Yes.

well, you failed to please the guys who don't play SR4. feel bad! WRITHE!

Wait till SOTA '72

P.S. Mets and exceeds promise? 6 minutes. - Check!

you could probably make a case for possession of inanimate objects based on realism, using that as your proof.

You just need one of those old reel-to-reel jobs out of the museum.

Just because you don't know Sam 'n Max doesn't mean I'm out to prove anything.

go rewrite SR3 to your liking, shoo...

i dont have a problem with a posessed vehicle, could be fun to spring on the players at some point

maybe they are supposed to get the vehicle of a person that have a classical qabbala teaching, but had some kind of mind altering experience that lead him to try and make a golem out of a car?

then he have died and we then have a free spirit inside a car then have it be some kind of collectors item (thats why the johnson wants it) and just sit back and watch things create itself.

all in all they create a single, unified posession rule that have the ability to have a limitation placed on it. sure it creates some stuff, but it still means that you only have to learn one rule rather then 5 variants on the same rule and then wonder what to apply in a given situation.

i for one welcome the streamlining...

hey, these things take time.

Maybe it could shoot out cassette tapes that transform in to animals and robots

I've only come across text talking about Possession in place of Materialization. So I don't think it would be canon to allow both. Certainly not in one spirit, but it seems to be a qualifier you put on the whole tradition. So I don't think you can have the substitution on a spirit by spirit case, or even switch between on spirit type by spirit type.

Are you being sarcastic?

Absolutely, that and seeing how long it takes for someone to run with the reference

It would be able to control any mechanical functions of the device (in this case not many) and use any of its powers on the physical plane.

I was ready to have my Western Star tractor-truck run over the reference, but then Emilio Estevez thwarted the plan.

But what force spirit would be able to possess the Peterbilt.


/got nothin

*sets you on fire*

The focus possession argument annoys me only insofar as maybe foci shouldn't be made out of commlinks and dikoted AVS pistols. Then it wouldn't exactly be a stretch to allow the mechanic to allow something like a possessed focus made of basic natural materials--which also allows exactly for the creation of Golems from earthen clay.

The mechanic is designed around the Object Resistance chart to allow both base natural materials (clay, wicker, dead bodies) and highly processed materials (cars, dikoted sliverguns and commlinks). Obviously the former is much easier to accomplish (the latter requires 5 hits on a Force x2 roll while a dead body or clay homunculi requires only 2).

Enchanting any and all of the above as "prepared vessels" facilitates Possession (suffice it to say that enchanting a commlink, a house or a car is not simple or inexpensive and requires multiple parts be enchanted separately).

Finally Possession does not enhance any of a device's technological and electronic abilities, nor does it allow the spirit to use a device's non-mechanical functions. So telling your loa spirit to possess your dikoted monoblade rather than the body of a fallen security guard or a teammate is not the best of ideas in most situations.

Well, it's cool. And it's another step to the dikoted ally spirit...

Keep in mind that DSF is not an official FanPro board and my comments are not binding (at least until they appear on FAQs or errata).

Perhaps not, but Dumpshock's URL is on the credits page for Street Magic. That counts for something.

Not really... but there's too much noise.

It was more about the question whether the physical attacks from a spirit, materialized or posessed, defeat ItnW.

Who cares about the german developers anyway?

well, thats too bad. Its better than no messages at all, really

It would given the armor Immunity to Normal Weapons. It might make some sense that it would increase their armor rating, but there don't appear to be any rules for it. So basically by canon there is no support for that improving the protection of the wearer.

especially in some cases. I have always imagined (for example) an air spirit's immunity coming not from the arrack bouncing off, but simply PASSING THROUGH. A fire spirit might work similarly or it could burn the bullets up before they reach it. In either case, the "immunity" of the armor would be of little use to the one wearing it. In fact, if it were interpreted that way, one COULD make an argument for sending your spirit to inhabit your enemy's armor!

(Note: This is strictly fluff here. I am not proposing that players go out and use this)

If that was the case the AP values of weapons shouldn't actually help in any manner.

See my note above. My comments were FLUFF, your reply is CRUNCHY.

The in game description and the game mechanic do NOT need to be in perfect harmony unless you are shooting for complete "realism", and if you are then SR is not the system for you. Go play "Wound Balistics, the RPG" or something.

Easy, tiger. He's just trying to make things jibe, a little.

Then why have the fluff at all? Because when you fluff that then either:
a) players get real confused when APDS actually helps.
b) the GM starts visualizing in the fluff way of seeing things, and then works the rules backwards to match it so that much ass kicking by the spirit ensues.
c) players buy into the vision and don't think to use APDS, and much ass kicking by the spirit ensues.

My GM, generally speaking a very good GM, fell into 'b)' on this exact same topic using the exact same vision as you described.

Basically it is a bad practice to use fluff that so drastically deviates from the reality of the rules because fluff isn't meaningless. It is an important part of how players and GMs understand the game world to work. Especially when an alternative version of describing how it works is readily available.

OK, I will play devil's advocate and turn the issue on it's head:

Why should APDS work beter against things immune to normal weapons? Are sub-caliber tungsten darts somehow less "normal" then copper jacketed lead rounds of aproximately the same size? I understand that is how the RAW works presently, but it appears to defy understanding. The power is called "immunity to normal weapons" not "A lot of hardened armor". Also, manefested spirits are not killed, they are "disrupted". I can can visualize how a grenade or large cannon round could "disrupt"
a creature of pure magical energy given solid form. I fail to see how a small piece of high-velocity lead, no matter how accurately placed could force the physical form to disipate in the same way (by blowing the "mass" of the creature all over the room.)

A related question: Why are Tazers and Stick-n-Shock so much more effective against spirits then bullets? Do spirits have a Central nervous system which can be disrupted by modulated electrical shocks the way a (meta)human's can? This is especialy true in the case of Air and fire spirits, some of whom have ben described in fluf text as existing in the gassious (or plasmatic) state.

Personaly, I feel like non-magical PCs and NPCs SHOULD be essentialy helpless against high-force spirits. Let the mages and Killing-hands (or weapon focus) equipped players deal with them. You want to shoot them with a grenade and pray? OK, that migth do something. You want to make an "attack of will" against it (see Street Magic)? Great! Personaly but I don't think it would make much diffrence if you said that successses (or called shot) don't count for stageing up damage against immune spirits. Shooting a pistol against a F-6 Spirit is typicly an excercise in futility now (most of the time, baring an elven pistol god fireing APDS or something), the change woudl not be that significant.

Exactly. Following backwards to changing the rules to fit the made up vision that doesn't fit the the rules.