I was wondering if possession-based traditions can invoke a spirit. 'Cause, y'know, that'd be NUTS.

The only significant difference between possession and materialization traditions seem to be just that one power the spirits have. I see no reason you can't invoke.

You can invoke. The trick is that the spirits you invoke cannot Materialize and need to Possess a suitable vessel to be able to fully interact with the physical world.

Troll Shaman Self-Possessed with a Greater Form Spirit... I see crazy things happening...

What exactly? Invoking isn't that hot for non-optimised characters to begin with (thanks to the absurd drain) and it's actually worse for possession traditions, as you don't get a free reach bonus (the spirit is bigger, which doesn't help in the physical world and the vessel is just as big as before).

He'd basically be superman. XD It's ridiculous. I know it's not the most absurd thing you can do, but still.

The limit on invoking spirits is the heavy drain you suffer. Only heavily twinked characters can expect to walk away from invoking a F8 spirit without suffering drain. For the same drain risk you could summon (but not invoke) a significantly larger spirit to possess you. Generally you'll be better off with the higher force than a lower level invoked spirit.

Well, the real drain comes in the Binding Test(intending to Invoke), not in the Invoking Test. The twinking that can really come into play is when you roll well on the Invoking Test and get lots of extra points on the physical stats, which then beef up the physical bonus to the host when possessed. yes, you do need to roll well.

Even if you don't, Invoking brings a lot of goodies that high Force doesn't, such as LOS powers becoming LOS(A) powers that can cover an area and ignore friendlies the way smartlink can.

Great Form plant spirit

no more need be said

Yagé gonna come and getchoo!

Just summoning a spirit of 50% higher force will make a possessed mage reach his attribute maximums anyways, so he doesn't even get those points most of the time.
Possession offers some neat and powerful tricks, but this isn't one of them. Invoking is strictly worse for possession traditions than for materializing traditions.

Oh right; I forgot about racial maximums... Well, possession still seems kinda nuts.

Wasn't there some guidance that racial max didn't apply to possession buffs?

Yes. From what has been posted officially, there is no effective max. (There is a max, but as far as I can tell it is never a limit.)

Yours,
Joel

So it is as crazy as I thought it was!

From my experience, Possession traditions require a lot more planning in the short term than Materialization traditions. After initiating for Channeling to keep control and Invoking, then things start getting wild. Once you are able to invest yourself with a Force 8 or so, you can shrug full auto fire, sniper rounds etc. At that point, your biggest danger is going to be a mage with Banishing, but the high Force means that there will likely be a high DV to soak for each attempt.

Whether or not it is worse for possession traditions than for materialization traditions does not tell us whether or not it is a good thing in and of itself. Just because one earns $200,000 a year, doesn't mean that someone else's salary of $150,000 a year is of no use.

Although you speak of Summoning a spirit of 50% higher Force, I assume you use the 50% higher Force to match the Drain of Binding and Invoking a spirit, which is where the 50% increase comes. Simply possessing oneself with a Summoned spirit has its advantages, specifically speed and less Drain than Binding, but the summoner does not get the advantages of a bound spirit. The Drain from Binding a 50% higher Force spirit is the same, on average, as the Drain from Binding with intent to Invoke. If we are comparing Bound spirit to Bound, Invoked spirit, then the following applies.

The Attribute maximum in Possession is (character Attribute + spirit Attribute) * 1.5. So, Possessing an Attribute 3 mage with a Force 6 spirit always gives Attribute 9. For the same Drain, Possessing an Attribute 3 mage with an Invoked Force 4 spirit gives Attribute 7 plus extras up to a maximum of 10. This doesn't seem significantly higher, and in fact in some cases the Invoking Test will not result in a combined Attribute as high as 9. But ...this is available to the mage even if he can only summon up to Force 4 spirits.

Invoking allows the mage to access many of the advantages of a spirit beyond his Summoning limit, such as an extra optional power and higher Attribute values. It also allows for a spirit to spread its LOS powers into an area, for example to Engulf every opponent, rather than just one. It makes the spirit harder to Banish. It gives the spirit a unique power that is really spiffy.

Invoking rocks, even for Possession traditions.

Absolutely correct. I stand by the fact that invoking is not all that hot to begin with and gets even worse with possession traditions, though. I'll explain below.


- You don't get an extra optional power. You get the one optional power back that summoning a regular spirit 3 points of force higher would have given you anyways.
- If you actually allow the maximum to be calculated from an amalgamated "magician-human hybrid" then yes, you can technically get higher attribute values. That way lies madness, though, so you really shouldn't.
- If an opponent tries to banish your spirit instead of simply attacking, then that's a good thing! Banishing is really bad, so any way that entices your enemies into doing that is better than having them manabolt you instead.

Basically you get Engulf as an Area-Effect, which is kinda nice (but you lose a few attack dice and DV in the process, so grenades usually work better) and the unique power, which is usually the only reason to invoke at all.
You lose effectiveness in all other powers (thanks to the lower force) and are a lot more vulnerable, as the really important hardened armor is now quite a lot lower.
That's a reasonable, but not especially powerful substitute, if you would get it for free, but you actually have to pay a metamagic for it. Compare to quickened "increase Reflexes", "Increase Willpower" and "Increase Drain Attribute" for Quickening or Extended Masking or double the counterspelling dice thanks to Shielding and Invoking is actually a bottom-tier choice.

I've seen several people on dumpshock refer to spirits as having hardened armor before, and I can't find any mention of it in my books. Where is it at?

You do get an extra if you summon the biggest you can and then Invoke.
So, Invoking sucks, except for the parts that don't suck, which you shouldn't allow?
Having a higher Force spirit in you will not entice Banishing attempts.
You are not losing the attack dice if you are using all the spirit you can summon, anyway. And if you want to use grenades, you need the skill, otherwise you are bound to hurl a few into your own party. Engulf doesn't miss. It may not hit them, but it won't hit your guys, either.
Not (broken record here) if you are summoning the most you can summon anyway.
All that Quickening going on costs extra Karma, every time. A quickened spell is dropped, you need to spend more Karma. A spirit is blasted/banished, you summon another one. Extended Masking takes two Initiations to get to. Hmm... OK, a Possession mage would go Channeling first before Invoking, but still. I will grant that Shielding is a spiffy Metamagic. But for any one of these, why can't you have both?

I agree with you that there are many metamagics which may be more appropriate for a mage focused in a particular direction. I believe that a mage concentrating on spirits, even possession, Invoking is an important and useful metamagic. I wish there were a quick way to test our assertions. Otherwise we will just go around in circles.

Shadowrun 4 Anniversary edition p. 295(Big Black Book p. 288), Immunity to Normal Weapons. It states that against Normal Weapons, a spirit's Armor equals Force * 2, PLUS this armor has the Hardened Power.

Ah, that'd be why, I'm using the old SR4 book. Wow. So a force 6 spirit would be immune to anything that didn't do at least 12 damage, if I'm reading it right?

Correct...

Here is the disconnect, from what I see though... if you are summoning a Force 6 Spirit, why would I NOT Summon and Invoke/Bind a Force 6 Spirit, assuming that I could do so?

Yes, I MIGHT be able to summon a force 9 spirit, though the drain would now be physical, and why exactly would I do that? Even at Force 6 Invoked, the Drain is still Stun, and I now have a more powerful force 6 spirit than you do... assuming that you actually summon the Force 9 spirit and don't stroke out, then youy have a very powerful spirit, but it is not bound and you do not have access to all of the bound spirit abilities... the Force 6 Invoked and bound spirit (still stun drain remember) is infinitely more useful than your force 9 spirit summoned on the instant...

I am going for the invoked spirit every time if I have the option...

Keep the Faith

It might be a good idea for you (& most in this thread) to actually read the Possession rules?

I will give you a hint:

No mention of increasing Augmented Maximums either. Go figure.

Indeed... that is exactly what it says, with no elaboration...

This has been gone over many times, and all the dev's which have spoken on the subject say it become (vessel's attributes + spirit's) * 1.5 = augmented maximum.
Effectively no limit.

I Remember seeing this at some point, I would have to agree...

Unless it is included in official errata, that is a house rule.

As written, it is the spirits Force + the vessels Physical Attribute, subject to the vessels augmented maximums.

Yes, if you get to have your cake and eat it too, that would be better, obviously. I never argued that having Invocation is somehow worse than not having Invocation. I said that Invocation is worse than whatever else you could have gotten for the karma, like spirits of a simply higher force.
Yes, a character having Invocation is better than another which doesn't, all other things being equal. If that's your line of argument, be my guest, I guess...


No, Invoking isn't all that good and using a horrible houserule one of the developers once mentioned is a worse cure than the disease. Doing it that way is not correct and I just advised you that it's a really bad houserule as well, is all.


See above. While technically true, that's not a useful assertion. It' comparing apples to oranges. Yes, a character just being up Invocation on another one is obviously better, but he's worse off if he instead used the karma to buy something useful. Which is the point that actually matters.


That's.... not true. At all. A destroyed force 4 quickened spell costs you 4 karma, which is 10 grand. Binding (and invoking, if you want) a force 5 spirit costs you 2500 (equivalent to a point of karma) every single time, even if it doesn't get disrupted. Quickening is more likely to be cheaper than binding spirits.


No, Invokation isn't the worst metamagic, far from it. But it's not good, either, not even for a summoner. And most of the power of a summoner doesn't come from the fact that he can have 6 spirits (even invoked ones) bound and on call (a drone rigger can do the same), but from the fact that summoning (not binding) creates something with real value (a spirit) for no cost and no risk as often as you like.

Per the Shadowrun 4th Ed. FAQ: "No. Both powers represent a merging (temporary with Possession, permanent with Inhabitation) of the character's physical body with the form of the spirit. For the duration of the possession/inhabitation, the dual entity's maximum augmented attributes are equal to (character's attribute + spirit's Force) x 1.5, rounded down. "

The FAQ is definitely an official document.

All characters, critters, ect have the same augmented max (racial max * 1.5) so that makes since. However this isn't really important since you will always get the entire spirits force added to your physical attributes anyway because character attribute + spirits force is always less than (character attribute + spirits force) * 1.5.

The only time this rule really comes into play is if you have a possessed mage with cyberware, spells, or adept abilities that improve physcal attributes. In that case it only matters if the characters attribute + spirit force is less than the racial maximum for that characters race. For example a mage with a reaction of 1 (5) summons up a force 3 spirit and gets possesed. The racial max for the reaction attribute is 6 and augmented max is 9 until the character is possesed. Then the attribute because a 4 (character attribute 1 + spirit force 3) and the augmented max becomes 6 (character attribute 1 + spirit force 3) * 1.5. In this case the 4 bonus points to reaction can no longer be used because the augmented max is 6 and 4 extra points would give an 8 attribute. So once the mage is possesed the reaction attribute becomes 4(6).

No, the damage must exceed the hardened armor or it will have no effect. In addition use the modified hardened armor rating so armor penetration counts.

Your damage with net successes (not bonuses from automatic fire) minus the armor penetration of the weapon must exceed the hardened armor rating.

So a weapon that does 12P +0 AP will not effect a force 6 spirit. 12 >= 12 - 0

A weapon that does 10P -4 AP will effect a force 6 spirit 12 < 10 - (-4)

A weapon that does 15P + 3 AP will not effect a force 6 spirit. 12 >= 15 - 3

Once it is determined if a weapon can effect a target with hardened armor add bonuses from automatic fire to determine the final damage.

Money is an easy commodity to come by in Shadowrun, and is not equated out to BP except at character creation... comparing them after the fact is not a useful argument (Apples to Oranges and all that)...

Expending KARMA is more costly to the Mage than expending Money is... whenever you are forced through a ward, your quickened spells likely are destroyed, your quickened spells can be dispelled, they can be attacked... etc, etc, etc. If you are having to expend 4 Karma on a weekly basis to ensure that your Quickened Reflexes stay up, then you are wasting Karma, whereas the Summoner is just wasting money... an easily acquired commodity in Shadowrun...

Again... Nuyen does not equate to Karma, EVER, after the game starts...

At that point, which is worse? I would say that Quickening quickly takes a back seat to Invoking...

1) The FAQ in multiple locations contradicts the Rules as Written
2) The FAQ frequently increases the unclarity of the rules

That being said, in this case, the FAQ adds additional rules to those in the book. Because it is not errata, it remains a "house rule". Further, under the assumption you actually use the official FAQ for some forsaken reason, it actually supports the primary aspect of my quote - possessed creatures Physical Attributes are equal to their base Attributes + the spirit's Force, opposed to the spirit's Physical Attributes as claimed.

You'd think I'd have learned by now just not argue with you because it's like talking at a wall, but I guess I'm a slow learner.

This is what I say in a nutshell: The FAQ is official, not house rules, as it is a publication of CGL. Your opinions on what the FAQ does to the clarity of the rules are just that: opinions.

Don't bitch that nothing official supports a position and then bury your head in the sand when something official does, just because you don't like it. Simply admit you don't like it and ignore it.

I conceed a point when I feel someone else is correct, & has been able to provide support for their position; yes, it has happened on several occasions. This is not one of those times.

The FAQ is not a rules document, it is a Questions & Answers document. It's purpose is to clarify rules & other potentially confusing aspects of the game. It's purpose is not to alter or add rules to the game - that is the domain of the Errata.

If the FAQ contradicts the published rules / errata, the latter takes precedence. This is (granted, to a lesser degree) one of those times.

It is because of multiple instances like this, & apparant lack of support for the FAQ (3 years sence it was last updated) that I, on numerous occasions, have strongly suggested people to consider it a non-existant document; it does not do it's job, increasing the confusion it was intended to clarify.

As things stand, everytime this issue has come up and it has been addressed by anyone from CGL, the ruling in the FAQ has been cited. If you don't like it, don't include it in your game, however it IS the rules as intended. As with any rule however, if you don't think it improves the fun factor at your gaming table then don't use it.

I have stayed out of the discussion because I am away from home and my books and won't be back to them for days, and don't want to quote things incorrectly.

It does seem strange to me, however, that a document written by the people who wrote the rules, with the express purpose, as you acknowledge, of clarifying those rules, should be considered as anything but official. The authors have authority. The authors have told us how to work the Attributes of a combined being. It is consistent with the rules as a whole(which, if necessary, I plan to argue with references when I get home by next week). That is good enough for me.

The fact that the FAQ may have problems, contradictions, or errors in it should not constitute proof that it is not official. If that were the case, then I would hazard a guess that every manual for every game ever printed is 'unofficial'. Now, I wholeheartedly agree with you that inconsistencies and errors that have been present for years and not corrected despite interminable arguments such as this one are a crying shame. As much as I enjoy the new material coming out, I wish the authors would spend some more time fixing the books they have written. Or at least addressing the questions which keep coming up. A FAQ is supposed to do that, but it needs way more in it than it currently has. The authors know what the questionable areas are. They could fix a huge batch of them with just a few days work on the FAQ. "Hello!! Put off the next book for a week and answer our questions."

Maybe they think we enjoy interminable arguments on Dumpshock?

As if we'd stop arguing on Dumpshock just because our questions were answered? HA!

I did not say it was not official - I said it should just be considered as non-existant, as it does the exact opposite of it's intended purpose.

As I have pointed out, it has not been adjusted in 3 years & it contradicts the Rules as Written. When a contradiction occurs within the published rules / errata and an FAQ document, the published rules / errata takes precedence, as the FAQ is not a rules document, but a clarification document. Further, the newest printing & errata of Street Magic (the section in question) is much more recent than the FAQ.


I don't give a shit what the Rules as Intended are. I care about the Rules as Written. When they do not match, the written rules take precedence, because the intent can be unclear, unkown, or any number of other things - for example, only those that review these forums know the intended rules in this instance. There is a huge number of players who don't view here; most probably don't know Dumpshock even exists.

When there is a discrepency between the RAI & RAW, it can be fixed in one of two methods - clarification or alteration. If you are clarifying a rule, an FAQ is sufficient. If you are altering the rule, it needs to be in Errata.

In this instance, it was not included in Errata, & thus cannot be RAW.



And as a side note, I only give a damn about RAW when debating it on the forums. As most here should know, I have a number of issues with the RAW, which I fix in my games through House Errata.

But ... but ...it doesn't matter one whit what you give a shit about. Your opinion does not outweigh the rules and the clarification of those rules that come from the authors. It is not we who use those rules and interpretations who are house ruling, but as you yourself admit, it is you who are house ruling. Go ahead... it is everyone's right to do so. But do not disparage as house rulers who don't follow the right way those who use the rules and the interpretations of those rules from the authors.