IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Possession: Breaks augmented attribute limit?, I can't find a reference either way.
Falanin
post Dec 3 2010, 09:41 PM
Post #1


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 165
Joined: 3-March 09
From: A top-secret federal party facility.
Member No.: 16,929



Hey guys. I was doing some character creation research for a friend, since I'm the resident SR junkie. As he wants a melee mage, I ended up looking at possession. Now, I remember reading some threads that imply that possession can break the augmented attribute maximums, but looking at Street Magic, I can't find a solid quote that supports that reading. I can't find a quote that says it DOESEN'T, either, though, and my forum search-fu is a fail on this topic as well.
Anyone got a ruling and page number to help me out?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sephiroth
post Dec 3 2010, 10:17 PM
Post #2


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,147
Joined: 2-May 10
Member No.: 18,539



You won't find it in the books, but rather in the FAQ.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
pbangarth
post Dec 3 2010, 10:42 PM
Post #3


Old Man of the North
**********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 9,744
Joined: 14-August 03
From: Just north of the Centre of the Universe
Member No.: 5,463



Street Magic errata put the max for the combined entity at
(vessel racial max + spirit Force ) X 1.5.

The FAQ contradicts that and limits the combined total to the vessel's augmented maximum
(racial max) X 1.5.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
LurkerOutThere
post Dec 3 2010, 10:55 PM
Post #4


Runner
******

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 2,946
Joined: 1-June 09
From: Omaha
Member No.: 17,234



Which is a good thing possesion is bad enough as is is.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Muspellsheimr
post Dec 3 2010, 11:36 PM
Post #5


Neophyte Runner
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2,336
Joined: 24-February 08
From: Albuquerque, New Mexico
Member No.: 15,706



QUOTE (pbangarth @ Dec 3 2010, 04:42 PM) *
Street Magic errata put the max for the combined entity at
(vessel racial max + spirit Force ) X 1.5.

The FAQ contradicts that and limits the combined total to the vessel's augmented maximum
(racial max) X 1.5.

Incorrect. This is one of the (few) instances the FAQ provides a correct ruling.

The Street Magic errata provides no information whatsoever on Possession mechanics.
Street Magic does not list Possession as an exception to the Augmented Maximum rule.

Possession is a Paranormal (magical) ability that modifies a character's attributes, and as such falls under the following unless specified otherwise:
QUOTE (SR4A p.68)
Care must be made to distinguish between natural, unmodified attribute
ratings and those augmented by cyberware, bioware, adept powers,
and magic
. Generally, augmented ratings are listed in parentheses after
the natural rating, such as: 4 (6).

The standard range of natural human attributes is rated on a scale
of 1 to 6, with 3 being average. Physical and Mental attributes have a
maximum natural rating of 6 plus or minus metatype modifiers, depending
on metatype (p. 81). The maximum augmented attribute value for
each metatype is equal to 1.5 times this figure, rounded down (see the
Metatype Attribute Table, p. 81).
This also applies to Initiative.




Side note: Along with a few other alterations to how spirits work, this is something I personally have House Ruled against.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Adarael
post Dec 3 2010, 11:43 PM
Post #6


Deus Absconditus
******

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 2,742
Joined: 1-September 03
From: Downtown Seattle, UCAS
Member No.: 5,566



QUOTE (pbangarth @ Dec 3 2010, 02:42 PM) *
Street Magic errata put the max for the combined entity at
(vessel racial max + spirit Force ) X 1.5.

The FAQ contradicts that and limits the combined total to the vessel's augmented maximum
(racial max) X 1.5.


I'd go by the FAQ on this one, because the Street Magic errata provides a limit which will never be hit unless you use spells. Like, really, never. Take a spirit of arbitrary force - we'll say force 6. Let's suppose he posesses a human with cybernetically enhanced maximum attributes: 9. This means his maximum attribute in the combined form is 22.5. The actual attributes he'll have upon being possessed is 15. That leaves a whole whopping room for enhancement that only becomes more ridiculous the higher the force of the spirit or his natural maximums are. I would MUCH rather assume there's no room for spell-based enhancement on top of the posession.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
pbangarth
post Dec 4 2010, 01:05 AM
Post #7


Old Man of the North
**********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 9,744
Joined: 14-August 03
From: Just north of the Centre of the Universe
Member No.: 5,463



It would appear I was remembering the version stated in a Possession FAQ thread here on Dumpshock. I don't have the link and don't want to go look for it. Silly me, taking something from Dumpshock as 'gospel'.

Not that it matters Adarael, but I used the term racial max, not augmented max, so in the example above, using the Possession FAQ from Dumpshock, a human possessed by a F6 spirit would have had (6 + 6) X 1.5 = 18 as a maximum attribute. Since this is equivalent to (6 X 1.5) + (6 X 1.5), it could easily be reached with some augmentation, technical or magical.

As it stands in the Shadowrun FAQ, the human above Possessed by the F6 spirit would have a maximum attribute of 9.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
phlapjack77
post Dec 4 2010, 07:41 AM
Post #8


Runner
******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,473
Joined: 24-May 10
From: Beijing
Member No.: 18,611



Possession FAQ here, just found it, good stuff:
Possession FAQ

Another thread is a great read about all-things possession. A little long, but I think the relevant stuff starts around here

Dang, can't find the thread where Frank and Synner argue about the attribute caps.

Basically, I think it boils down to how your table views the FAQ. Like the FAQ? Then you're limited to racial maximums. Hate the FAQ? Not really limited.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mäx
post Dec 4 2010, 09:27 AM
Post #9


Prime Runner
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,803
Joined: 3-February 08
From: Finland
Member No.: 15,628



QUOTE (phlapjack77 @ Dec 4 2010, 09:41 AM) *
Basically, I think it boils down to how your table views the FAQ. Like the FAQ? Then you're limited to racial maximums. Hate the FAQ? Not really limited.

Your still limited to racial maximums without having to use that piece of crap house rule collection.
Augmented attribute maximums is a pretty damm general rule, so there's no reason what so ever to assume that something isn't limited by it unless the rules for that something specifically say so.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
phlapjack77
post Dec 4 2010, 10:40 AM
Post #10


Runner
******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,473
Joined: 24-May 10
From: Beijing
Member No.: 18,611



QUOTE (Mäx @ Dec 4 2010, 05:27 PM) *
Your still limited to racial maximums without having to use that piece of crap house rule collection.
Augmented attribute maximums is a pretty damm general rule, so there's no reason what so ever to assume that something isn't limited by it unless the rules for that something specifically say so.

Maybe, but if I remember correctly, in the thread I can't find, Frank argues that the "original intent" was to have possession augment physical attributes without a limit, but the FAQ changes that to put the attribute cap on them.

Where is that stupid thread? Grrrrr....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mäx
post Dec 4 2010, 10:43 AM
Post #11


Prime Runner
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,803
Joined: 3-February 08
From: Finland
Member No.: 15,628



QUOTE (phlapjack77 @ Dec 4 2010, 12:40 PM) *
Maybe, but if I remember correctly, in the thread I can't find, Frank argues that the "original intent" was to have possession augment physical attributes without a limit, but the FAQ changes that to put the attribute cap on them.

Where is that stupid thread? Grrrrr....

Franks intent matters even less then the FAQ, when he didn't actually write his intent into the rules.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
phlapjack77
post Dec 4 2010, 11:03 AM
Post #12


Runner
******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,473
Joined: 24-May 10
From: Beijing
Member No.: 18,611



QUOTE (Mäx @ Dec 4 2010, 06:43 PM) *
Franks intent matters even less then the FAQ, when he didn't actually write his intent into the rules.

It's cool - I'm not trying to invoke him as an "I'm right" card. Just saying that there was a lot of belief in the no-attribute-cap, even from the writers. Until they got together and wrote the FAQ to make sure things were clear. So if you disregard the FAQ, you could also disregard the cap.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cybertier
post Dec 4 2010, 11:24 AM
Post #13


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 37
Joined: 16-September 10
Member No.: 19,050



I don't know if those writer matter but:
In GC possession breaks the maxima
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
pbangarth
post Dec 4 2010, 12:38 PM
Post #14


Old Man of the North
**********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 9,744
Joined: 14-August 03
From: Just north of the Centre of the Universe
Member No.: 5,463



QUOTE (cybertier @ Dec 4 2010, 06:24 AM) *
I don't know if those writer matter but:
In GC possession breaks the maxima
Yeah, the dogs have savaged that carcass, too.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mäx
post Dec 4 2010, 01:01 PM
Post #15


Prime Runner
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,803
Joined: 3-February 08
From: Finland
Member No.: 15,628



QUOTE (phlapjack77 @ Dec 4 2010, 01:03 PM) *
So if you disregard the FAQ, you could also disregard the cap.

Only if you also disregard the actual rules and go only by "writer intent".
The FAQ is a piece of turd not worth the bits it's stored in, but that doesn't mean that possession gets to suddenly break the rules.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Karoline
post Dec 4 2010, 03:03 PM
Post #16


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,679
Joined: 19-September 09
Member No.: 17,652



I don't know what all the argument is about, Muspellsheimr pointed it out quite clearly. The rules state very plainly "You can never have a stat above your augmented maximum." and possession fails to state any kind of exception to this. If there was actually supposed to be an exception, then the errata should have included it. If it was RAI, it could have easily become RAW by now. Since it hasn't, well, seems fairly plain what the rules are.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
phlapjack77
post Dec 4 2010, 04:00 PM
Post #17


Runner
******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,473
Joined: 24-May 10
From: Beijing
Member No.: 18,611



QUOTE (Karoline @ Dec 4 2010, 11:03 PM) *
I don't know what all the argument is about, Muspellsheimr pointed it out quite clearly. The rules state very plainly "You can never have a stat above your augmented maximum." and possession fails to state any kind of exception to this. If there was actually supposed to be an exception, then the errata should have included it. If it was RAI, it could have easily become RAW by now. Since it hasn't, well, seems fairly plain what the rules are.

No arguing from me, I don't have a horse in this race (ok, maybe a troll in the race, but not a horse (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif) )

But there are a lot of good discussions about this idea, and I think it's not so cut and dried as it's being portrayed above(unless you use the FAQ).

Here are some links (pbangarth was right, this carcass is well and truly savaged):

Link 1
Link 2
Link 3
Link 4
This is the link I'd been trying to find
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mäx
post Dec 4 2010, 04:20 PM
Post #18


Prime Runner
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,803
Joined: 3-February 08
From: Finland
Member No.: 15,628



QUOTE (phlapjack77 @ Dec 4 2010, 06:00 PM) *
I think it's not so cut and dry as it's being portrayed above

Yes it is, Augmented maximums are a general rule and affect absolutely everything, unless the rules for that something explicitly say otherwise, like the rules for redlining cyberlimbs.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dakka Dakka
post Dec 4 2010, 06:00 PM
Post #19


Prime Runner
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,507
Joined: 11-November 08
Member No.: 16,582



Possession does not break Attribute maxima, but we are never told, what the maxima for the combined entity of spirit + vessel actually is. So effectively the don't have one. I agree that it may be unbalancing to use (vessel racial max + spirit Force ) X 1.5, but nowhere does it say that the maximum for the combined entity is equal to the augmented maxima of the vessel.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mäx
post Dec 4 2010, 06:10 PM
Post #20


Prime Runner
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,803
Joined: 3-February 08
From: Finland
Member No.: 15,628



Nevermind.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dakka Dakka
post Dec 4 2010, 06:15 PM
Post #21


Prime Runner
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,507
Joined: 11-November 08
Member No.: 16,582



The rules don't actually say that. A new entity is created with physical stats equal to stat vessel+stat spirit and the spirits mental and physical attributes. The new entity is controlled by the spirits mind unless channeling is used. this new entity is different from either the spirit alone or the vessel alone. As such we have no clue what that entity's maxima are.

This is just a rehash of several older discussions.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Laodicea
post Dec 4 2010, 07:22 PM
Post #22


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 558
Joined: 23-June 10
Member No.: 18,749



The topic is debated enough that I'm not going to assert a view on what is strictly RAW. Both views are legitimate interpretations that can be argued for or against. I will point out a few things, and propose a possible houserule.

The whole discussion gets confused by Inhabitation.
Possession is fundamentally different from Inhabitation, yet mechanically it seems to work almost the same as a Hybrid form Inhabitation Merge. Almost. They're similar enough that the two get mixed up in peoples heads, and understandably so.

Chart Here.

key:
S = Spirits
V = Vessel
F=Force of spirit
AF=Astral Form power
RF=Realistic Form power

This chart that is pretty much RAW with the exception of the Attribute Caps, which is the most debated thing, and also the inclusion of the Vessels spells for a Flesh Form Merge. In a flesh form, you retain all knowledge, skills, and memories, and I believe that should include spells, though its not explicitly stated.

Why grant a Hybrid Form Merge V+F X 1.5? Because it loses Astral Form. That's a big deal.
I would, however, houserule that Hybrid forms do NOT get any bonuses from Wares. However, Street Magic explicitly states that they do. It's not even debatable by RAW, so I didn't include that houserule in the chart.

edit: fixed chart with link to image.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Raiki
post Dec 4 2010, 07:52 PM
Post #23


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 233
Joined: 27-September 10
From: New York
Member No.: 19,080



Quick off-topic question after reading some of the links posted above.

Anyone have any idea/feel like sharing why Frank Trollman got banned? Sorry if this is a touchy subject, and a quick STFU would be heeded...but banning a game developer seems like a silly and ballsy move.




~R~
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Karoline
post Dec 4 2010, 07:53 PM
Post #24


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,679
Joined: 19-September 09
Member No.: 17,652



QUOTE (Raiki @ Dec 4 2010, 02:52 PM) *
Quick off-topic question after reading some of the links posted above.

Anyone have any idea/feel like sharing why Frank Trollman got banned? Sorry if this is a touchy subject, and a quick STFU would be heeded...but banning a game developer seems like a silly and ballsy move.




~R~

Was he? Well, shows how much I know.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
LurkerOutThere
post Dec 4 2010, 08:00 PM
Post #25


Runner
******

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 2,946
Joined: 1-June 09
From: Omaha
Member No.: 17,234



QUOTE (Raiki @ Dec 4 2010, 01:52 PM) *
Quick off-topic question after reading some of the links posted above.

Anyone have any idea/feel like sharing why Frank Trollman got banned? Sorry if this is a touchy subject, and a quick STFU would be heeded...but banning a game developer seems like a silly and ballsy move.
~R~


While I don't pretend to have insider knowledge the basic problem as I understand it was for every 3 or so normal or even helpful posts Frank would do he'd do one that was basically insulting or inflamatory. Then there was the fracas with CGL (of which is till believe he may have flat out made up some junk, but again no insider knowledge). He was basically placed on "No kidding, one more time and your gone." and soon enough he wound up banned. There are some who ascribe politics to the timing of the baning but I don't think there's many who would say that he hadn't deserved it and gotten away with it because DS's moderation team tends to be pretty moderate about their moderation.

In short he was banned because he couldn't control his tone over a long period of time.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 30th May 2024 - 09:32 AM

Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.