistic or Impact) applies.

[Patrick the Gnom...]

So, You deliberatly create a "Tradition" that has access to all of the very best spirits out there... Yeah, nothing wrong with that at all...

Keep the Faith

He doesn't need to make it, it's called "Voodoo"

[knasser]

The FAQ is out of date.

It is newer than the material it covers and if nothing has been published that supercedes it, then it cannot be "out of date". No changes to the possession rules have come out since the FAQ was released.

The FAQ directly contradicts the Rules as Written in multiple instances.

The FAQ could not be clearer on the subject of possession. If you've found a mistake in some other part, it doesn't mean every part of it is wrong and especially not parts that are so simple and basic as this part is. A couple of people kept saying that what the rules said couldn't have been the developers' intent. The FAQ illustrates otherwise.

The FAQ does not serve as Errata.

The only people who suggest that it does are the ones who keep bringing it up so they can say that it doesn't. This seems the fourth or fifth time in this thread that someone has told us all that "the FAQ isn't an errata". I'd like you to point to where anyone said that it did. The FAQ doesn't need to be an errata because it isn't trying to change anything that's published. Nothing anyone has said has depended on the FAQ changing anything so its status as errata is irrelevant except for that status being some people's favourite strawman.

The FAQ is no longer supported; one of the developers (I forget who, & search fails on "FAQ") recently declared such - the FAQ no longer has any relevance whatsoever to the game.

The possession rules aren't drawn from the FAQ, they're drawn from the books. The FAQ is mentioned to show that what the book says is what it was intended to say. A couple of people said that the developers didn't mean to write what they did whilst the FAQ shows their intention very clearly. Unless you think that it's somehow possible for their past intentions to somehow be altered in time, then all this talk about how old the FAQ is has no relevance to showing what the intent of the rules was.

Street Magic explicitly states that the Force of the possessing spirit is added to the Physical Attributes of the Vessel. Possession does not "create a new entity", and is not exempt from Augmented Maximums. On a guess, I would say you are thinking of Inhabitation. Your little "Ghost Cartels" example fails because there are several instances (if I remember correctly) of the NPC's "cheating" - as in they do not follow the rules.

We have re-hashed this many times. And it's not my "little example", it's examples plural in a recent supplement and I don't know why you think adding deprecating adjectives to them carries any weight. And no, I'm not thinking of Inhabitation. I know the 4th edition rules perfectly as well as you do, perhaps better. The book states that a "combined entity is created", i.e. it's not one or the other of the old ones, it's something new. Your arguments are that we should discard the FAQ because you say it's discredited, disregard the book because it doesn't add a line under the given rules saying that we should believe what they say and that we should discard published examples because they're "my little example" and the writers cheated, whereas you know better.

I'm going to be offline for a while, so I wont be able to reply to anything for some time. Unless you can bring anything new to this other than repeating the same points I've addressed for probably the fourth time in this thread, I'm going to leave this here. My interpretation fits what is actually written, the people who wrote the rules agree it, published adventures agree with me. I don't know what more I can ask, to be honest.

K.

[knasser]

which, if you're in your magical lodge, leaves it with somewhat limited options once your stand-by sprit has possessed you.

Once your stand-by spirit has possessed you (I hope you're adding up the cost of all these bound spirits you keep using in your examples, btw), it can attack you without having to possess or manifest, because you're dual-natured. And dual-natured spirits vs. higher-force purely astral ones... they don't have the odds in their favour.

Bowing out now, due to lack of time, I'm afraid.

K.

[pbangarth]

It comes to mind that the combined spirit/vessel could take enough damage such that if the two entities were to split, their respective damage boxes would be overflowed, the vessel being in danger of death and the spirit being disrupted. Assuming that disruption is an unpleasant experience, the spirit may elect to stay in the vessel even after all services are rendered until enough damage is healed to prevent disruption. The magician may be happy about this, hoping the reduced damage would not kill her, either.

On the other hand, she may not. The vessel, even if the Summoning magician, would not have any power to command a spirit whose services are complete. If the vessel did not have the Channeling metamagic, she would not have the power to access her Skills to either Banish the spirit or re-Summon/Bind it to get more services.

Example: vessel with BOD 4 is possessed by a F4 spirit. Individually they have damage tracks of 10, but together they have a damage track of 12. If they took 11 boxes of damage ("I feel faint.... barely hanging on. Don't leave me, [spirit of] man!"), each would overflow if they split.

[Falconer]

A little late to the party, but...

Falconer:

On the subject of Immunity to Normal Weapons and armor stacking, it does. This is not because it fails to specify in it's description (which is a miserable failure of writing), or fluff, or whatever other reason, but because the rules for stacking armor apply to worn armor. I'm pretty sure you don't "wear" an immunity.

I respectfully disagree with you Muspellsheimr, you know full well I respect you as one of the other good rules lawyers active on the forum. (able to argue either side of an issue and raise good points). But the overpowered is a subjective judgement, and there are very few circumstances when a possession spirit does not end up more powerful than a materialization one. (army of drones is about it, and once the high force/edge availability kicks in even that isn't so bad).



On the second point... the critter 'armor' power is not worn either. However it also lists itself as 'cumulative with worn armor'. That's not a fully valid logic on your part. The way I read all that, is that all those items are cumulative to a 'worn armor' total (even though they're not themselves worn). That is not inconsistent w/ the multiple worn armor not stacking as that does not stack, then all those other sources accumulate on that specific armor total.

What the situation boils down to is thus. The system is ambiguous at best. It does not state to add it, but it also does not state not to add it. However, we have many examples of other armor sources (magical, mundane, worn, and unworn) where they explicitly and go out of their way to state they are cumulative with the "worn armor" total.

I choose to argue that the lack of those operative words is important. Mostly because of balance concerns if it isn't...

Even low force possession spirits have monstrous damage resistance pools compared to materialization ones. (an average bod4 rea3 guard, wearing an armor jacket 8/6... possessed by a force 4 spirit... goes from 3rea+12 dice to resist damage. to 7rea + 16 dice to resist damage, plus 8 more IF IT STACKS... IE: the chance of missing the guard has more than doubled... plus if it does bypass. Chance of possession are good if 3wil+2 to resist... (higher phys stats, lower mentals... not uncommon), 8 on 5, and correct wording means failing to possess one guard of a pair, it possessess another... or even their trained german shephard. Possessing the caster to augment himself, is an option not even possible w/ materialization spirits.

Mind you, I believe we both agree that spirits as written (both materialization and possession) at high forces become rather silly and slightly broken. Though binding costs on spirits aren't much different than the cost of drones for a rigger. (especially if the rigger loses a drone now and then... losing 10k combat drone hurts your bottom line too).

Look in digital grimoires sidebar as well... they even suggest such draconian measures such as... limiting possession to prepared vessels, or only allowing things present when the spirit is summoned to be possessed. I'm of mixed mind on how well those ideas address the special problems that come w/ possession.

[pbangarth]

On the second point... the critter 'armor' power is not worn either. However it also lists itself as 'cumulative with worn armor'. That's not a fully valid logic on your part. The way I read all that, is that all those items are cumulative to a 'worn armor' total (even though they're not themselves worn). That is not inconsistent w/ the multiple worn armor not stacking as that does not stack, then all those other sources accumulate on that specific armor total.

The critter armor power is described as an "extremely tough hide." (Running Wild, p. 204) This is a physical characteristic which is capable of interacting/interfering with worn armor. ItNW is a manifestation of magical protection and has no physical component, just as the armor spell has none. The critter power Immunity is magical in nature in all of its manifestations. None of them are described as having a physical component.

Mostly because of balance concerns if it isn't...
.......
Look in digital grimoires sidebar as well... they even suggest such draconian measures such as... limiting possession to prepared vessels, or only allowing things present when the spirit is summoned to be possessed. I'm of mixed mind on how well those ideas address the special problems that come w/ possession.

Digital Grimoire was written after people had been making claims such as yours, and it offers a variety of options for those who wish to house-rule limitations on Possession. Feel free to do so.

A couple of points to consider. First, it is possible to reach that frightening Damage Resistance Pool in the range of 50 through means other than Possession. You can do it with a Troll adept as well, for example. I haven't considered other options. Shall we discard adepts, too? That troll tank would be just as single-functional and boring to play as the monsters presented above would be.

Second, the fear that such a creature makes the rest of the party vulnerable because of the force needed to deal with it crushes the rest is unfounded, undemonstrated and unprovable. Once I finish my dissertation (this will be some weeks yet), and am free to add another GM commitment to what I already have, I will challenge the DS community to come up with a team that includes 'regular' members and at least one such 'monster'. I will have no trouble at all dealing with the frightful one in ways that are consistent with the rules and the fluff and do not overbalance the rest of the party.

I challenge you all to prove me wrong. Until then, could we get back to the request in my original post? Answers to that could in fact demonstrate my point without the need for a challenge at all.

[Falconer]

The critter armor power is described as an "extremely tough hide." (Running Wild, p. 204) This is a physical characteristic which is capable of interacting/interfering with worn armor. ItNW is a manifestation of magical protection and has no physical component, just as the armor spell has none. The critter power Immunity is magical in nature in all of its manifestations. None of them are described as having a physical component.

Irrelevant. ItNW invokes the Hardened armor power. Or is ItNW not worth anything because it is invoked by the possession or materialization power?! Where do you pick and choose.

The armor spell for example is clearly magical in nature as well. Yet it also clearly goes out of it's way to state "cumulative w/ worn armor".
Just because one is magical and the other is mundane does not get around that bit...

Hardened armor power also has words to the same effect, but it does not list cumulative w/ worn armor.

Putting kevlar on a turtle will not prevent it's 'hardened' shell from getting cracked when you hit it w/ a bullet... The shell has no give, while pinkskins are soft and squishy and can absorb the energy of the impact provided it doesn't 'pierce' them (which is what the kevlar stops it from doing). The turtle has no 'give' and you'd have to armor it differently to get the same effect.


Second point:
Brick the troll comes to mind (massive amounts of cyberarmor). However, his armor is not hardened. And he has no counterspelling. Most adepts aren't built on massive amounts of soak but on large dodge pools which a wide burst is normally good for eliminating a lot of. Normally a valid response to a massively over armored mondane is... manabolt. However, when you possess someone w/ say a force 8 guardian spirit... depending on how you handle the rules that spirit has either 6(max) ranks in counterspelling or 8 (force) itself. (plus the caster has his own counterspelling and wilpower is a drain stat. and using powerbolt/indirect is worse because body+counterspelling just got doubly augmented).

As far as cherry picking situations... the vast majority I've seen involve arbitrariness and favoritism on the GM's part. The hypothetical orbital bovine bombardment... or the always popular 'sniper' surprise attack. If that player, why not another...

I don't want to sidetrack your thread... and I've said I'll drop the subject... but I will respond to poorly thought out logic like this.

[pbangarth]

Irrelevant. ItNW invokes the Hardened armor power. Or is ItNW not worth anything because it is invoked by the possession or materialization power?! Where do you pick and choose.

The armor spell for example is clearly magical in nature as well. Yet it also clearly goes out of it's way to state "cumulative w/ worn armor".
Just because one is magical and the other is mundane does not get around that bit...

Hardened armor power also has words to the same effect, but it does not list cumulative w/ worn armor.

Putting kevlar on a turtle will not prevent it's 'hardened' shell from getting cracked when you hit it w/ a bullet... The shell has no give, while pinkskins are soft and squishy and can absorb the energy of the impact provided it doesn't 'pierce' them (which is what the kevlar stops it from doing). The turtle has no 'give' and you'd have to armor it differently to get the same effect.

Falconer, none of the above addresses Muspellheimer's point that Immunity is a state of being, not worn armor, nor the fact that the use of the words "Hardened Armor" to describe the effect of Immunity is just that, an analogy to explain the mechanics for determining what level of damage has no effect. You yourself say the rules are ambiguous to you, and you choose your interpretation "[m]ostly because of balance concerns." I understand and respect that. I do not agree with your argument that the rules say what you say.

Second point:
Brick the troll comes to mind (massive amounts of cyberarmor). However, his armor is not hardened. And he has no counterspelling. Most adepts aren't built on massive amounts of soak but on large dodge pools which a wide burst is normally good for eliminating a lot of. Normally a valid response to a massively over armored mondane is... manabolt. However, when you possess someone w/ say a force 8 guardian spirit... depending on how you handle the rules that spirit has either 6(max) ranks in counterspelling or 8 (force) itself. (plus the caster has his own counterspelling and wilpower is a drain stat. and using powerbolt/indirect is worse because body+counterspelling just got doubly augmented).

As far as cherry picking situations... the vast majority I've seen involve arbitrariness and favoritism on the GM's part. The hypothetical orbital bovine bombardment... or the always popular 'sniper' surprise attack. If that player, why not another...

I don't want to sidetrack your thread... and I've said I'll drop the subject... but I will respond to poorly thought out logic like this.

The development of the monsters above, picking and choosing certain combinations of Attributes and Skills (or lack thereof) mixed with just the right kind of spirit type, boosted to a level that is disfunctional and potentially fatal to the practitioner, that's cherry picking. I'm happy to have a typical corporate extraction run, no orbital bombing or snipers sitting outside the PC's apartment. The only thing that might be artificial is that I would have to at some point nerf even a good plan (or give a bye to an extraordinarily bad one) in order to guarantee combat to test our respective positions on Possession. Cyber, magic and matrix going in will face a reasonable, challenging, intelligent mix of defense.

I want to see for myself. I don't believe any PC out of the box is untouchable or a death sentence to his own party (OK, you know what I mean. Really stupid behaviour aside.)

I am prepared to be proven wrong.

[sn0mm1s]

The critter armor power is described as an "extremely tough hide." (Running Wild, p. 204) This is a physical characteristic which is capable of interacting/interfering with worn armor. ItNW is a manifestation of magical protection and has no physical component, just as the armor spell has none. The critter power Immunity is magical in nature in all of its manifestations. None of them are described as having a physical component.

Digital Grimoire was written after people had been making claims such as yours, and it offers a variety of options for those who wish to house-rule limitations on Possession. Feel free to do so.

A couple of points to consider. First, it is possible to reach that frightening Damage Resistance Pool in the range of 50 through means other than Possession. You can do it with a Troll adept as well, for example. I haven't considered other options. Shall we discard adepts, too? That troll tank would be just as single-functional and boring to play as the monsters presented above would be.

Second, the fear that such a creature makes the rest of the party vulnerable because of the force needed to deal with it crushes the rest is unfounded, undemonstrated and unprovable. Once I finish my dissertation (this will be some weeks yet), and am free to add another GM commitment to what I already have, I will challenge the DS community to come up with a team that includes 'regular' members and at least one such 'monster'. I will have no trouble at all dealing with the frightful one in ways that are consistent with the rules and the fluff and do not overbalance the rest of the party.

I challenge you all to prove me wrong. Until then, could we get back to the request in my original post? Answers to that could in fact demonstrate my point without the need for a challenge at all.

That troll adept would be a pale comparison to the possession mage, he would be inferior in almost every single way. Not as good of a tank and definitely not as good of a fighter.

1) How does one using possession account for and overcome difficulties?
2) How does one using possession make innovative uses of the abilities possession gives him?
3) How does a GM have fun challenging users of possession?
4) What things could really nail a user of possession to the wall if the GM could only think of them?

1 & 2) Physical and Technical skills can be covered with a Task spirit. Combat skills can be covered with a Guardian Spirit. Combat itself has be discussed ad nauseum in this thread. The only stock tradition that has both is Voodoo. Social skills can be supplemented with emotitoys (if you are a voodoo mage your CHA is probably reasonably high but you won't be nearly as good as a face) but that could be rough, vehicle skills are sort of mixed bag since you could prepare a vehicle for possession which would make the mage a decent pilot of anything prepared but otherwise the mage will be at a severe disadvantage. With Improved Invisibility a possessed bird/insect can go just about anywhere not warded. Drain can always be healed by a spirit with first aid. You can save anyone unconscious, but not dead, by having them possessed.
3) Make overcasting on summoning/binding very difficult by having the spirit use Edge to resist, this keeps possession spirits powerful but not necessarily game breaking.
4) Possessed vessels are very noticeable. Adepts with Commanding Voice can ruin the day (but this could apply to all people). Mana Static, Astral Hazing, and Background Counts can screw things up (but this would apply to all awakened characters), presumably spirits using powers leave signatures behind that if not cleaned up could lead back to the spirit/mage (this is true with any mage using spirits frequently), high powered drones can be a pain, laser/electricity/weapon foci/killing hands/stacked AP/called shots/overcast stunbolts/sniper rifles can all cause a Force 6 spirit problems. However, the biggest thing is that Edge can't be commanded to be used so being obviously possessed could result in people using Edge against you and the spirit deciding it isn't worth the effort.

[Muspellsheimr]

We have re-hashed this many times. And it's not my "little example", it's examples plural in a recent supplement and I don't know why you think adding deprecating adjectives to them carries any weight. And no, I'm not thinking of Inhabitation. I know the 4th edition rules perfectly as well as you do, perhaps better. The book states that a "combined entity is created", i.e. it's not one or the other of the old ones, it's something new. Your arguments are that we should discard the FAQ because you say it's discredited, disregard the book because it doesn't add a line under the given rules saying that we should believe what they say and that we should discard published examples because they're "my little example" and the writers cheated, whereas you know better.

Possession
Type: P • Action: Complex • Range: Touch • Duration: Special
Some spirits lack the ability to materialize, so they must
possess vessels in order to interact with the physical plane.
Each possesion attempt requires a Complex Action in
which the spirit touches the vessel's aura and then accesses
the physical plane and attempts to possess a vessel so that it
may stay there. The spirit makes an Opposed Test pitting its
Force x 2 against the vessel's Intuition + Willpower Test (for
living vessels). For inanimate vessels, the spirit makes a Force
x 2 (vessel's Object Resistance) Test. Apply a +6 dice pool
bonus to the spirit if the vessel has been previously prepared
(see Vessel Preparation, p. 86). If the test fails, the spirit is
immediately forced back into the astral plane. If the test suc-
ceeds, the possession takes hold: the vessel and the critter are
considered a single dual-natured entity for the duration.. For
the detailed effects of Possession, refer to the Possession and
Vessels sidebar (p. 102)

Living Vessels
If the vessel is a living creature, the spirit's
Force is added to the vessel's Physical attributes.
While possessed, the spirit's Mental and Special
attributes are used (which means that a pos-
sessed technomancer cannot access Resonance),
with Initiative recalculated as normal (use the
spirit's normal Initiative Passes). The spirit is in
full physical control of the vessel, but does not
have access to the host's knowledge, skills, or
experience. The mind of the vessel remains in
whatever state it was when possession begain;
if conscious, it becomes an impotent witness
locked inside its own body for the duration.

At no point is a "new" entity created; the vessel and possessing spirit are considered a single dual natured creature, but are still a vessel and a spirit.

At no point is it ever stated that the increase to Physical attributes may exceed the vessel's augmented maximums, nor does it at any point say the new "combined" values replace those of the spirit &/or vessel.

What it does say, quite clearly, is that the vessels Physical attributes are increased by the possessing spirit's Force. As with all attribute increases, unless specifically noted otherwise, it is subject to augmented maximums.



Further, the Frequently Asked Questions document does not (in this instance) contradict the Rules as Written, but it does add additional rules/text that are not supported in the print version or PDF of the book. The (updated errata) version of the book was indeed printed after the FAQ ceased being maintained; as such, any "clarifications" that add, alter, or remove rules cannot be considered relevant or viable - even under the assumption that they normally would (again, FAQ <> Errata).


Rules as Written, a possessing spirit adds its Force to the vessels Physical attributes, subject to the vessels augmented maximums.

In conclusion, you are incorrect & the FAQ document, as frequently stated for numerous reasons, is bullshit.

[Muspellsheimr]

On the second point... the critter 'armor' power is not worn either. However it also lists itself as 'cumulative with worn armor'. That's not a fully valid logic on your part. The way I read all that, is that all those items are cumulative to a 'worn armor' total (even though they're not themselves worn). That is not inconsistent w/ the multiple worn armor not stacking as that does not stack, then all those other sources accumulate on that specific armor total.

You are using a common, and blatantly incorrect "If I fail to specify it is true, it must be false (or vice-versa)" argument. This is even more so the case when the "specify is true" is a reminder of an overarching rule or statement - worn armor does not stack.

You are attempting to extend a rule to areas it does not cover, on basis of a missing reminder text.


As an example of the "If I fail to specify it is true, it must be false (or vice-versa)" in regards to overarching statements & reminders, I present the following:

The following items are blue (statement or rule)
Blueberries. Blueberries are blue.
Street Magic. The Street Magic cover (1st printing) is blue.
The sky.


Because I failed to add a reminder to "The sky" declaring it is blue, it must not, in fact, be blue. This is precisely what you are attempting to do with the armor rules.

[rumanchu]

Further, the Frequently Asked Questions document does not (in this instance) contradict the Rules as Written, but it does add additional rules/text that are not supported in the print version or PDF of the book. The (updated errata) version of the book was indeed printed after the FAQ ceased being maintained; as such, any "clarifications" that add, alter, or remove rules cannot be considered relevant or viable - even under the assumption that they normally would (again, FAQ <> Errata).

I don't understand why you put such a premium on the fact that the 2nd printing of Street Magic was released after the FAQ, yet pooh-pooh the DIRECT EXAMPLES in Ghost Cartels that Possession supersedes the attribute maximums of the host -- when both Ghost Cartels and the 2nd printing of Street Magic were released the same day (which happened to be around 6 months *after* the Street Magic errata was released).

(One could also infer from Ghost Cartels that ItNW doesn't *fully* stack with worn armor; there are two examples in Ghost Cartels of people possessed: one has armor (which is added to the <Force x 2> armor of the spirit but *doesn't* have any notation that it is Immune to Normal Weapons (and, thus, hardened armor), the other is presumed to not be wearing armor (due to storyline matters that I choose to not spoil) and only has the <Force x 2> armor of the spirit, which is *specifically* noted to be Immune to Normal Weapons.)

Of course, since we are on The Internet, I suppose that I should just assume that this stands only as proof that the SR developers are shoddy hacks who don't bother double-checking their products (shipping the same day) against each other for consistency. ("Never let the facts get in the way of a good argument" - Abraham Lincoln, 1839).

EDIT:

I resent (and REBUKE) the premise that certain supplements are considered RAW while others (when convenient for someone's argument) *aren't*. While I am willing to accept that a free adventure or (dare I say it?!?) a SR Mission might have less oversight than printed material, the fact remains that supplements like Ghost Cartels are considered by the line developers to be canon enough to take up a part of the production schedule. As has been documented/discussed in other threads (quite recently, I might add), producing a *hardcopy* work is a substantial cash outlay that would (presumably) be considered important enough to ensure that the printed work is at least *marginally* consistent with the game line as a whole. Until an official source says otherwise, I consider any example in any *printed* material that I can purchase for Legal Tender from a brick-and-mortar store to be (at least) an example of RAI, if not RAW.

[Muspellsheimr]

Ghost Cartels cannot be used as an example of Rules as Written for two reasons. First, it is not a rulebook. Second, in multiple locations it breaks the rules. In the case of possession attributes, it is breaking the rules.

So yes, the authors either did not understand the rules they where working with, did not check their work, or (most likely) both.


And I personally don't give a shit that the corrected Second Printing of Street Magic, or the Errata it incorporates, was released after the FAQ ceased being maintained, but apparently Knasser does as that is a strong basis for several of his arguments.

Until an official source says otherwise, I consider any example in any *printed* material that I can purchase for Legal Tender from a brick-and-mortar store to be (at least) an example of RAI, if not RAW.

CORE MAGIC RULEBOOK

Again, Ghost Cartels is not in any way a rulebook, and in multiple instances contradicts the rules of the game. This is most likely because of poor proofreading & the authors being unfamiliar with the rules being used. It is a failure on Catalyst's part.

The book is not used for rules, nor does it in any way alter the rules through the use of shoddy "examples". I don't give a shit what you think or use in your game. Unless you can provide an actual Rules as Written quote, do not call your idea's RAW.

[Falconer]

Really, the sky is pitch black right now. Your statement is obviously false. (it's a conditional)
Or the sky could be slate grey overcast, even though cerulean is good too ;P.

I take your meaning and see what you're saying. I disagree w/ you. You're not the only one who has studied logic and logical fallacies. What we have here is a true ambiguity from the editors.. yet again. (the same people who decided making two radically different powers named 'mystic armor' was a good idea). The operative phrase, is a disambiguation, it makes it absolutely clear that X does Y.

Precisely... the portion which details "normal armor". It's an undefined term. How is 'normal armor' treated... if it refers to treat it like 'worn' armor which is what most people consider 'normal' as most of the other sources would be considered 'exceptional' or 'abnormal'. Is it normal that it doesn't stack, and exceptional when they point it out. Or is it normal that it stacks and exceptional when it doesn't? You can't claim to deam that any more than I can. As far as I'm concerned the 'safest' (and maybe even 'sanest') assumptions are that unless otherwise specified things do not stack. (armor or otherwise)

In any case, people keep saying X is the only way to read this, and it's obvious. When it's not and produces results which can be within reason considered gamebreaking. When you ask why... they can't point to anything definitive in the rules. (normally they fall back on it's magic, or innate... when I can point at magical or innate and point out those have specific wording making it clear they stack).

It's not blatantly obvious that any of those sources should stack (or be blue excepting to those who have actually seen those real objects... I could have a mutant black blueberry...). It could be entirely possible that an armor spell wouldn't stack but have armor value == to force (rather than hits)... magic is what magic is. Barrier spells are based on hits, while a ward is based on force... The how or why doesn't matter for magic at least in my book (that's what makes it magic), only the end result of what the letter of the book says (and it's implications on providing a good game for all).

Oh well, we've addressed each others points... always good to spar w/ you Muspellsheimr. If you'd like to go into it farther feel free to open up a new thead. This one is derailed enough.

[Falconer]

Rumanchu:
Or you could go w/ "Unwired"... that book is an absolute work in confusion... they literally had something like 3 major authors all writing in parallel in a true 'left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing' sense. And the final work ended up probably the weakest of the line. A lot of the rules work fine by themselves, it's when you collect them together that you can get some real wierdness going.

Scenerio books are rife w/ bad NPC's or archetypes... even the original BBB was guilty of REALLY bad character examples in the archetypes. It rightly drew jeers.

[rumanchu]

Ghost Cartels cannot be used as an example of Rules as Written for two reasons. First, it is not a rulebook. Second, in multiple locations it breaks the rules. In the case of possession attributes, it is breaking the rules.

So yes, the authors either did not understand the rules they where working with, did not check their work, or (most likely) both.


And I personally don't give a shit that the corrected Second Printing of Street Magic, or the Errata it incorporates, was released after the FAQ ceased being maintained, but apparently Knasser does as that is a strong basis for several of his arguments.

Regardless of what the authors (a large number of whom were also writers for Street Magic) did or did not understand, the editors of Ghost Cartels (both of whom were editors for Street Magic...and Augmentation...and SR4A) should at the very least have had an *inkling* of how the rules for Possession are *supposed* to work.

Now, I'm not saying that Ghost Cartels is RAW...but it has a damned good argument in favor of it being an example of RAI -- which happens to support the clear-cut wording in the FAQ.

Now, while Ghost Cartels may not be a "rulebook", per se, it is (to my, probably limited, knowledge) the only printed material that contains stats for Possessed characters -- both of which exceed the regular augmented maximum for their metatype. It's not entirely unreasonable, in the face of *zero* hard evidence to the contrary, to conclude that a Possessed living vessel can possess stats outside the normal maximums for their metatype.

EDIT (to include bits added after I started replying):

The book is not used for rules, nor does it in any way alter the rules through the use of shoddy "examples". I don't give a shit what you think or use in your game. Unless you can provide an actual Rules as Written quote, do not call your idea's RAW.

I consider any example in any *printed* material that I can purchase for Legal Tender from a brick-and-mortar store to be (at least) an example of RAI

I didn't call it RAW; I said that it's not (to my thinking) outside the realms of possibility that a company might actually, in the face of an (arguably) unclear rule actually print a goddamn example of how the rules should work.

Now, I (to use the parlance of our times) don't give a shit what you think or use in your game, but don't presume to speak for the developers while dismissing uncontested printed material out-of-hand because YOU find it to contradict YOUR interpretation of RAW.

[Muspellsheimr]

Oh well, we've addressed each others points...

Compromise
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

[Muspellsheimr]

Rules
As
Written

Not Rules as Intended
Not Rules as Interpreted


RAW, possession adds the spirit's Force to the Physical attributes of the vessel.
RAW, increases to attributes by magical or technological means cannot exceed the augmented maximums unless specifically noted otherwise.
RAW, possession is not an exception.
RAW, attributes augmented by a possessing spirit are subject to the vessels augmented maximums.

• Provide a quote from the 4th edition rule books, regarding the mechanical effect within the rules of possession, that states the increase is not subject to augmented maximums
• Begin a new thread for your House Rules
• Or shut the fuck up.

[rumanchu]

Rumanchu:
Or you could go w/ "Unwired"... that book is an absolute work in confusion... they literally had something like 3 major authors all writing in parallel in a true 'left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing' sense. And the final work ended up probably the weakest of the line. A lot of the rules work fine by themselves, it's when you collect them together that you can get some real wierdness going.

Scenerio books are rife w/ bad NPC's or archetypes... even the original BBB was guilty of REALLY bad character examples in the archetypes. It rightly drew jeers.

I don't pretend that the SR rulebooks are pristine examples of Laws Writ Clear -- hell, I complained about the formatting of the rules in SR4A within the past 48 hours! I just reject a mindset that "bad" source material can be judged unworthy by people who aren't involved in the development of the game. As much as I would love to point out (well, I suppose that it could be said that I *have*, technically) that Shifter rules are ZOMGBROKEN, the fact remains that they are RAW. (On the flipside to that, though, there's no way in hell that I'd allow a player in my game to use the Karmagen rules *as written*, as they (can be) clearly abused quite easily.)


(Now, going back to Unwired...as someone whose main character (when he plays) is a hacker, I find much more that I dislike about Unwired than I like. On the whole, I'd say that the parts that are the most egregious examples of Total Mess are those that are based on someone looking at the Matrix rules and saying, "that's not how it would work *now*". Even if you dismiss the fact that the SR reality branched off from ours quite dramatically about 15-20 years ago, botnets (as we understand them) in 2070 should be about as relevant as punchcard errors are for us in 2010. Which is to say: not so much. I could go on and on about Unwired as an unworthy rulebook, but that's not relevant to the thread at hand.)

[Muspellsheimr]

There are a few good things in Unwired, but yes, it is pretty much Fail.

[Muspellsheimr]

There are a few good things in Unwired, but yes, it is pretty much Fail.

[rumanchu]

Rules
As
Written

Not Rules as Intended
Not Rules as Interpreted


RAW, possession adds the spirit's Force to the Physical attributes of the vessel.
RAW, increases to attributes by magical or technological means cannot exceed the augmented maximums unless specifically noted otherwise.
RAW, possession is not an exception.
RAW, attributes augmented by a possessing spirit are subject to the vessels augmented maximums.

• Provide a quote from the 4th edition rule books, regarding the mechanical effect within the rules of possession, that states the increase is not subject to augmented maximums
• Begin a new thread for your House Rules
• Or shut the fuck up.

Show me a RULE (*not* implied, *not* interpreted, *not* inferred) that Immunity to Normal Weapons stacks with worn armor.

On the subject of Immunity to Normal Weapons and armor stacking, it does. This is not because it fails to specify in it's description (which is a miserable failure of writing), or fluff, or whatever other reason, but because the rules for stacking armor apply to worn armor. I'm pretty sure you don't "wear" an immunity.

Armor (spell): "It provides both Ballistic and Impact armor (cumulative with worn armor)" (SR4A, p.210)

Armor (critter power): "A critter with this power has a natural Armor rating that is cumulative with any external armor worn" (SR4A, p.293)

Mystic Armor (adept power): "Each level provides you with 1 point of armor (that counts as both Ballistic and Impact) that is cumulative with any worn armor." (SR4A, p.197)

Immunity (critter power): "A critter with Immunity has an enhanced resistance to a certain type of attack or affliction. The critter gains an “Armor rating” equal to twice its Magic against that damage. This Immunity Armor is treated as “hardened” protection (see Hardened Armor above), meaning that if the Damage Value does not exceed the Armor, then the attack automatically does no damage. Additionally, this “armor rating” is added to the damage resistance test as normal armor." (SR4A, p.295)

Hardened Armor: "Hardened Armor is even tougher than normal armor. If the modified Damage Value of an attack does not exceed the Armor rating (modified by Armor Penetration), then it bounces harmlessly off the critter; don’t even bother to make a Damage Resistance Test. Otherwise, Hardened Armor provides both Ballistic and Impact armor equal to its rating." (SR4A, p.295)

It's crazy -- neither Hardened Armor *nor* Immunity mention stacking with worn armor. Please:

• Provide a quote from the 4th edition rule books, regarding the mechanical effect within the rules of Immunity to Normal Weapons, that states that the "Armor rating" granted stacks with worn armor
• Begin a new thread for your House Rules
• Or shut the fuck up.

Thanks.

[rumanchu]

There are a few good things in Unwired, but yes, it is pretty much Fail.

On this, we can both agree.

[Mordinvan]

• Or shut the fuck up.

Might I suggest you adhere to your own advice?

Every time the issue of how possession based stats work has been addressed, be it in ghost cartels, or threads touched on by developers, the FAQ or anywhere else applicable, the same ruling has been made. That the stats of the vessel are added to the force of the spirit, and the new augmented maximum is equal to 1.5 times the new total. That you seem to be flailing against this is beginning to border on the comical, but time give it a rest please?