I am trying to rework the spell 'Shapechange' but with the possiblity to transform clothing and equipment, correct me if I forgot something..

Step1: Choose Category: Manipulation, Physical Manipulation (+0), Major Change (+2)
Step2: Choose Spell Type: Physical Spell (+1)
Step3: Choose Range: Touch (-2)
Step4: Choose Duration: Sustained (+0)
Step5: Determine Effect: Success Test Spells
Step6: Calculate Drain Value: F/2+1

Spell Description: See BBB page 204, Shapechange.

When changing an existing spell instead of building a completely new one it's best to start from the original and not from scratch. You avoid mistakes like building a spell that's better than the original while having a lower drain code that way.
As Shapechange is +2 your version should at the very least be +3, if not +4.

Thanks for the advice Dragnar. The actual Shapechange has a drain F/2+2 and if we add the drain modificator 'Major Change' (+2), the actual spell version would have a drain of F/2+4. In case that I changed the range from LOS into touch, F/2+2.

BTW: Unfortunately Street Magic doenst describe the differences between 'Minor' and 'Major Changes' (Page 163).. Anyone any comments on this?

Hmm... if you really want to change clothing, you'd need to succeed against Object Resistance, as the clothes are not part of your aura, no?

@Backgammon: True.. Correct me if I am wrong, Example: A magican that wears a leather jacket, a sword and two foci, would have to succed against an overall treshold from 3 (Manufactured High-Tech Objects and Materials), all net hits would be used to add 1 to the critters Base attribute Ratings.

Shapechange has LOS? *rummages through books* You're quite correct, sir, I missed that. I've not the slightest idea why, as that seems to be a no-brainer to change to touch as that saves on drain without actually making the spell less usefull generally, but you are fully correct.
That way the drain is correct, my apologies.

And the thing about object resistance is a good one. I'd agree setting a threshold (which usually makes effects of the spell less powerful) would be a good rule. And it would mean that you have to cast the spell at a decent force to change your weapon with you. I quite like that.

Depends how you choose to write the spell. There are a number of Manipulations that affect objects that are not subject to OR, Fashion and Reinforce spring to mind.

I never really thought about this before, but actually, by RAW, all spells, including Fashion & Reinforce, are subject to Object Resistance.

Reasoning: Object Resistance applies by RAW to all spells with non-living targets; Fashion, Reinforce, etc. do not specify they ignore this, & thus are not an exception to the rule.

Re: Fashion. That's a brilliant point. I shall bring it up to my players. I have a mage in the group who uses that spell a lot. Fine if he is working from raw materials, but I think I can discourage him from affecting armour this way.

The BBB then goes on to say that some spells are Resisted when cast on creatures or Magical Objects and then describes the Opposed Test used for such spells.

It further explains that Objects are unable to resist said spells and this Opposed Test becomes a Success Test with a Threshold of OR when said spells are cast upon objects.

Both Fashion and Reinforce are unresisted Success Tests and do not, therefore, have to overcome OR.

Re: Fashion. Thats why I asked what the differences between Drain modificators 'minor change' and 'major change' are. It is possible that Fashion fits minor change, thus a small physical manipulation spell..

Keep in mind that it may be useful to cast a LOS Shapechange on your buddy held in a cage. Shapechange him into a snake so he can slither out between the bars or into a mouse so he can walk out of the cage.

How about using the turn to goo spell drain for a shapechange spell for the opponent. I remember once in a previous edition after "questioning a guest" we shape changed him into a cat and dropped him off at a local animal shelter. About 3 hours later I dropped the spell, he was a little cramped in that cage I'm sure.

Spells. Not opposed-test or resisted spells. Spells. Unless the description specifically states otherwise, all spells targeting non-living objects are subject to Object Resistance, even those that are not opposed.

You failed to counter the quote you are responding to and you conveniently ignored the proceeding sentence to the one you use to support your argument.



This follows the proceeding paragraph which deals with spells cast upon 'living, magical' targets that are resisted. All of the subsequent text clearly refers to resisted spells cast upon non-living, non-magic targets.

Reinforce and Fashion remain Success Tests, as specified in their descriptions, and are unresisted.

It makes sense to me that spells affecting non-living material are subject to object resistance. It's a passive threshold, not an opposed roll, hence not resisted.

Your argument is not consistent. If a spell is not 'resisted' then object 'resistance' does not apply.

Object 'resistance' only applies to 'resisted' spells cast on objects.

I'm not sure how the language could be any clearer.

Is the spell mana based or physical based. Could just totally make this whole argument moot.

'object resistance' =/= object 'resistance'

Surely a roll cannot be considered 'resisted' unless there is an opposing roll.

Or does a threshold increase suggest that a given roll is resisted? In which case build/repair rolls are resisted rolls, which is entirely counter intuitive.

I think the problem stems from the use of the term 'object resistance', but in all honesty, I can't think of another term.

EDIT: Any spell that affects physical matter must be physical by definition, yes?

Full quote of the section in question. Again, in the section for affecting non-living objects, spells are never resisted. Spells require a Success Test against a threshold equal to the Object Resistance, with the sole exclusion of Indirect spells.

Spells.

Not "Opposed Spells", not "Resisted Spells". The section in question makes no differential between that - any and all spells, specifically excluding Indirect spells, are subject to Object Resistance if they are cast on a non-living target. This includes Fashion, Fix, & Reinforce, among others.

So... your whole reasoning is that you want a spell that is basically better then shapechange because you can thumb through the create your own spell chart. You know why they don't have equipment as listed as a way to change shape, because it would be lame if it could. You can take quite a few spells and break them over your back by just adding a +1 or +2 to the drain code.

For instance you can have Increase Attribute any attribute for just a pitiful amount of extra drain so you don't need to worry about learning each and every single type of attribute spell and gum up your spell list. Saves you karma, is pretty much the same spell... oh yeah... and is totally stupid and broken for what it can do.

Para 1: Some spells are purely success tests that may or may not have a Threshold specified in their individual descriptions.

Para 2: Other spells are resisted by their targets.

Para 3: Objects lack the ability to resist spells in this manner and are granted a number of hits to resist such spells based on complexity. This is resolved as a Success Test against a Threshold of OR.

Paragraph 3 at no point sets aside Paragraph 1 or explicitly states that Paragraph 1 does not apply equaly to objects targeted by 'unresisted' spells.

Additionally the structure, placement and wording of Paragraph 3 clearly indicate that it is a corollary of Paragraph 2 describing the effects of the same class of spell on a different class of targets.

Without text explicitly overriding Paragraph 1 in Paragraph 3 your argument has no foundation.

The text may be poorly constructed but it is clear. To say otherwise is to say the text is contradictory and requires errata.

Paragraph 1: Some spells are success tests, others opposed.
Paragraph 2: Some spells affecting living targets are success tests, others opposed. Detail how opposed functions.
Paragraph 3: Objects cannot resist spells. Spells are handled as a success test with a threshold based on object complexity, with the singular exception of Indirect spells.

Paragraph 3 is complimentary to, but not a continuation of, Paragraph 2. Paragraph 2 details spells vs. living targets, Paragraph 3 details spells vs. non-living targets. It in no way suggests it only applies to opposed spells, & does suggest it applies to all spells in general.

Why this spell is a bad idea.

- If you can morph equipment why can't you just turn drones into mice and have them scurry around. If you can morph anything into a small animal how the hell can you determine how it will act. "Your equipment" is vague, and if you can morph equipment that means you can morph anything, and if you can morph anything you can morph anything.

Please make magic more broken. Please it totally needs more buffs.

Until you stop ignoring Paragraph 1 and provide a satisfactory explanation of where Pragraph 3 explicitly overrides it I'm happy to ignore your opinion on this matter.

The first paragraph has no influence whatsoever on this discussion, but as you insist...


Now, again

Paragraph 2: How spells function against living targets. Success or Opposed.

Paragraph 3: How spells function against non-living targets. Never Opposed, require a threshold of Object Resistance.

My whole reasoning...? Whatever. I didnt know why they didnt have equipment as listed as a way to change shape.. And I doubt that it would be lame if it could, because I think that a Magican that casts shapechange and wants to keep the cloth and equipment that he actually wears aint that lame. Furthermore you are talking about morphing equipment.. Hmm.. Let me give you a small hint, the spell I am talking about is called 'Shapechange'..

Shapechange, BBB, page 204: "Shapechange transforms a voluntary subject into a normal (non-paranormal) critter, though the subject retains human consciousness."

Sofar I know equipment, like drones are not subjects mate, they are things. Therefore please stop criticizing the reworked spell in a non-productive way.
Thank you.

I agree with Muspellheimr's view. If those rules were a law text, I'd interprete them the same way. Having to achieve a treshhold does not equal a spell getting resisted, it just means the task attempted is that difficult.

Have a look at his last post. He hasn't even mentioned Paragraph 1. He has ignored, yet again, an entire class of spells, those that are not resisted, are resolved as Success Tests and have any Thresholds spelled out explicitly in their descriptions.

[additionally]

This goes to your favourite bugbear, dicepool inflation.

If the simplest poxy effects are required to overcome OR then every Magician is obliged to have a dicepool of at least 15 to do anything more awe-inspiring or flashy than simply murder people and take their stuff.

Want to use magic to change the colour of a piece of plastic? Better have enough dice to blast massive holes in the fabric of reality....

Read it again - I fucking quoted the first paragraph, & outlined exactly what is relevant, which although being next to nothing, supports my position.

I think the capacity to alter the appearance of a full suit of armour should require quite a lot of magical oomph.

Whether most clothes actually warrant an OR of 4 is up to the GM.

As far as the fix spell, the capacity to fix drones without investing in the build/repair skill, or tools, or taking anything like the time required, that should also require significant magical power.

Conversely, it doesn't take much of a dicepool to alter simple fabrics, nor to mend non-tech items.

Re: Shapechange affecting worn or carried items. I'm not sure this is really appropriate, since there is no longer one target, but the individual themselves, and all their gear.

Street Magic does make it remarkably easy to pimp spells. The typical example is to put the voluntary target, touch only, and spellcaster only modifiers, reducing drain to virtually nothing. Alternatively, one can pimp improved invisibility to affect all senses, and it only increases the drain by 1, easily compensated for by making it voluntary target only. When are you going to want to make a non-voluntary target invisible?

First, I'd like to object to anyone claiming the following: "If those rules were a law text, I'd interprete them..." as a valid statement in an argument. If you treated the text as a law text you would interpret them in any way in which it would aid your argument.

With that out of the way, I believe that there is a valid argument that any spell without a resistance test on an object involves 'object resistance' thresholds. Most spells state when they require an object resistance test within their text (see Analyze Device). But some rely on the text of the class of spells (see Physical Illusions under the Illusions category of spells). Manipulation spells note that most are handled as Success Tests, but otherwise does not mention object resistance. However, there is the following text on page 195:



I believe this paragraph assists us in reading the previous paragraphs already posted. As it applies to Spells in general and only refers to two different types of tests (those with a threshold and those that are resisted.)

The first paragraph that was previously posted describes the test used in any spell where the text doesn't give us another specific type of test to use. And so the "default" spell test is a Success Test with only one success needed. The second paragraph describes how we should handle tests that are resisted by living targets. The third paragraph describes how we should handle any tests against unliving targets that can or cannot resist. Remember that the first paragraph refers to "some" spells as requiring Success Tests, and the third paragraph only adds that Success Tests with regards to non-living objects requires a threshold equal to the target's "object resistance." I believe the crucial point is that the third paragraph refers to these tests that require a threshold as "Success Tests" and not some other form of test.

I believe that most of the confusion comes from the terms "many", "some" and "most" which have no business being in any of these rules.

With all of that said, I think I would allow an altered Shapechange spell to transform "clothing and equipment" with a character for slightly more drain than the spell in the book (which you outlined above) with the normal object threshold for the objects being required. I would guess that for the most part this would be 3. I also wouldn't object to a GM stating that no object resistance threshold was necessary. Though I'd suggest that my reading of the rules would aid in telling a problem player that a threshold is required if the spell is being abused (as some seem to fear it might be).

As for how the spell would actually function, from a metascience perspective, I would say that it's effects are expanded to include everything within the subject's aura, which we "know" includes armor & clothing, due to those not preventing spell targeting to the subject (physical or astral), & would also include anything attached to the clothing or armor - sheathed/holstered weapons, commlink, etc.

Under this interpretation, the character would be capable of transforming/taking with them everything they are wearing, & most objects they are holding, but not anything they are simply touching (like a wall). These objects are of course incorporated into the new form, & are unusable, until the spell ends, at which time they return to their normal form & location.

I would give the spell a +2 Drain for a major change, but otherwise function as Shapechange (-2 Drain if you reduce it to Touch range, etc). As it is affecting non-living objects, Object Resistance applies as normal, with a Threshold based on the single most complex object to be affected; only Net Hits would increase the character's new Physical Attributes.

Fine then let me sit down and give a more detailed explanation on why I think it is an annoyance. The spell might be interesting, but it is subject to all kinds of abuse. When looking at a spell one should consider how it can be abused, and why maybe the spell works the way it does. Personally I think there was some forethought as to why shapechange works the way it does, and here it is....

If you can shapechange your "equipment" with you into lets say a rat, then all a party needs to do to get some explosives past some sensors is grab twenty pounds of r15 plastic explosives, turn themselves into said rodent, go somewhere, drop the spell and then the plastic, put up the spell again and walk away. It can make quite a few missions a cakewalk in many certain regards, since it would be really hard to completely define what constitutes equipment. How would you define equipment? How does the spell define it? Is it what you are wearing that counts as equipment? The side arm you have? The explosives that are strapped to your armor? Maybe that vehicle you are entombed in? When you are wearing your armor does it still give you the armor protection value?

If you can transform your equipment along with your character, or any other character then what is stopping someone from doing it to just their equipment? Just beat the OR threshold and you can have a wonderful smuggling operation that can get by any weapon scanners what so ever. If your equipment also counts as a voluntary subject then why can't you shapechange a drone? Think about the pilots of drones as it is actually listed as having a "dog brain" when it comes to intelligence. Why can't you then put some comlinks on some really expensive weapons for smuggling, load a rat behavior autosoft (because if a spell would work like that then you bet your ass there would be autosofts for acting like animals,) and turn those guns into rats that are held in a box for every checkpoint you cross? Maybe you could go for a cat, or a dog even. Weapons are equipment so if you can shapechange the equipment on you then what is stopping you from transforming equipment? There is nothing stopping you, and there is nothing stopping you on the size of what you can shapechange either unless there is, again, more clearly defined rules.

Also when you shapechange what happens to all the RFID tags you were wearing? The foci? Now that they become a part of you how do they work? Do they still work? Should they since they are now basically a part of yourself? How does assensing work when you have your equipment as part of your rodent body? Can they just see your aura and not the equipment that is now part of the shapechanger? Are your foci still duel natured? Does that make your character duel natured? What about any sustaining spells in the foci? Do they fizzle or still work?


My argument is not that the spell is valid or not with using the spell making table, it is that it is a lame spell for the reason that it can get highly abused and opens such a large can of worms that it is not really worth it. I feel why they cut equipment out of the loop is so that they could avoid all the little nitty gritty that would be involved with shapechanging yourself and your equipment. You know players will try to push that argument to the very edge of reason if it is not clearly defined. Is that a better argument then?

See previous post for explanation on what can be affected, & how.

As for foci, I would suggest they remain active, due to having their own astral form; their physical form is part of you, but the astral does not actually merge. Thus, as long as it is not a weapon focus or similar, that requires physical manipulation to use, it continues to function.

I agree that this spell, like many spells, has some lines that need to be agreed to by the GM and players. Where is the line of "equipment" drawn? Surely small arms and explosives would be equipment. Would a car? I would guess not. But there are many places in our lives that we need to define terms. I don't see "equipment" being too difficult to define reasonably. No harder than the word "flourish," for instance.

As to your concern about the spell becoming every smuggler's dream, I don't see an issue. There are many magical spells that counter mechanical means of detection. This spell counters those (to a degree) and still has the same weaknesses of those other spells. That is, being detectable by magical means. If you're worried about a rat being able to sneak somewhere and you aren't worried about a invisible person doing the same then it appears to be just a matter of size. Perhaps it is because a rat with a magical aura won't stand out to mundane guards? It's certainly a useful spell, but nothing special.

My suggestion on how to deal with the extra auras would be to deal with them the same way you normally would deal with the aura of the magician. Being in an altered form doesn't change the magician's aura, nor would it change the auras of the other items. In short, I agree with Muspellsheimr.

Oddly enough the same spell w/ or w/o the LOS only shapechanges only yourself, so if you make the spell then suddenly you bring your equipment with you?

I just feel that if you can morph your gear, then why can't you morph other gear? If the spell opens the flood gates it will lead to other things.

I mean it is fine if you think it should change the gear of the character, I personally don't like what it creates. Different strokes, different folks.

I thought the raw version of shapechange could work on anyone. Maybe I'm remembering the description from SR3, (although the descriptions are commonly cut and pasted) but I always thought you could turn your opponents into sheep or whathaveyou.

I am strongly against recreating existing spells with altered drain mods from Street Magic. It's far too open to abuse.

Nope. The SR4 version requires voluntary subjects. Kind of odd that it has more set backs then the reworked spell, and yet has a higher drain code.... I wonder why....

I thought the reworked version had a touch limit too. Stacking the limitations for drain is annoying. I've seen people stack touch, voluntary, and self for a whopping -6 to the drain.

Abusing rules? In Shadowrun? Sir you go to far!

I think that having your equipment stay with you is not that big of a deal, and I bet there are a few mages out there who don't enjoy walking around naked after shapechanging. Dunsany did a good job summing up the bottom line for this point of view.

I would have everything get 'absorbed' into the body, so that you can't use or drop any of it while shapechanged, nor would any armor bonuses apply. Using foci I could live with, as you don't need to fiddle with them to make them work.

If the players try to use this as the perfect jammer (arguing that RFIDs and wireless links stop working), things might still be 'there' and connectable, though imperceptible. Magic works in mysterious ways.

It's hard to say what's RAW with the Object Resistance, but in my table I'd like to keep things fun and smooth. I don't see why changing the color of a hi-tech armor should be any harder than that of a simple shirt, or why shapechanging with complex items would be any different from shapechanging with simple items. Fluff-wise there are valid points for having every object alteration spell resisted, but I just don't see the fun in it. Nor do I feel it's needed for game balance, unless you use these spells offensively and go shapeschanging enemies to get rid of their armor - which I feel would be a OoC-problem with the spell design process (and between the GM and his friend).

I am more about giving mages less then more. My beef is I feel they have enough. If people want to throw mages another bone, I think every other playable class needs a much larger bone.

The big thing about the spell when people talk about equipment is it just makes it harder for the GM. Players will generally try to squirm into a little hole with some argument and as a GM you need to make a call on the spell on what it can and can't do. At least with a rule book that says players can't all you have to do to diffuse a situation is tell them to look at the rule book.

A GM having to deny players certain things or not can create tension and a whole bunch of other malarky that I generally like to leave off the table. Making things debatable sometimes just leads to circular arguments where a player will always try to push their luck on what "equipment" means. Transforming drones into rats so they can sneak into a warehouse and kill someone is not far behind. The more I look at it the more hassle the spell seems when one gets down to the basic argument of equipment. Do vision mods still work? If not does the comlink on you still record when you are in the changed form with the goggles and skin links? If not then if someone transformed a drone into a rat how would it work after it was changed back?

This is an issue of abusive players rather than abusable rules. The words in the rulebook have to be interpreted on a regular basis. Most can be reasonably defined by any given group, but some are more difficult. The term "equipment" is no better or worse than these terms. A group of people can come to a reasonable definition and compromise where they disagree. I agree that allowing players to create their own spells can lead to problems, and especially so with abusive players. And if you must avoid confrontation with such players (which I also agree is sometimes better for the gaming group as a whole) then pointing to rules that are universally interpreted in the same way is a good way to limit them. And so, if you have limited options, this spell as well as the spell creation rules, are not useful to your gaming group.

As to your mechanical concerns of the spell there are a few different responses I can forsee, but I'll just stick to what I would rule:
As to turning equipment alone into critters with the spell I'd say you wouldn't be able to. The target of the spell is a "living creature and their equipment" and the result of the spell is a critter with the mental attributes of the living target. And so equipment alone could not be transformed into a critter. I have no issues with another spell being created to transform one unliving object into another on some limited basis (like fashion). Using a previous example of yours, sure the character could then sneak objects into places where the objects don't belong, but this isn't exactly a new concept in the game. There are plenty of other ways to do that and some don't involve drain or magical auras.

Do the objects continue working or do they merge with the critter's body. I'd probably rule the same way as Zormal in that they are absorbed into the body with no carryover. I'm also less worried about a "jammer" effect in that I can't think of a reason why not having access to any of their equipment would be a significant benefit. Sure, it can't be taken away, but I doubt being pickpocketed is the main purpose for turning into a rat. (Though maybe it is for some people)

I'd also suggest that rules for creating new spells shouldn't be used in games where players feel that mages have too much. If you're not having fun because of mages being a lot more powerful than other characters within the shadowrun setting there are a few things you can do. You can limit their power and limit the frills that they get (like spell creation), and so on. I'm sure you've read most of the other ways to limit magic in the game, though I'm sure people could give you ideas if it's still a significant problem. I personally haven't run into this issue in the games I've played. (Yes, magic has been powerful, but not to an extreme that harms the game for the rest of the players.) From this perspective, certainly, I'd limit creation of new spells severely if I allowed them at all. But I'm not sure this thread is the right place to have that discussion.

What about bio drones? What would your ruling be on that?

Working out a spells intent is nice to have, but using the spell creation rules a player can drop these things in your lap and as a GM you have to deal with them. Sometimes hitting them with a stick isn't a good choice, nor is giving them the carrot all the time will always work out especially when working with a group of people. Spell creation is very free form and as a GM it makes things like these hard to sort out. The biggest thing about sorting through all of this is that in the end the GM makes the decision, and in making that decision it can lead to some bad blood. That is why sometimes it is nice to have a set of rules that can allow you to make an official ruling.

I have already clearly identified what can & cannot be affected by the spell, what does & does not function while under the effects of the spell, & why. I don't even intend to use this spell (although it does have relevance for another spell of mine).

All custom spells need to be cleared by the GM before being used - if you do not do this, you are fucking retarded. During that, you need to clarify how the spell works. Anything not clear at that point is subject to GM ruling - if the GM says no, unless you can point to clear rules text otherwise, it's no. This does not cause complications for the GM; if it does, something is wrong with your group to begin with, & simply disallowing crap like this will not solve the problem.

Are you asking because you'd like advice on how I think the spell would (or should) be used in a game or are you asking because you believe you've found a way to abuse a spell? If the former, I'd ask you why you think it would work on a biodrone, if you think that this is within the bounds of the idea of the spell, and what you think the consequences to the game would be. If the latter, I'd refer you to my post concerning problem players.

Now thats what I call a productive and motivating critique.


Well, technically this could workout for one person.. But a whole party? Rats should have a body of 1, so if your magician (average body 3) wanted to shapechange into a rat and the most complex object, would be 4 pounds of C4 explosives that he carrys, I would say that the object resistance treshold would be 3. This means that your magican would need at least 3 hits for the objects and then 1 more hit to change himself into a Rat.. Lets asume that the two other members of your party are an elfish face (average body 3/4) and, if your are lucky, an orc streetsam (average body 5/7). Lets also asume that they dont care anything complex that would give you a greater treshold then 3, your magican would have to cast for every single of his teammates, at least 3 hits to beat object resistance, and furthermore 1/2 more hits for the elfish face (= 3 + 1/2 = 4/5 hits) AND 2-4 hits for the orc streetsam (= 3 + 2/4 = 5/7 hits) to shapechange them into a rat. Furthermore we have to bear in mind, that the magician meanwhile gains for every sustained spell a -1dice modificator, expect he uses a sustaining focus, which also are only limited upto force 6 if I am not wrong. Anyhow, you'll have to admit that the idea to shapechange a complete party into rats, or which soever rodents, wont be a piece of cake.


Maybe I misunderstood the spell Shapechange, but sofar I thought that ONLY subjects could be changed. Therefore a thing like a drone, even if it got an AI implemented to work stand alone, aint a living subject. Its a mechanical device that metahumans are using for their purporses, if commanded correctly. My view on this spell was and still is, that only things will transform which the person actually wears, like a sword, or a foci, a commlink, a gun and so on. A player that trys to shapechange with a lonestar iball minidrone in his pockets, would have to beat a treshold of at least 4 (highly processed object)..


All technical devices would be unusable. No RFID, no commlink, no whatever a metahuman mudan hand created could be used or activated, while the person keeps the animal form. Regarding the foci I can only quote on Muspellsheimr, "As for foci, I would suggest they remain active, due to having their own astral form; their physical form is part of you, but the astral does not actually merge. Thus, as long as it is not a weapon focus or similar, that requires physical manipulation to use, it continues to function."



There is still an instance called Gamemaster, I know what you think when you read this one. Let me tell you I've been playing Shadowrun for more then 15 years and I am more then aware, that there are players that tend to abuse everything, if something aint that good described that even a bonehead can understand its limiations. Regarding the spell, I think that if a magician first has to beat the most complex object resistance, and then generate even more hits, to assume the form of a critter whose base body has to be 2 point greater or less than his own, want be THAT easy. Furthermore I would propose that the magician can only shapechange with items that he or she ACTUALLY wears, and not holds in his hands.

I also feel that smuggling won't be much of an issue - not more so than with an invisibility spell. Cyberware is tricky even with the original version of the spell, but I think I'd go with drakes and rule that for all intents and purposes the ware's just not there.

As a general rule to designing spells, I try to clarify the feel and objective of a spell, instead of all the small tricks and details. You can never make the rules airtight by lawyering up. Figuring out what the player *wants* to do and okaying that is a lot simpler than specifying everything he could and could not do (though this must, of course, also be done to an extent). New and inventive applications for a spell can and will (and should) come up, and they will still have to be ruled on the go, but this way you won't have to stress about finding all the holes before play.

Making rulings on new applications will also be easier, if the player and the GM have agreed on what the spell is supposed to be used for. When a new application comes along and a ruling has to be made, it doesn't feel like the GM is changing the rules. He's making a ruling on a new situation.

Of course, if you have problem players in the group, this might not work. Personally I like to handle these problems outside the rules.

EDIT: and I agree with i101. Very productive critique

Having seen the way this spell is intended to work, I'm more inclined to allow it. I still don't like the idea of stacking multiple target restrictions for -ve drain mods, and as and when my players decide they want to start making spells, I'll tell them they can only have one apply. I have houseruled that only extant spells from the books are available at character generation.

The only thing I would change would be to make the OR of the target's gear stack, so it takes a lot of power to transform while carrying a lot of milspec gear. Basically, if the mage just wants to take his flats and his (bound) weapon focus with him, it only adds one to his threshold (bound foci are attached to your aura - might as well give them that perk since they cost karma). If he wants to take his power armour it adds four, and for his assault rifle a further three, requiring a minimum force of 7 to reach the threshold at all. High force spells should be pokey, after all.


Seeing as we already have a thread that has attracted the attention of lots of SR magic specialists, what should I do about players wanting a version of improved invisibility that affects all senses? It only increases the drain by 1, yet makes the character undetectable by ultrasound, pressure sensors, chem-sniffers and a whole bunch of other standard countermeasures to imp. invisibility. I don't like that, as I'd have to up the magical opposition for the whole team to compensate.