Three Questions:

1. What's a Non-Metahuman Sapient's edge? Didn't see it in the book and couldn't find an errata. If it's not in the book I'm hoping someone like Sinner could provide and official answer. (If I missed it a page number would be great!)

2. I saw some languages in that section I've never seen before like Hopi & Upvehu. Are these native languages for the Cenataur and Pixie repectivly?

3. Outside of the April Fool's Runner Companion preview is there a RAW way to shapeshift (or similar spell) to a meta-human or plain human?

-Thanks

Runner's Companion, Page 84

I'm assuming that they all start at 1, with the pixie starting at 2.

Hopi is a Native American language, and I'm not sure what Upvehu is.

Ran out of room, but Upvehu is a native Pixie language.

How about stating edge for Pixies...since they're the only ones with a different max? I'd agree that based on other races it would seem logical that is starts at 2 since it goes up to 7; but I don't want to take anything for granted. Is there an official answer?

(And thanks for the replies from both.)

3) Technically, by a strict reading of the (Creature) Form spell, you can (Human) Form, and possibly (Troll), (Dwarf), (ect.) Form, since using Taxonomy names humans are evolutionally the same as animals. I myself am a Creationist, and I believe the God created man in his image. But since the game is based on evolution, these spells are completely legal.

I'd agree from a scientific approach; but I'd be a little sketchy about how the game designers would feel about that. Mostly because, well, it's not the direct intent of the spell. (But a way that would be useful in certain situations.)

If someone officially tied to the game drops in, could you give me the "official" stance on the starting edge for a pixie and question #3? I'd appreciate it! One more question while I'm at it....games range from RAW to GM decides. In a RAW only game is it ok to use the spell design rules in Street Magic to alter or build spells? (The answer for non-RAW is obvious, so no need to go down that side of the road.)

Thanks!

Dude, what? I swear we've had this conversation before. I don't care if you believe pink bunny slippers breed under your bed at night, (Critter) Form is not based on evolution or taxonomy.

(Emphasis added)
Unless you're saying that humans and metahumans aren't animals, it's completely legit. You're right, it's not based on evolution or taxonomy, it's based on animals. Evolution is the theory by which we came from a rock, and taxonomy defines which animal branch we reside in. The reason I reference both is because they support the logic through which (Troll) Form, (Elf) Form, and others are legit, by the game rules.

And yes, we have had this conversation before. Unfortunately "I don't think that's how it works" doesn't really work as an arguement against a "here's the evidence why it does" approach.

EDIT: I actually believe this application of the spell breaks the spirit (REI) of the game, and I don't allow it in my campaigns, but the fact remains it is a legal application of the spell, true to the letter of the law (RAW).

You're aware that whether you believe in evolution or Creationism, humans are still animals, neh? You're trying to turn steak into beef by way of claiming you're a vegetarian.

It's RAI (Rules as Intended).
And the spell breaks the RAI when a metahuman PC has the spell to turn into another metahuman (the naga who can turn into a specific metahuman is no more broken than the grizzly bear who can do the same thing (SHAPESHIFTER POWER)), but the face-altering cyber (bio?) ware does exactly that, so I'd be inclined to disagree.

Great, but the spell doesn't break RAW, and that was my point. And I fail to see what plastic surgery has to do with this application of the spell.

I'd appreciate it if you didn't attack my beliefs because you get too upset. I do believe humans are animals, just look at the way they act. I, however, am a son of God. You can be all the monkey-fathered impulse-driven animal you want, as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

Neraph, you're the one bringing real world religious beliefs into the forums. Promoting your beliefs can be considered attacking the beliefs of others, so you need to drop such references as they are against the rules (along with real-world politics). That includes your signature too.

Shut up, all of you, willya?
This isn't the place to discuss who believes what or what is right and stuff. Just keep it down and go on with the thread.

I think what Ancient History wants to say is, that the spell is meant to be in the mystical difference between animals and humans (since it's the mystic thing that counts, IMHO). So you can create a spell to transform into another metavariant, but the Shapechange spell as it stands is for animals (like rats, dogs, non-homosapiens-apes) and stuff like that.
Is this acceptable? Y/N?

My point was that if cyberware can perform the same explicit function as "this is broken by RAI" then the spell is RAI and isn't breaking them. The cyberjunky gets his "become someone else" ability by sacrificing a small amount of essence, the mage gets it by spending 5 karma/BP and one of his 8 or 10 spell slots (and the drain of casting).

I don't see what the problem is.

In previous editions, these spells limited the caster to non-sentient animals, thus ruling out metahumans. I don't have a page or edition quote atm, though.

Actually, I just think it is ridiculous to claim the spell is in any way supporting either evolution or Creationism, or that it has jack shit to do with the critter's Latin name.

Oh geez, the religious-athiest argument again. Let's get three things straight.

1) This is a game. This is a game with magical trolls wielding as-yet uncreated heavy artillery with one hand. This stuff is about as far removed from the real world is Peanut Butter is from Llamas.

2)The RAI (not RAW, sometimes stuff slips by or is poorly worded) are written for game balance purposes first and foremost. If you must get different spells for turning into a rat then turning into a troll, this was probably done for game-balance purposes. Evidently, they thought it would be too powerful for a spell that turns you into a small cuddly creature to also be able to turn you into something with 12 body.

3)Shadowrun basically dumps on science and Christianity equally, and we all still play it. It dumps on science because magic exists in the game, and it dumps on Christianity because MAGIC EXISTS IN THE GAME. I don't see anyone getting hung up on that, but you get hung up over a sapience being a limiter on a spell description? Play the game how you want to, house rule anything you find stupid and/or offensive.

Llamas love peanut butter. Does that mean the real world loves gamers?

No, it finds them a tasty delicacy.

Though Lesser Dragons seems to have access to spells to shapechange into a human (or at least the RAW strongly hints that they do).

where?

It's in Dragons of the Sixth World, a 3rd edition sourcebook. It may have been repeated elsewhere.

Dragons are like elves², they just can do everything better, even their spells and magics and the such . .
the bgi ones can control fate/karma for crying out loud. they are as close to being the gods of the world
as it comes . . and you wonder about them being able to shift their form a bit more? honestly? really?

You know between shapshift, physical mask and magic fingers, if a naga with a couple sustaining foci wants to pass for human they can. Best thing to do might simply to have a metahuman form spell that:

1. Does not give any stat bonus and requires characters to have appropriate base stats (a Pixie that wants to shapechange into a Troll is going to need a huge increase attribute body spell to do so).
2. Requires a different spell for each metatype/variant and always produces the same form, and
3. Gives all the various metatraits upon transformation, but is unable to copy and metatype or variant a. with innate abilities that require a magic score or b. have the arcane arrestor or magic resistance traits.

Not sure what would happen with cyber/bio, though best solution might be to have one variant where it's absorbed and another where it's resized.

Typically in any innate shapeshifting powers it's absorbed, so I'd expect the same from a spell.

I guess that thread never came up in any of my pre-post searches. I really didn't intend to start this diversion and I'm going to be the one to take back control of my thread.

1. So then, that's a no to being able to have a spell that lets you take human/meta-human form, correct?

2. What does the pixies' edge start at? Starts at one or does it, like a human, have a range of 2-7?

1) That's an Ancient History doesn't like it, but has no rules to back him up, but otherwise yes. It's even hinted at in other places in the core book, as someone posted slightly earlier.

2) I'd say it'd start at 2, since the cap is at 7 and all other stats that are increased from 6 have an identical raise as well.

Actually, RAI are never written down, as that would make them RAW. We sometimes are given a brief insight into how the rules work, or the way something is worded, while saying one thing, seems to imply another. Sometimes the RAI are glaringly obvious.

Jesus wept. Get it through your head: I'm not talking about a rule. I'm talking about your completely off-the-wall need to confuse the (Critter) Form spell with the theory of evolution and taxonomy - neither of which are mentioned anywhere in the spell description!

People often compare apples and oranges, something I find rather odd. While looking and tasting quite different they are both the same in that both are fruit. Therefore, since apples and oranges are both fruit yet taste differently, I surmise that while Velcro is an infernal plot against humanity, Salmonella bacteria are not cousins of salmon. I would further posit that Theodore Roosevelt secretly enjoyed nude clog dancing.

I'd go the Talis Cat route, myself. Physical Mask and some liberal use of Increased Strength. "Holy shit, that pixie's cat just turned into a cougar! Holy shit! That pixie just changed into a troll! Oh, wait, it's just an illusion. Thought you could fool us, eh, fairy boy -" BAM "Huhu, you got knocked out by a pixie."

1. No, it´s a no to transforming into a metahuman via critter form/shapechange. Anything a RL Joe Average thinks is an animal is valid. I would rule that even custom manipulation spells couldn´t do it, because the artificially created body would interfere with the aura of the caster (GM disapproval of custom spell, GM will cite balance as reason).

2. Since only the maximum is changed, you start with an edge of 1.

You could run it like drakes. A drake's aura in human form is, well, a dragon. Or looking at a dragon in metahuman form, it's still a dragon (I recall there was even a good picture in Never Deal With a Dragon). The simulacrum doesn't have its own aura (those spells do, if they're extended duration, but they're not the same as critter auras and could not be confused as such).

Using a spell to change your shape doesn't affect your aura in the slightest. Your aura is still representative of you, not the thing you are masquerading as.

BTW, the only way a (Critter) Form spell would allow you to change into a metahuman would be if the caster well and truly believed metahumans were critters. Since the typical caster does NOT believe that, the spell would not work.

Physical Mask or perhaps a (Metahuman) Form spell would work nicely for the desired effects.

I disagree that the average person thinks that "critter" can't be a metahuman,

"Critter"
n. Informal.

1. A living creature.
2. A domestic animal, especially a cow, horse, or mule.
3. A person.

REGIONAL NOTE Critter, a pronunciation spelling of creature, actually reflects a pronunciation that would have been very familiar to Shakespeare: 16th- and 17th-century English had not yet begun to pronounce the –ture suffix with its modern (ch) sound. This archaic pronunciation still exists in American critter and in Irish creature, pronounced (krā'tŭr) and used in the same senses as the American word. The most common meaning of critter is “a living creature,” whether wild or domestic; it also can mean “a child” when used as a term of sympathetic endearment, or it can mean “an unfortunate person.” In old-fashioned speech, critter and beast denoted a large domestic animal. The more restricted senses “a cow,” “a horse,” or “a mule” are still characteristic of the speech in specific regions of the United States. The use of critter among younger speakers almost always carries with it a jocular or informal connotation.

Words cannot describe how much it kills me to read this.

I'm not sure that balance is such a big deal. We already have physical mask. For that matter Paranormal Animals of North America has an oversized Racoon with opposable thumbs. I know the rules say no paracritters but I'm not sure if an bandit would qualify as a paranormal animal. We already have the Physical Mask spell. The only real objection to a metahuman shapechange spell I can think of is not allowing stat boosts (or possibly some of the more out there meta variant traits, shapechanging into a troll and gaining thermo vision and a point of armor isn't exactly game breaking).

Don't take it to hard, a number of the posters here are from Europe. We'd do just as poorly recognizing the names of Central Asian languages.

I've run into it pretty often on this side of the Atlantic.

I'm not. The spell calls for an animal, and I supplied the spell's requirement with a human. Humans are in fact animals, a fact that I prove with taxonomy. The game is based on evolution; they make a lot of references to it. Evolution places humans in the animal column as well. Evolutionary speaking, humans are simply really smart animals. I am not confusing (Critter) Form with evolution or taxonomy, I am justifying the use of (Human) Form with the taxonomical (?) category of humans as animals, and referencing evolution (which the game is based on) as an additional reasoning method.


(Emphasis added) Good house rule. The fact remains that (Human) Form is, by a strict reading of the spell's description, a completely legal use.

Maybe you guy's don't understand. Here's the logic:

1) FACT: (Critter) Form requires any one, non-paranormal animal. This spell differs from Shapechange because Shapechange refers to the critter section later in the book (which coincidentally negates the use to become, say, an eagle, or a housecat, since they are not listed in the critter section. See above with one of my posts referencing the fact that the RAI is sometimes blatantly obvious), whereas the (Critter) Form spell only requires a single, non-paranormal animal. Not critter, animal.

2) FACT: Humans are animals. Taxonomy supports this, simple logic supports this. This cannot be disputed. Humans are not bacteria or viruses, they are not minerals, they are not vegetables (some gamers may cross this line ).

3) EXTRAPOLATION: (Human) Form is a legit spell, by reasoning above, taking into account the RULES AS WRITTEN. Rules as Intended may differ, but intent is not written. By the letter of the Law (the Law being the exact rules and how they work with SR4), choosing a human fulfills the animal requirement of the (Critter) Form spell.

Just to make sure there isn't any confusion, I don't like this application of the spell. I believe it is too powerful, and I believe it breaks the spirit of the game. However, the game's rules support this spell. (Troll) Form, (Elf) Form, and others are debatable, as one can say that the fact trolls and others cannot exist without ambient mana levels above a certain point would classify them as paranormal, but (Human) Form is an iron-clad application.

EDIT: Even the quasi-fluff on page 297 of the SR4 BBB supports this application. It was quoted earlier, but maybe you guys ignored it.



If it makes you guys feel better, my mage learned (Troll) Form from his 3/6 lesser western dragon contact. He raised me.

What about an atypical caster?


The established precedent (Human's starting Edge, Elven starting Agi and Cha, Ork's Bod and Str...) is that the base stat is adjusted the same number of points that the maximum is increased from 6. Why do you say this one instance it shouldn't be? Again, as I've said before, sometimes the spirit of the rules (RAI) is glaringly obvious.

This is a false argument. Bloody yeast has a taxonomy, that doesn't make it an animal. Just because something has a Latin name does not make it, or make it not, an animal.


Wrong! The game is based on the world we live in, evolution is just the most widely accepted theory in the natural sciences - which is all besides the point, because this has jack to do with the (Critter) Form spell.


Right! Because the real world does too.


Except a) there is no need to do this, and b) this is the most ridiculous way in the world to construct your argument. You want to hear me construct an argument? "Humans are animals. Metahumans are a subspecies of humans. Therefore, metahumans are animals." -> Even that is two sentences longer than absolutely necessary.

I always hated this. I personally wish that BBB provided a wider selection of normal and paranormal animals/critters. I have sometimes extrapolated from the existing animal stats to derive the stats of other animals, but wish I had something official (like an updated edition of the Critters pdf!).


I happen to buy this argument for real life. For my own games, I'd be comfortable using this logic to allow the spell. However, I recognize that other people have different interpretations of the verbiage that are equally valid. The RAW often uses common words in weird ways that don't refer to the real life meanings of the word. In my 'real world', a critter and an animal are the same thing, but the RAW appears to make distinctions between the two. In my world 'seeing' means observing using my eyes, but the RAW often uses 'seeing' or 'sight' on the astral which doesn't involve the eyes at all. In my world, people are animals, but I don't recall ever seeing it stated explicitly in the RAW either way. The rules concerning magic often don't make that much sense applied to the real, rational, concrete world, because a lot of them seem to be based on the perceptions or beliefs of the caster or the SR population at large. Even if I can rationally think of myself as just a [slightly] smarter than average animal, maybe my inner-most psyche doesn't accept that I'm an animal and believes it is separate, distinct, and special? That gut self-identification wouldn't have anything to do with rational thought or logical classifications. I don't know - I might not buy it in my game, but I can see how others might buy it in theirs.


I actually don't see this as so powerful, subject to GM interpretation. I wouldn't allow someone to say "I cast on myself so I look like the Daviar chick with the 'luscious gams'". But I would allow them to say "I cast on myself to look like a generic human." and allow the GM to describe what he now looks like, which may or may not fit in with the local crowd.


I would think this would make it easier to stomach, since it's completely plausible that dragons would think of humans as [barely] intelligent animals. Even if it didn't fit, there are plenty of examples where dragons get to ignore the normal restrictions to magic, so it isn't weird to think that they would've found a way to bypass this as well.

Another thought...The book references non-paranormal animals. So you could be a ferret, but not a century ferret. If you thought of humans as animals, wouldn't it be a reasonable extension of that logic to say that mages were paranormal animals? The book has no examples of 'animals' or non-paranormal animals that have a magic attribute. So changing yourself into a human would make you a MUNDANE human, who would then be incapable of sustaining the spell, and the spell would drop instantly.

You're not understanding the use of taxonomy. It does not say that since it has a "Latin name" that makes it an animal.


A recent poll actually stated that more than half of people believe in the Biblical creation account, with some people believing something called the "Gap Theory" (God used evolution for the Creation), and finally with few people believing in 100% evolution. The thing is a lot of scientists believe in evolution, and they're the ones who write the books, making it seem like most people believe it. Not neccessarily so.



I think you might be misunderstanding how my arguement was set up. it did not go like this:
1) Evolution
2) Taxonomy
3) Spell description

It went:
1) Spell description
2) Taxnomy support
3) Evolutionary side-note.

Even the core rulebook, on pages 65-67, expand the taxonomy of metahumans, further adding weight to the arguement.


Actually, I always invisioned the spells as just re-creating yourself as that metatype. For instance: look at yourself in a mirror. Imagine you have horns, about 4 feet taller, and like 100-150 lbs heavier. That's what the spell would show. Or: look at yourself in a mirror. Imagine slightly leaner, with pointy ears and almond-shaped eyes. That's what your (Elf) Form spell would create.

In game, facial recognition 'ware would still work, but probably with a penalty, simulating the different effect having horns, more teeth, and slightly different features would represent.

So you would permit a mage to shapeshange into the finest specimen of his race? At the cost of one sustaining focus?

No. I would allow a mage to (Human) Form into the finest specimen of the human race, and he can damn well foot the bill himself if he chooses to.

The thing about it is the Shapechange spell refers to the critter section. the (Critter) Form spell, despite the name, looks for ONE ANIMAL. Any animal, and just one type of them. (Coyote) Form, (Bear) Form, and (Troll) Form all fulfill this requirement. They only allow the caster to assume the animal listed, and only the animal listed. You could not use (Eagle) Form to assume the form of a cat, and you cannot use (Troll) Form to take the form of an elf.

EDIT: Maybe this will let you guys sleep well at night. As page 297 of the SR4 BBB states, some dragons can use magic to assume metahuman form. So let's make a variant of (Critter) Form called (Metahuman) Form. It has the same basic rules, including DV, range, and duration as (Critter) Form, but only allows the caster to change into one specified metahuman form.

The thing is, using (Critter) Form or (Metahuman) Form will still result in (Troll) Form.

Which would allow you to turn into a troll. Not a perfect troll ("finest specimen") but a generic troll. And you'd be the same characteristics every time (it's why Big D always looked like himself in metahuman form, or why shapeshifters can be identified when shapechanged, etc). If you want your (Troll) Form spell to make you a troll that has purple spikey hair, then it does. Every time.



Shapeshifters and drakes do gain a (small) benefit to changing from one form to another. I see no reason why (Troll) Form couldn't increase your strength and body by 4; though if the (Critter) Form spell doesn't change anything, then (Troll) Form wouldn't either (Shapechange does give physicals; I don't have the book with (Critter) Form in it or I can't find it).

No I'd make him cast Increased Attribute for every stat point he picks up, require that he gets his stats up to the racial minimums before he can take that form, and quite possibly rule that he looses the benefit of any cyberware (though probably not bio) while in shifted form. If he isn't picking up "free" stat points, then I don't see shifting metatypes to be a bit issue (barring some crazy meta variant ability).