So, we've cleared up the issue of stats for a character possessed by a spirit, including the bit about Immunity to Normal Weapons applying further armour to the character beyond what she is wearing, but with both worn armour and ITNW being subject to the AP value of the weapon (see the SR4 FAQ).
Exactly what happens to the armour of a vehicle when a spirit possesses the vehicle?
If we take a parallel position to possession of a character, then:
A) The vehicle's Armor rating, Body and Speed increase by the Force of the spirit. (Street Magic, p. 102)
B) The combined entity acquires Immunity to Normal Weapons. (Street Magic, p. 102, Digital Grimoire, p. 12)
C) Therefore, a Damage Test made by the vehicle against enemy fire would have a dice pool of :
(Vehicle Armor - AP of weapon) + (spirit ITNW (at 2 X Force) -AP of weapon) + Vehicle Body
--- where if the DV of the attack does not exceed either the modified Vehicle Armor (SR4, p. 161) or the modified ITNW (SR4, p.288), it does no damage. This comparison is NOT made against the modified, combined value of Vehicle Armor and ITNW.
Does this make sense?
Peter
Full Version: Possession and vehicle armour
There are no armor stacking rules for IntW - one could say that the combined entity rolls DR with either IntW OR the increased armor value.
Unless one likes the idea of effectivly adding 3*force to DR tests.
Unless one likes the idea of effectivly adding 3*force to DR tests.
QUOTE (Ryu @ Nov 27 2008, 10:25 PM) 
There are no armor stacking rules for IntW - one could say that the combined entity rolls DR with either IntW OR the increased armor value.
Unless one likes the idea of effectivly adding 3*force to DR tests.
Unless one likes the idea of effectivly adding 3*force to DR tests.
From the SR4 Possession FAQ, armor and ITNW do stack:
QUOTE
10) Immunity to Normal Weapons:
10 a) Does Immunity to Normal Weapons stack with normal armor?
A: Yes (with clarifications). The extra damage resistance protection provided by Immunity to Normal Weapons stacks with the extra damage resistance from body armor just like the extra damage resistance from Hardened Armor critter power, dermal armor, cyberlimb armor, Mystic Armor adept power, etc. At no time do armors reduce incoming power, but they always give you extra damage resistance dice. However, only the "hardened armor" provided by Immunity to Normal Weapons bounces weapons, so you'd need to keep track of which armor is which (SR4 p. 288).
10 a) Does Immunity to Normal Weapons stack with normal armor?
A: Yes (with clarifications). The extra damage resistance protection provided by Immunity to Normal Weapons stacks with the extra damage resistance from body armor just like the extra damage resistance from Hardened Armor critter power, dermal armor, cyberlimb armor, Mystic Armor adept power, etc. At no time do armors reduce incoming power, but they always give you extra damage resistance dice. However, only the "hardened armor" provided by Immunity to Normal Weapons bounces weapons, so you'd need to keep track of which armor is which (SR4 p. 288).
QUOTE (Frank Trollman)
If you have 8 points of Hardened Armor and 8 points of regular armor and are hit by a 9P attack, then the Hardened armor does not completely stop the attack, and the regular Armor does not downgrade the attack from lethal to stun. But both give you +8 dice to your damage resistance test, which is a lot. Also, AP applies towards each set of Armor/Hardened Armor separately as per the rules, reducing both the DV that they have a special effect against and the amount of bonus damage resistance dice they add.
If you have 8 points of Hardened Armor and 8 points of regular armor and are hit by a 9P attack, then the Hardened armor does not completely stop the attack, and the regular Armor does not downgrade the attack from lethal to stun. But both give you +8 dice to your damage resistance test, which is a lot. Also, AP applies towards each set of Armor/Hardened Armor separately as per the rules, reducing both the DV that they have a special effect against and the amount of bonus damage resistance dice they add.
If it applies to ITNW and armor on characters, I can't see why it wouldn't apply to ITNW and armor on objects, including Hardened Armor already on the object.
Peter
The search function lost the battle this time: Possession FAQ.
I still don´t think adding 3*force to all DR rolls is a good idea, balance-wise. I agree that hardened armors should logically stack, too, if all other forms of protection stack.
I still don´t think adding 3*force to all DR rolls is a good idea, balance-wise. I agree that hardened armors should logically stack, too, if all other forms of protection stack.
QUOTE (Ryu @ Nov 28 2008, 05:28 AM)
The search function lost the battle this time: Possession FAQ.
I still don´t think adding 3*force to all DR rolls is a good idea, balance-wise. I agree that hardened armors should logically stack, too, if all other forms of protection stack.
I still don´t think adding 3*force to all DR rolls is a good idea, balance-wise. I agree that hardened armors should logically stack, too, if all other forms of protection stack.
Yeah, I misnamed it the SR4 Possession FAQ when I should have called it the Dumpshock Possession FAQ. Sorry. The SR4 FAQ doesn't deal with this issue directly, so the Dumpshock FAQ, with a quote from 'The Source' himself, is the best I have to go on. Digital Grimoire doesn't address this issue either.
I see your point about game balance. The DG points out that GMs should ensure that the costs of Conjuring are put into effect - time, danger, drain, materials, Traditional focus - so that the benefits of Possession are balanced. If a magician survives a properly run conjuration of a powerful spirit, she should reap the rewards.
Also, remember that the example I provided was for vehicles, which resist damage with Body and Armour, both of which are boosted by Possession. Other kinds of objects and characters don't get that double boost of Stats that affect Damage Resistance. Therefore, the 3*Force addition to the dice pool is very limited in its occurrence.
Peter
The possession box on p.102 of street magic leave it up to the gamemaster which attributes are increased. It says that a spirit possessing a non-living vessel increases "appropriate" attributes by its force. To me, Armor isn't an appropriate attribute, since the spirit already applies its Immunity to the vehicle. I don't like the balance implications, or the conceptual messiness of the spirit adding to armor, and then adding more armor. Though people can feel free to disagree, since p.102 leaves it up to the GM.
No offense meant - sorry if it came across as such. I merely wanted to be on the same page as you, and save others the work of digging up the link. I agree that authors intent, if known, is one of the premier ways of text interpretation.
Possessed vehicles get increases to body and armor, and IntW(2*force), so their DR pool increases by four times force. Living beings get body + IntW, or three times force.
Possessed vehicles get increases to body and armor, and IntW(2*force), so their DR pool increases by four times force. Living beings get body + IntW, or three times force.
QUOTE (Larme @ Nov 28 2008, 12:02 PM)
The possession box on p.102 of street magic leave it up to the gamemaster which attributes are increased. It says that a spirit possessing a non-living vessel increases "appropriate" attributes by its force. To me, Armor isn't an appropriate attribute, since the spirit already applies its Immunity to the vehicle. I don't like the balance implications, or the conceptual messiness of the spirit adding to armor, and then adding more armor. Though people can feel free to disagree, since p.102 leaves it up to the GM.
Agreed.
Look at it this way; If a spirit possesses a person, it adds to their attributes, but not to their armour (except for adding ItNM). Why then should it add to the armour of a vehicle? For every argument that says that armour is an innate attribute of the vehicle, another argument says that you have a vehicle, and then you put armour on it, the same as how you have a person and then you put armour on them.
I personally favour the latter, because it is consistent with how spirits improve creatures.
EDIT: Deleted last part because Ryu covered it already.
QUOTE (Ryu @ Nov 28 2008, 10:03 AM)
No offense meant - sorry if it came across as such. I merely wanted to be on the same page as you, and save others the work of digging up the link. I agree that authors intent, if known, is one of the premier ways of text interpretation.
Possessed vehicles get increases to body and armor, and IntW(2*force), so their DR pool increases by four times force. Living beings get body + IntW, or three times force.
Possessed vehicles get increases to body and armor, and IntW(2*force), so their DR pool increases by four times force. Living beings get body + IntW, or three times force.
No offense taken, I just hate it when I get references wrong. It feels even worse when I get facts wrong -- OK, so Force*3 bonus to dice pool for most things, Force*4 for vehicles (each version having to take into account AP for both the regular armour and the ITNW).
@Larme, I'm not sure why a GM would not take the specific example of the vehicle modifications in the sidebar, except perhaps in an attempt to balance what she thinks is an unfair bonus. But it behooves the GM to be as complete as possible in applying the difficulties of Conjuring in order to balance the benefits.
If the conjured spirit is low Force, the bonus is not frightening. I'm sure the odd GM out there worries about the power a magician has in ordering about a vehicle possessed by a Force 8 spirit, which by the above interpretation gets (32 -AP) extra dice to soak damage beyond what it had when not possessed. Or for that matter a troll possessed by the same spirit, getting (24-AP) extra dice to soak damage.
BUT:
1) The Force 8 spirit is almost surely way smarter than the magician who summoned it. It may very well have its own agenda or own way of doing things, or its likes and dislikes. "Uncle Zola, I am offended that you wish me to possess an ashtray. This is beneath me, and I demand an apology. Give me a serviteur so I may pursue my own affairs, and I may forgive you."
2) Have you had a look at the Drain from summoning that thing? And if you want to bind it....
.... or Invoke it??? Uncle Zola over in the 800 point PC thread is just at the edge of his chance to succeed, and he is built to survive Conjuring Drain Tests.
3) A conjuror needs Channelling to be able to walk possessed and have reasonable control over his own body.
4) Unless bound, the possessing spirit disappears at sun-flip. Many opponents are aware of that fact.
5) "Holy smoking vehicle, Sgt., see that van? It's paint job is glowing with squiggly snakes. And its headlights are dripping blood! I think we have that Voodoo guy, Zola. Call Central for backup and let's follow him."
6) "You want to wait how many hours to bind that thing? The job goes down in three. Be ready."
7) "Whaddaya mean, 'The spirit failed to possess the van, I must try with a different spirit or a different vehicle'?" (A Force 5 spirit would be pressed to possess an object such as a van with Object Resistance 4.)
8 ) "Great. we have a Force 8 spirit in the truck, and the most you can do now is lie in the back and moan."
9) Insert your own creativity and stir.
Peter
I like 1), 5), and 6). Stylish. You are not really playing the 800BP-version, no?
Yeah, some good points made there pbangarth. People often get too caught up in picking apart the mechanics of the shadowrun system, whilst forgetting that unlike, say, d20, Shadowrun is a set of rules written for a specific setting. A lot of the checks and balances aren't actually mechanical, they're just a part of the world.
And just out of curiosity, did you just get your hands on Street Magic by any chance? I count 3 "nuts and bolts of SR magic" threads by you in the past 24 hours
And just out of curiosity, did you just get your hands on Street Magic by any chance? I count 3 "nuts and bolts of SR magic" threads by you in the past 24 hours
I've had Street Magic for a while. I've just been playing with how to work Uncle Zola, a character I developed a year or so ago, and worked into the 800 pt. (400 BP + 400 BP and/or Karma) version for Coldhand Jake's request for PCs of that level.
Apparently he is considering writing some runs for high powered PCs and is thinking of publishing them. He asked for people to get as twinky and weird as they can be so he could get an idea of how to deal with PCs of that power level. Uncle Zola is a Voodoo Tradition magician, and so I have been trying to figure out possession issues. Hence the questions on Dumpshock. If you want to see some scary PCs, check out http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=23592 .
As far as playing Uncle Zola (or Bongo Slade, the other character I have developed for that thread), I would like to, lots, but it depends on when and how Jake might get some of us together.
Peter
Apparently he is considering writing some runs for high powered PCs and is thinking of publishing them. He asked for people to get as twinky and weird as they can be so he could get an idea of how to deal with PCs of that power level. Uncle Zola is a Voodoo Tradition magician, and so I have been trying to figure out possession issues. Hence the questions on Dumpshock. If you want to see some scary PCs, check out http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=23592 .
As far as playing Uncle Zola (or Bongo Slade, the other character I have developed for that thread), I would like to, lots, but it depends on when and how Jake might get some of us together.
Peter
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.