i think it says somewhere to round down . .
but i am at work, no books etc.

Rounding 0,5 normally or up means that it becomes 1, so you would have a full attribute point, but the book explicitly says that you round down in case of augmented attributes:

Ah, i knew it was in there somewhere.
And in SR3, it says to allways round up, even if your augmented maximum is 10.1 you round up to 11.
Which makes getting exceptional attribute actually really usefull if your natural maximum is an even number.
for example the human. you have a maximum of 6. you get exceptional attribute. your new natural max is 7.
your old augmented maximum was 9. but 7/2=3,5. So new maximum is 7+3,5=10,5. And with rounding up, it's 11.

My first and most basic houserule for SR: Always round normally. This means that 0.5 rounds to 1, and applies to augmented maximums too.

Personally I like a "round in favor of the character." So F/2 drain rounds down and augmented maximums round up.

Thanks for the quote, at least i wasn't trying to claim you round them up, no rounding has the same effect as rounding down so iwasn't that badly of.
Was at work so had to go by memory.

So, shapechange into an orc, then into a troll, then into a bear, then into an elephant, then into a small dragon?

If one of my players wanted to twink like that I would allow it, however they'd have to maintain each and every casting of the spell, not to mention the drain. In the end that would be -10 just from the sustaining penalty. Have fun with that.

I actually liked the fact that odd-Force spells are a little tougher on the caster. Hits opposing spellcasters too, so it's neither a boon nor a bane to PCs specifically

This makes it more draining to reach the interesting thresholds. 3 for cameras and 5 for all technological devices.

Actually, no it doesn't. Floor(F/2) is less than Ceiling(F/2) for odd numbers.

Huh?

3/2=1.5 Rounded UP =>2
3/2=1.5 Rounded DOWN =>1

2>1

Am I missing something?

Oh, I was actually off -- you can't go from a Grizzly Bear (Body of 9) to an Elephant (Body of 12). The chain would have to go like...

Start where appropriate for you and your body...
Dwarf (Body of at least 2)
Orc (Body of at least 4)
Tiger (Body 6)
Cow (Body 8)

Wyvern (Body 9)
Gorgon (Body 11)
Or, if access to water is available, only one step for a Great White Shark (Body 10)

Elephant/Hydra (Body 12)
Eastern Dragon (Body 14)
Western Dragon (Body 15)
Juggernaut (Body 17)

A Great Dragon is listed as +10 Body, so go for a Great Dragon based off a Wyvern (which is why I listed Wyvern earlier, not Grizzly Bear) for a Body of 19, which would allow you to get a...
Roc/humpback whale (Body 20)
Then a Great Dragon based off a Hydra would be body 22 which would allow a...
Blue Whale (Body 24)
Then a Great Dragon based off a Western Dragon for the "ultimate" Body of 25.

Of course, you do get to add the rating of the spell to base attributes, which might allow you to skip something along the chain or even get higher. I'm thinking that a Body of 30 is doable. Buy nothing but sustaining foci.

Yes. Floor(F/2) is "round down." It's less draining when you round down.

"This" referred to the propoesd Houserule of Rounding UP. So we are on the same page.

The quote tag is amazing, because your post was just after one that was in direct reply to mine I had assumed it was at least partially directed at what I said.

Do Wyvern, Hydra, Gorgon, Dragon, or Juggernaut count as a critter and not a para-critter?

Of course they are paracritters and as such they are not suitable for the spell.

Thats what I thought. I've not read Running Wild yet so I wasn't sure if there was something that changed that would affect the spell.

I haven't looked into Running Wild for that either but anything that does not exist in the real world is a paracritter.

[Edit]Just checked, they are either Dracoforms which aren't normal animals or paranormal animals which is just another word for paracritter.[/Edit]

Oh, darn, I missed that part when glancing over Shapechange. So, it looks like a Body of 12 is as high as you can go? Unless your GM lets you make a custom version of Shapechange that allows paracritters so that you can go all the way up to the Great Western Dragon body of 25.

Dwarf (Body of at least 2)
Orc (Body of at least 4)
Tiger (Body 6)
Cow (Body
Great White Shark (Body 10) -- you'll be gasping for air here unless you do this near a large body of water, luckily elephants can swim
Elephant (Body 12)

Technically you can't shapeshift to "great dragon" as "great dragon" is the same critter as "dragon." It'd be like Shapeshift (King).

Great dragons just have higher stats than normal dragons for plot reasons.

I still say that if one of my players wants to cast, then recast, then recast, as you have suggested that I would allow them. However, each casting would need to be sustained for it to hold.

Just making sure I understand the earlier conversation about attribute caps and possession:

• I summon a force 10 spirit and tell it to possess a random guy on the street (Bod 3 Will 3).
• The spirit has to win an opposed test to possess. After successfully possessing, he can only buff the physical stats up to the attribute max for his race (9).
• If I kill the random guy first and have the spirit possess the corpse, the spirit gets to use it's full force rating for it's stats.

Right?

Correct.
As you are not possessing a living body anymore, but inhabiting a dead one.

Are the possessing spirit's stats equal to force, or corpe's previous stats plus force?

I would say just Force.

Well, in the case of a humunkulus, i think there was some mentioning of barrier rating . .
and we are again at the question, what kind of barrier rating human body(parts) have . .

Well its a game balance thing. Especially when possession traditions initiate and get channeling. Think of the absurd body+immunity to normal weapons+ access to counterspelling with no loss of control. Even a modest summon turns a character into something that can only be stopped by things that will slaughter with no effort the rest of the party. It is troll tankX2, especially if the mage is a troll. Game balance does not need to make sense.

Has it ever been confirmed (no the weird FAQ doesn't count) that the entity that results from the possession of a living vessel can only get attributes as high as the host's augmented maximums?

As I see it, the host and the spirit cease to exist for the duration of the possession and the composite entity simply gets attributes equal to Host Attribute+Force.

Seeing as how that FAQ was published by CGL, written by some the authors (or past authors) here on DS that you are asking about, that would be a confirmation. However, if you choose to ignore the FAQ I don't know what type of confirmation you are going to get as it was in fact put specifically into the FAQ.

Its kind of like saying: I know there's an official answer, but I don't like that document so it doesn't count. Besides that document, is there an official answer though?

In truth, do what I always do: use what works best for your game. There isn't a set of rules out there, be it a game, religious edicts, or set of laws, whose interpretation isn't argued about. That a 300ish page book with setting and other content has rules people argue about is to be expected; and does not mean it is bad writing. Just as with religious sects (who choose to follow edicts a certain way), or different states (who have different sub-rules, all under the same national set), work something out with your friends and go with that.

Well, if the FAQ didn't blatantly contradict RAW in at least two places*...it might actually be taken seriously.

*At least one uses an example that is contradictory to an example in the book.

Meh.

See, in this regard I really don't give a good god damn if it contradicts something. The point was to try to answer questions, some of those answers were done via rules changes/contradictions. Boo-hoo, things changed; it doesn't mean the document doesn't exist as the official answer.

As I said, if you don't like them, don't use them. If you do like them, enjoy.

I have house rules I use, and things from the FAQ that I don't agree with. That is how I run my game. But, to ask for an 'official' answer while saying that the 'official' document (which contains the answer) doesn't count is kind of silly in my opinion. You can disagree with an 'official' rule; just don't ask for another 'official' rule on the same subject when you do disagree with it. If you disagree with an 'official' rule, figure out what works for you and your group. Dakka uses the 'its a new entity, so old maximums don't apply' interpretation; good for him. It isn't what the official rule says, but that's the choice he gets to make; use what makes sense to him, or use what CGL published. Until CGL redoes the FAQ, you won't get another official rule on the subject.

The point of a FAQ is not to make rules changes, the point of a FAQ is to clarify the rules as they exist. If its rules changes that are required, then it's called errata.

When the FAQ (when assumed to be official rules) contradicts RAW (official rules) you haven't solved the issue of "how does this rule work?" as both "official" sources don't say the same thing.

FAQs are only supposed to clarify things that are unclear. They are not there to correct something that may have been put into a rulebook erroneously. For that you publish an erratum

Dang Draco18s was quicker.

I've seen that argument before and don't care. If you are willing to accept it if they change the name to Errata instead of FAQ then that is just being pedantic. People asked questions, frequently, they answered them using a rules revision. Who really cares if the naming of the document isn't scientifically accurate?

I don't care what they call it, I don't even care for some of whats in it. Whether they labeled it correctly or not, the FAQ that is out is what CGL has put out to clarify the rules. Some of those clarifications contradict the original writing, I don't care.

The point I was making to begin with is, there is an 'official' answer to the question. Discounting that source for whatever reason (proper naming, disagreeing with the rules, etc), doesn't change that it is THE official update. You won't find another official update since that one is already there.

I know people don't like the FAQ for various reasons. I disagree and don't use some of what is in there because it doesn't suit my games. Doing that is your choice, just like mine. It doesn't change that it is the official update.

Ironically, the core point I was making is just do what works for you and your group since there is no series of rules that won't be argued or interpreted in different ways.

I'm glad we have people around who know exactly the full scope of what a FAQ is. As I'm posting I see Caadium is beating me to my point just without the snark.

No it's really not, an errata is an actual change to the rules and means we get a new updated pdf(those who have bought them) of the book and the next printing of the book will have that rule.
FAQ means none of those thinks and is only meant to answer questions people might have about the rules in the books.
FAQ does not change the rules and when it contradicts the rules in the latest version of the book, its just wronk and as just isn't worth a damm.

Or maybe it does and is.

No its just not worth a damn to people who don't like what they hear. If you want to nit pick the terminology as an excuse to ignore what they said go for it. But you don't need an excuse just say I don't like that rule or ruling and I'm doing it differently. People asked they officially answered, if you don't like it don't use it. Whether they call it errata of Faq it does not matter either way except to people who want to create an excuse for why they can ignore it, but since it is your game you don't need an excuse just ignore it.

So if one of our political parties or even the administration decides to propose that roleplaying games should be illegal, would it make us criminals? No, only if in our respective jurisdictions someone actually made a law against RPGs, and this law held up in court. It is the same way with FAQ versus errata. It has nothing to do with whether I agree with the hot air from the FAQ or not.

That metaphor is simply incredible. I'm not even sure you're addressing me, but the point is that the FAQ, the errata, the RAW, whatever… they're all equally valid. That is, they all matter only as far as you like them and they work at your table. Done.

They really aren't though... Laws carry more weight than opinios do... Try telling a Judge that it is your opinion that murder is okay and see how far you get...

RAW is the LAW, Errata are changes to that Law, and FAQ's are merely Opinion (especially when they very obviously diverge from the Law)

Keep the Faith

Again with the metaphors. It's just a game, it's all opinion.

Funny, I've never had problem one with breaking RAW, but the FAQ of any particular gamemaster (with input from the players) is far more respected. I truly pity RAWdoggers that try to stick with rules even when doing so fucks you in the end (yes, that end).

There is need for rude language. What we do in our games has nothing to do with what the rules say. In a discussion about the rules only the rules are important. If we were talking about personal houserules that is a completely different story. Of course we have never played it that the mage gets -2 to initiative tests for sustaining Increase Reflexes, but the rules say otherwise.

Amazing... I have not had any problems using the RAW either...
Respect is Earned, and not Demanded... remember that please... I don't use profanity to talk about things in regards to you, please refrain from doing so with me... We will get along a lot better...

Keep the Faith

Oh god. Why is everyone so sensitive? No one's demanding respect, and that's the general 'you'.

One whole page without getting personal would be a treat.

I draw the line at profanity, it is totally unnecessary... It should not come as a surprise; it is not the first time that I have done so... We can have perfectly reasonable conversations and debate without resorting to profanity... and for the record, Respect goes both ways... I have lost some of the respect that I had for HappyDaze because of his choice to use profanity (It was not needed to get his point across after all). It is okay though, I am sure that he doesn't really mind...

Just Sayin'

Keep the Faith