Possession actually also uses the same number and types of dice rolls.

Anyway, my point is this:

"You differentiate them by role play, not by rules." is false and goes down the road of "BadFun".

The rules in SR3 make shamans and hermetics (and the others) profoundly different. You cannot be a hermetic in SR3 who communes with nature to summon spirits on the fly. The mechanics don't support it. And while you can be a shaman who wears a business suit and plans everything prior to stepping in the car, you will be at a mechanical disadvantage compared to a shaman who does not (because of the mechanics). There *are* mechanical differences, even if they incorporate the same dice rolls, and these mechanics are made fundamental to the traditions themselves.

silva asked if that fundamental integration can be re-created in 5th edition, because silva had fun playing like that. The response silva got was "you're doing it wrong". No, silva is not doing it wrong. He's having fun, and he'd like to know if the rules will help or hinder that. Given the responses I've seen here, I'd have to judge the answer is 'no, the mechanics do not support playing the way that he enjoys', but it would be swell if someone who knows the system better than I were to give him a clear answer, rather than accuse him of a lack of imagination.

It is only as Bland as you allow it to be...

We won't come to a consensus here, but no worries.

So I am now having the wrong Kind of Fun here? It is pretty much what you just said.

We enjoy profoundly different Traditions in SR4 as well, but you apparently do not want to put in the time to codify the Tradition Practices and Beliefs. That is your choice (and not a BadFun one either), but know that not everyone shares your view of things.

In SR5, he would need to codify the Practices and Beliefs of the various Traditions he wishes to use, and if he likes, move some abilities for the spirits around to differentiate Spirits from Elementals (I don't see the need, but he might), if he feels the need. I never said he was doing it wrong. I said that you do not need a Mechanical Difference to make it work (the difference is all in the Fluff and can be resolved descriptively). If you do prefer that, it is easy enough.

If your fun is derived from telling other people they need to play how you do, yeah, I'd call that badwrongfun.

I don't care what you do at your own table, but if someone asks for advice on running his and your advice is 'your way is awful', that's an issue. (Using 'you' in the general sense here, not pointing at TJ in particular).



I don't play SR4 for a variety of reasons, so it's not exactly an option for me If I did play, I probably would.




I won't say this is the Dumpshock I'm used to, but it's the one I was hoping to see Thank you for giving the answer. I haven't seen Silva post anything in a bit, but I hope that helps him/her with his/her game.

I think we will not agree because you just absurdely denies its defaults actually .

I perfectly recognize that UMT is definitely simpler to play.

I deny that you're not trading variety for simplicity doing so, since your elementals and nature spirits are just know cosmetically different (for example) both rule AND fluff wise.

No worries then.





Well, okay then.







No worries.

We do not trade Variety for Simplicity. In fact, we expand it. It does take some effort and research to make a believable Tradition, but I am happy to expend the effort in this regard. The beauty is that I need make no Mechanical Changes to represent whatever Tradition I happen to be codifying at the time.

The practices and Beliefs are what make a Tradition different, not the way in which the Summoned creatures are mechanically represented.

Yes, and that's how you see gun that makes them different, not the mechanical differences. Assault canon or hold-out should have same stat', just roleplay them coorectly .

That will be my last post I think, argument is circling, and you're just denying the obvious. Of course, traditions look much more different when they allow you to summon vastly different creatures in vastly different ways (with a quite streamlined SR3 mechanics encompassing all traditions). That's what make a shaman or a mage behave so differently, and voodoo so much more different. Roleplaying differently is a thing, but nothing compared to having to use your conjuring in totally different ways (always with quite similar mechanics, soooo streamlined), to evaluate situation differently, to prepare a run differently.

That's what felt different for so many people and that you pretend to ignore. You can just say that we are bad roleplayers, which is basically what you're doing from the beginning, or you can try to consider you missed something. But denying that there was a different feel between traditions is absurd. I said it, no consensus to come obviously, so last post.

Not pretending anything... Nothing about UMT stops you from doing exactly as you indicate.
Have a great day.

Can't hold.

Yes, nothing in UMT where spirits have the same stats, powers, abilities, prevents me from playing a guy whose tradition require using vastly different spirits with vastly different powers and ability.

Have a great day too.

I've never had a problem with UMT being in any way limiting to variety of traditions, and neither have any of my players. My shamans have never felt like they aren't sufficiently different from my mages. Why? Because they are treated differently in terms of roleplay and the way the game world reacts to them.

And neither I nor any of my players have ever stopped and said to ourselves, "You know, the fact that the world deals one way with shamans and another way with mages is great and all, but unless we roll the dice differently for each different tradition, it just doesn't feel right."

There is no functional difference between a fire elemental and a fire spirit, so why should they have mechanical differences? Sure, a shaman typically asks a spirit for help while a mage typically compels the spirit, but they both shoot fire at your enemies in the exact same way. Moreover, if that alone is the basis for mechanical differentiation, then congratulations - you've already got mechanical differentiation in game! Mages use their Logic for drain, while shamans use Charisma - a perfect abstraction of how mages compel service and shamans request it!

~Umi

I think everyone is relieved by the fact that, while you defend UMT, you and your players have fun playing it. But that's a totally irrelevant point about the fact that traditions felt different with SR3, especially they felt different and mages and shamans felt different. And the part of your comment I'm quoting specifically highlight the problem.

First of all, spirit of the flames, if they existed in SR3, weren't summonable by shamans, but by wujen (there was not spirit of fire). And there were vast "functional differences" between them, bot fluff and crunch wise, because, well, they specifically weren't the same. While SR3 fluff explained that stunball could have many different names which represented the same thing, it was pretty clear that a mountain spirit, a spirit of the rocks (gnomes) or an earth elemental were different entities, with different abilities, raw power and limitations. Spirits of the elements (wujen) were the most fearsome, having most elementals stats and more powers, but could be summoned in a very limited amount of places, typically almost never in town. Elemental had high stats too, but had to be called during long costly rituals, but less powers, except they could help sorcery mainly. Finally, nature spirits were belonging to precise domain from which they got their power. All this "crunch" was supported by a strong "fluff" telling how much spirit of the element needed aboundance of the element they came from to display this raw power, how much elemental were getting this raw power from the volunty of a mage and the symbolism of the ritual material, and how nature spirit were expression of the domain powers.

So there were huge, fluff supported, differences between the different kinds of spirits. Differences that changed the feel of the game, the character's options and behavior. It just hadn't the same feel. Whether your apparently astounding roleplay satisfy you doesn't change the fact that the feel is not the same.

Oh, and BTW, everybody resisted drain with charisma. Soooooo streamlined.

FOR YOU, Freudgo...
Others obviously have different experiences.

That's with a Q.

Obviously no, it's just that you don't realize or remember how the feel was different, and you're satisfied with just roleplaying mage and shaman differently. That's fine, but that explains why you misunderstand what the original post talked about.

I always thought the totem benefits in SR1-5 are what make shamans different than mages (not so much the mechanics). Not all Shamans in UMT had those though. In SR2 though you did have the case corner situation of a guy summoning in a car crashing through a window of a building while flying off a parking garage, was it an air spirit, street spirit or hearth spirit it could summon?


I always felt that 4e did a good job of making the difference more roleplay oriented than mechanics. Saves trouble for the GM regarding different rules, plus hermetics barely saw table time since summoning materials were so expensive.

First of all: SR3 (and IIRC SR2 and SR1 as well for that matter) didn't have "Fire Spirits". "Fire" themed spirits were Fire Elementals (Hermetics) and Spirits of the Flames a.k.a Salamanders (Wujen). Prior to UMT on the mechanical side of the game a fire elemental was a distinct spirit entity with a distinct set of powers and a distinct set of physical attributes when materialized. A Salamander was a distinctively different spirit entity with a different set of powers, just by coincidence identical physical attributes and - last but not least - different set of limitations as far as conjuring and operational area were concerned. This by virtue created a functional difference between the two



Unfortunately those spirits can neither be reduced to their Innate Spell (Flamethrower) nor to their combat function. Shadowrun magic certainly entails more than just that.



I have this feeling that - by logic - your conclusion concerning a mechanical differentiation already being served via drain attribute is based on the flawed premise that the "alone basis" for such a difference was indeed just "asking" vs. "compelling". And while you're logically correct because A->B amounts to a true statement regardless of the correctness of B when A is false that statement doesn't actually serve any purpose.

Apologies... My typing is very substandard today. Too many errors, and that one crept through.

I do remember... it was friggin Frustrating dealing with all the various subsystems of SR3 (Among them the Magical Subsystems). Hated it. Still do.

No problem .

So the feel was at least different for you. But some people appreciated it specifically because of the fluff supported crunch differences between the various traditions accessible spirits.

For me personally, if I played a Conjurer of the Shamanic Tradition, I just wouldn't buy Binding. Because, well, it just don't feel right to me.

But if someone else used binding, I'm not telling him he's doing it wrong.

It's all a matter of preference.

And yes, I would have liked a little more differentiation in the traditions.

Oh- and there are more than 8 types of spirits....PCs usually don't go summing arachnids, insects etc.....

This is true.

Agreed... and/or the Toxic/Twisted variations of the normal ones...

Flipping through my 3e copy, I noticed that Elementals powers are limites to engulf and movement - they don't have the more mystical powers nature spirits have, like concealment, search, accident, guard, etc. And you know what ? This makes TOTAL sense for me, as elementals are supposed to be Golem-like beings, with no mystical attunement to their surrounds, domains, mythic aspects, etc.

So this is another point I'll be adopting in my house rule. Elementals are mere lumps of fire/earth/whatever animated. Nature spirits are much more than that. Perhaps I will give Elementals a bit better combat abilities, though, to depict their raw solidness in contrast to nature spirits.

This is a good point, but you should insist on the binding bit. Elementals are actually not defined as mere lumps of whatever animated. They are an expression of both the elements symbolism and the mage willpower. Indeed, they should have a bit higher stat (earth had some reach, for example, compared to spirit of the land).

Oh, I'm totally for the binding differentiation (elementals must be bound, nature spirits can't be).

I disagree on your point about the nature of elementals though. As we see in fantasy and fiction, they tend to be mere serves/tools for the magician. So I disagree a Fire Elemental embodies the nature of fire or something, I see them more as Golems of fire or something.

Oh, of course it's up to you, but I was talking per SR3 fluff:

"Elementals are embodiments of the four hermetic elements. Each spirit’s appearance is peculiar to its element and the nature of the ritual that summoned it, with the size of its material form nearly always indicative of its power."

...and then they give them the powers of a gigantic action figure who punches and kicks and... nothing else. I think if they really wanted to depict elementals as little more than Golems, they could have tapped on the meanings the elements have though the different cultures and mythologies (Ie: Water represents healing for some peoples, Fire represents energy, etc).

Regardless of interpretations, though, it seems fairly easy to port the 3e rules as is to the new edition.

Oh, I never denied the fact that they are freaking monsters with mainly violent power . If you're interested, they actually distinguish between Elementals and Spirits of the Elements, which are some special kind of Nature Spirits presented in MitS, which are arguably more badass than regular nature spirits and elementals. My point was just that, at least in SR3 (I don't know if it's been sorted out in 4 or 5), there's a debat to know if elementals are just the mage creation or if they arise from the symbolisms of the elements. Honestly, it's no big deal anyway .

Let us know if your portage of 3e rules brings you back the feeling of those old editions, I hope it works for you!

Bear in mind that in SR3, elementals were specific to hermetics, and hermetics were the 'all science, no cultural heritage/questions of faith and belief'. Reading the rules and the flavor text, they do seem closer to golems, while nature spirits have personality and motivations. Nature spirits help because they want to, and can do a lot within their domain, while elementals help because they are compelled to. Elementals have a more limited toolbox, but they don't have as many restrictions, are tougher in combat, stick around longer, and aren't as liable to be insulted by uncouth shadowrunners doing things like littering or pushing over houses.

Wrong ... Depending on Elemental they certainly do have some of the more "mystical" powers (just not the "uber-power" Confusion):

• Air Elementals do have Movement, Noxious Breath and Psychokinesis. Fire Elemetals have
• Fire Elementals do have Guard, Flame Aura and Innate Spell (Flamethrower)
• All Elementals do provide special service options that on function level are like powers but were for some odd reason not described as such:
  
  1. Aid Sorcery: Providing extra dice for spell casting purposes
  2. Aid Study: Extra Dice for learning spells
  3. Spell Sustaining: Sustain spells for the Hermetic. Something that also exists as an Adept Power

Not quite correct either. They certainly do have a mystical attunement to their native metaplane, have quite "mystical powers" as shown above and they can become "free spirits" just like any other spirit entity.



That's another thing you should reconsider: SR3 Elementals are not necessarily conjured from "lumps" of the respective Elements. It takes conjuring material and a suitable hermetic circle. From a methodological standpoint their conjuring process is closer to conjuring a demon rather than the enchantment of a golem. The previously mentioned Spirits of the Elements (Wujen tradition) are much closer to being conjured from a "lump" of the associated elements like a golem but they most certainly do have the whole set of the "mystical powers".

Just as a general note on SR3 magic (and before): The Unified Magical Theory of SR4 and onwards isn't necessarily "all wrong". SR3 and earlier certainly suggested that magic overall works "the same" and it's merely the magician's conscious and subconscious world view that dictates how and which forms of magics he can access. The problem with UMT is that it tries to turn that suggestion into a too much streamlined model on the rules end. IIRC someone in here talked about trying to turn the magic system into some sort of "pick and chose" thingy were the player chooses a specific magic trait and then gets the corresponding mechanics attached to his character. If you take a closer look at the SR3 mechanics that's already the case to some extend. Every detailed tradition draws upon the basic mechanics for Hermetics and Shamans and then - if at all - makes some cross-overs or circumstantial special rules.

Now consider if they had initially introduced three basic templates:

1. intellectual magic
2. spiritual magic
3. physical a.k.a. body magic

Each of these templates having distinct, but fitting mechanics for forms of spell casting and conjuring and possibilities for trading off one for additional benefits with the other.

Suddenly Hermetics serve as an example of a tradition that uses an intellectual approach to casting and conjuring and neglects body magic completely. Shamans represent a tradition that uses the spiritual magic for both spell casting and conjuring and neglects body magic as well. And guess what? Standard Adepts would have turned into body magicians who "gave up" on conjuring in order to get a form of instantaneous / at will "spell casting". Add some fluff options and alternative mechanics within each of the base templates and you end up with a model kit / building set for magic.

...except all the powers you cited work on a physical level (noxious breath, telekineses, etc). Contrast that to nature spirits powers and to will see the latter have a much stronger mystical / mythical side to it.

About the "aid with.." abilities, these are not "powers", but only the capacity of the magician on draining these beings essence to boost their spellcasting/rituals/learning/etc.

So no, I don't agree with you on this, and continue on my position that elementals are little more than golems of their respective source matter.

Let's just revisit the ones you named yourself: concealment = physical power, search = physical power, accident = physical power, guard = physical power, antagonistic power to accident and on the elemental power list.

So all the "mystical" ones you named yourself are of the physical type as well and only work on the physical level as well and at least one of the powers I named for the Fire Elemental was on your list.



Contrast to some powers (but none of the ones you named) that are mana-based. Calling the mana-based ones "more mystical" or "mythical" is opinion and nothing else ... particularly with regards to how Shadowrun magic treats them.



I guess this is some kind of reading comprehension issue and some kind of stubbornness that dictates that your opinion is irrefutable by any means. Sorry, for having to re-iterate it: The listed elemental services are on functional level just powers.

I'm not dependent on you acknowledging that ... but your attitude certainly helps me on deciding how I will treat the idea of providing you with further information on things you quite obviously don't know (or don't want to know) and/or making suggestions for getting your ideas going: I'll just abstain from now on.



Feel free with doing that ... my choice on helping you any further has been made.

Nope as per SR3 rules. Those are specific elemental powers. Sure they are linked to binding, but it's clearly a capacity that elementals provide their master with. You, or your character, can personally believe that elementals are just expression of the magicians willpower, but the SR3 fluff just says this is an hypothesis. The existence of some elementals metaplanes that are close to the metaplanes of the spirits of the element is quite an indication that elementals are on some aspect spirits as much as nature spirits are. You can't deny that by SR3 fluff, and mechanically wise, elementals are not just golems. They are, a priori, some independant spirits that were brought to our plane by the conjuring skills of a mage.

@Cochise: I'm for peace in general, and allow me to suggest that by "physical power", silva, in an indeed clumsy way, just meant that elementals have powers that can directly be linked to their "body". They don't have power linked to the place they are in, such as modifying background to provide concealment, explore a terrain too search for someone/thing, induce confusion, provide movement linked to their terrain, etc.

I think silva is just mentioning elementals don't have the terrain linked power you and me are used to see… While elementals use powers directly emanating from their material body, which make them look like "golems"…

One word: Guard

Indeed… Though it's only one out of 4 elementals… And 2 have movement also… But anyway, I didn't want to argue more that silva's vision is wrong SR3 wise. I just thought that the "physical" power stuff actually only meant something "not terrain dependant"…

The thing is: Initially I tried to treat silva with the least possible amount of prejudice because of this being a different board than where I witnessed (but didn't participate in) some very unpleasant discussions with a user of the same name. But now I'm beginning to see the same behavior and "sub-par" discussion standards here once a certain idea has manifested in his mind, so my conclusion is that I'm dealing with the same person ... which causes me to just not waste time on him any longer.

Cochise, I apologize if my last post sounded rude (and looking again, it indeed sounded this way). I was on a hurry and ended up being careless in a way. It was not my intention to offend you or diminish your position. My sincere apologies.


This.

The movement, noxious breath and telekinesis are all perfectly explained from the standpoint of a being physically manipulating its environs: an Earth elemental manipulating the ground - an extension of itself - so it gets rugged (movement), an Air elemental using a gust of wind to move objects around (telekinesis) or the same Air elemental turning its gaseous matter toxic (noxious breath), and a Fire elemental using its matter to burn targets (energy aura). Now try to explain nature spirits powers from a physical standpoint. You cant. They are supposed to be the animistic embodiment of their domains and, as such their powers are more metaphysical then physical in nature.

Also, the mentioned Guard power on the fire elemental looks more like an error than anything else. Otherwise, I would be very curious to know how protection from accidents is symbolicly linked to the element of fire, and in which culture/mythology/exoteric field this show up.

The more mechanical differences or different abilities there are between two character types with the same team function (hacking, magic, fighting, etc.), the more likely it is for there to be one "best" choice. Just look at the complaints on these forums that compare the power levels of adepts to street sams or deckers to technomancers.

That said, mechanical differences between character variants are normally expected in RPGs. Magical traditions in Shadowrun are already different. The question is to what degree should they be, if at all. Should tradition be more like a class or subclass, or merely flavor to help players realize great character concepts as part of a rich game world?

Already, we have: magician, adept, or both. With that: hermetic, shaman, or something else. Which mentor spirit? (or totems for shamans only in previous editions) Also: sorcerer, conjurer, alchemist, or not aspected. Previous editions have had needlessly complex rules limiting or empowering characters.

I'm on the fence. I want maximum flexibility, so I want traditions to be complete magical systems that give the same benefits for the same cost. However, I also think it would be fun for some traditions to be naturally suited to different things. The differences could be presented as optional rules.

Shamans: Good spirit relations (more dice conjuring), easily identifiable and magic easier to spot, dice penalties when not dressed traditionally
Hermetics: Pragmatists (no dice bonus/penalty) OR good alchemists (more dice), cold spirit relations (less dice)
Witches: Centuries of persecution have made it easier for them to blend in with mainstream society (harder to detect their magic), karmic retribution or "rule of three" (magic that harms others has heavier drain)
Druids: Protective (more dice for magical defense), can't think of a penalty at the moment

The ground is not an extension of an Earth Elemental. The ground is an extension of a spirit of the land. The movement provided by an Earth Elemental shows that it has at least some control of the environment in the same way spirits of nature do.

Nature spirits can have very physical power, such as innate spell or engulf. I think you're trying to impose some of your views on hermeticism based on historical or other RPG knowledge onto the Shadowrun world. If you have more fun with it, very well. We're just telling you that, per SR3, elementals and nature spirits have at least a little in common, and elementals are not just mere golems. The fact that they actually have to materialize to be look like golems is quite relevant in this case. They can go free, they have their own metaplans, so they're just more than that. Nature spirits can go free too, can be invoked as great forms etc. making them also a bit more than the animistic embodiment of their domains. They do embody their domain and terrain, but they are also more than that.

YMMV, but that was quite a minor problem in SR3 for me, my group, and numerous person. Indeed, the street sam vs adept was a problem from all time. The mage vs shaman wasn't. There might have been gaming tables where it was. When a campaign is very intense, with a timeline that imposes no break to the runners, with little money earned during the game, a shaman was better: always able to get a spirit on the fly. When you could always plan in advance and had plenty of money, a mage could always have up to 6 or more elementals ready with considerable services available, making him much more fearsome than a shaman.

But in general, the two were very valid choice.

The differences you propose as optional rules are nice, and might make for a fun and varied game. However, if the goal is to get back the feel of the different traditions in SR3, that's hardly enough. Especially:



What is a "complete magical system"? Can't some spirit be unbindable and some be binding only? I'm sure of one thing, I don't want that traditions offer me the same things with similar costs. I want traditions to grand me different play styles, which mean different costs for different things.

Complete as in, they are not aspected in any way. No magical skill is off-limits to any tradition.

In my unconventional worldview, binding is not necessarily enslavement. I imagine a world where spirits can be bound by covenant, oath, pact, alliance, deal or contract. Their servitude may be in exchange for the mana a conjurer can bring to bear, or the fulfillment of a promise made ages ago.

Back in 1st ed, I played mages rather than shamans because I couldn't decide upon a suitable totem and it was more interesting for me to play a hermetic rather than a coyote shaman. I hated all the negative modifiers associated with certain spell types. What if someone wants to be a mage with a totem-like modifier? Now we have mentor spirits purchasable by all traditions and it's more flexible. You can even rename them or create your own so you can pick the modifier you want with the kind of character you want.

Also, I'd make other weird changes to the magic system. I'm not quite sure how they'd play out.

Errr… I can't speak for 4 or 5, but who said binding was enslavement? It's not more enslavement than standard conjuring before people decided all spirits could be summoned on the fly and bound, that's to say post SR3 with UMT. It was just that elementals were bound when summoned and needed complex process, while nature spirits just appeared with a simple process and went away easily.

It was possible in SR3 to be a mage with totem-like modifiers, see elemental mages in MitS. You choose an element, get bonus for the associated spell and spirits, and malus for the opposed element.

But, on the principle I don't get why people would want to be a mage with totem modifier, like it was a natural aspect of the whole magic. The very idea of a mentor spirit is quite strange for mage as described in SR1-2-3, seeing how the fluff describes them as the "mathematician" of magics, relying on a scientific procedure to use magic. And suddenly, among this, you'd like that they have a mentor spirit? I'd say it just kills a whole flavor of mages, but that's just IMO.

I meant to say that, if youre facing an Earth elemental, he could control his element (in this case, the ground) to hinder/help your movement. At least thats how my group always played - a Water elemental could only slow you down if you were on a river/lake/puddle of water yourself. We never saw much sense otherwise. Honest question: in your tables, would you allow a Water elemental slow you down even if you were on solid ground ?


Entirelly agreed here. I never told Elementals were exactly Golems, but that they worked more or less like ones.

About the traditions differentiation, Im all for streamlining rules, but only if it preserves flavor/fiction/fluff. The streamlining from 4e/5e didnt do it to me, and feels extremely bland in comparison to older editions.

Wanna see an example simplification that retains flavour ? Thet way Sixth World (an Apocalypse World hack) did: mages cast spells, shamans conjure spirits. Period. Later into the game you can pick abilities from one another, and thus have your mage learn some limited conjuring capacity (or vice-versa), but a shaman was defined as "the one that conjures spirits" and the mage "the one who slings spells".

The rules are incoherent here. The movement powers specifically refers to "the terrain it controls". Elementals are never said to control any terrain. So it's totally up to GM fiat (Correct me if I'm wrong). My, very personal, ruling, would be that elementals don't have movement since they don't control any terrains. But the general point Cochise and me have been making is that the fluff and the mechanics leave a lot of room for elementals to be more than mere golems, as well as nature spirits being more than being able to apply "metaphysical" terrain specific powers.

Then he opts for an Elemental Mage of a specific Elemental School Air, Wind, Fire or Earth (not to be confused with Elementarists!) with bonus dice on their chosen element and a negative die pool modifier to the opposing element. The idea could certainly also be transferred onto any of the traditions that were derived from the hermetic template (like Black Magic, Chaos Magic).




Something that worked for SR3 already. I can't actually recount the number of times were I encountered home-brewed magic traditions that mixed and matched the different base templates for spell casting and conjuring behind hermetics and shamans and then added their own flavor. If anything was missing it was a dedicated "construction rule set" like the ones they made for guns and vehicles. And the latter ones were down right broken and/or unnecessary in the first place.

The fundamental disagreement here seems to be that one group of players obviously prefers identical rules for everything and just "fluff" for distinction while the other group prefers some degree of systematic choices that affect play style not just on fluff level but in game mechanics as well.

Materialized Elementals have a rather precisely defined area within which they can roam and exercise their "terrain control" during their stay on the physical plane (without being on "remote service"). While on remote service they pretty much exercise "control" over all the territory that they come across ... If anything their elements dictates how powers like Movement express themselves when compared to how they do for nature spirits.

I didn't see it like that. That's interesting.

Though, I don't think that having a limited range of action means that you "control" the terrain you're limited to. Thinking of sending a spirit on a remote service to give movement to one of your friend, what would be the terrain it controls once again?

Actually, now that I read a few examples of critters using movement in the eponymic book, turns out that the fault rely on the wording on the wording of the power. Movement looks like it's a box containing multiple similar effect powers (can be self only, decrease only). Some critters with a priori no terrain seem to be able to use it (such as embracer or corpse light).

I think a sensible thing to do would be to consider it a telekinetic manipulation, and consider the movement power of spirits is more like "movement (terrain only)". Then I'd give movement(everywhere) to elementals. But that might look like over interpretation.

Dont forget Elementals have vulnerabilities. So an Earth elemental (vulnerability: Air) shouldn't be able to slow down a flying drone, or at least do it with some degree of difficulty.

In the end, I think its reasonable to conclude that the matter on elemental nature is ambiguous at best, and thus prone to interpretation from each group. My group would be very resistent to accept an Earth elemental slowing down a flying object, or a Water elemental slowing down an object on solid ground. YMMV, of course.

This is not how vulnerability works.

The nature of all spirits is ambiguous at best. Now, it's fairly obvious that the fluff gives hints on their real nature.

The same question could be asked for nature spirits. Things get even wonkier for them, since powers do have a range just like spells. So the area under any spirit entity's control is initially limited to what the spirit entity can "see" and any boundaries created by a domain like concept. The text on Range explicitly mentions that powers of nature spirits are limited to their domain. Nature spirits are thus equally limited to a rather specific "terrain" that is called "domain" just like the elemental is limited to an area that is initially determined by the (physical) distance to his master in addition to the LOS requirement.



Try answering that for a nature spirit ... particularly for Great Ones! That causes far more headache than the idea of an elemental exercising some form of terrain control within its line of sight wherever it roams while under the obligations of a remote service.



The problem lies with the potentially flawed assumption that a nature spirit's domain equals the territory under its control and that the act of exercising one's power is an effect that (termporarily) alters said territory.