Right, did't find it on my first search.

So I hae to withdraw this argument. But since we agree on the point I tried to make it was useless anyway.

The Point is nowhere in the book is said a target may be affected by the same spell multible times. So by the first interpretation of the meaning of RAW Trick of stacking Shapechange is off the table. Actually there is no indication it would work.
Spell A says turn into a wolf and Spell B says turn into a bear. Why should spell B be dominant?
In what Form would the subject be while both spells are active? Remember: This spell is not permanent (in which case it would be raw), it is sustained.
You try to inflict two contradictionary effects on the same target (be a wolf/be a bear).

Ah, you're talking about the Shapechange chain thing that Neraph was on about. Yeah, I didn't really pay attention to that at first, and after I saw it, I didn't feel like even touching that one, especially since in this case I can't back it up with definitive proof. The Shapechange spell really is one of those things that should have a huge space, detailing very clearly the conditions and limitations, but instead, GMs everywhere get to sigh and make their own

edit: bah, sometimes I need to read things closer, I thought Neraph was still on about his Rocksteady concept. Way to have a different conversation than everyone else, Moon

@Mooncrow
As long as you stick with the wording and do not try to bend it, it works.
But as soon as you hit stuff like:
Lets by human form, it starts to get out of line. (Not to mention, that this spell is either way one of the most powerfull in the book)

And at the same time nowhere does it state you are not allowed to stack spells. It depends on what the spell itself says. For example, you can cast Increase Reflexes fifty-billion times on yourself (assuming you have a dicepool after a one-hundred billion penalty to all rolls...). The thing is, only the highest would apply because that's what Initiative Passes tell you. Alternatively, if you cast Armor ten times on yourself, you get the full armor bonus each time because it specifically says it stacks with your armor worn. So if you have a +1 that stacks with your armor worn, and a +4 that stacks, and a +3 that stacks, that's +8 that stacks with your armor worn.

And on Shapechain: this is how it works. You cast the first spell on yourself to turn into a wolf. That spell is still active. Then you cast a second spell to turn yourself into a horse. That spell is now superceeding the first, in the same way that if you cast Shapechange to turn into a wolf and then Physical Mask to make you look like a same-sized briefcase would make you look like a briefcase, not a wolf.

It's also important to note that as soon as the horse-form spell takes effect you would stop sustaining the wolf-form. Do you know what action it takes to stop sustaining a spell? I can't find anything except "stops concentrating on the spell."

Here's another scenario for you: a shifter casts Shapechange, then uses its Shift Power. What does it look like?

Also, it's interesting to note we really don't have the Attribute Maximums for critters, by-and-large. It's entirely feasible to hit yourself with a Edged Shapechange, get 15 successes, and the full 15 adds to all the attributes of your new form. Then you could use Increase (Attribute) to push that even further up.

If Increased Attribute didn't require a Force 15+ spell now that you're Strength is a minimum of 15 due to the shapechange.

It's still possible. You could have your 2/6 dragon contact cast it for you.

Note... It says stacks with Armor Worn... Not armor gained from Spells... so no, no armor spell stacking allowed...



2 Cases... Pretty Simple in my opinion...

1. Shapechain fails outright (It does not work that way in my opinion) if you choose to not sustain all spells in the chain...
Alternately: You want a bigger or smaller form, cast "Increase/Decrease Body, Sustain it and then cast Shapechange (and sustain it)... if the Increase/Decrease is dropped, the Shapechange goes along with it.

If using Chaining "Logic" all prerequisites are part of the "Chain" and if a single link of the chain breaks, the entire chain unravels...

2. The Shifter one is easy as well: the Shifter would look like whatever his Shift Power provides, and he loses any benefit from Shapechange...



Already been addressed, but You MUST satisfy all requirements of the spell... in this case, Minimum Force of 16 (Base 1 + 15 Previous sustained Successes)... Have fun trying that one...

Force 16 spells are two initiations and two points of magic* away from character generation. Certainly not unattainable.

*Or one 15bp spirit pact quality, for a Magic Pact with a Force 3 spirit.

Never said they were unattainable, just ludicrous...
And it is only 2 Initiations and 2 points of magic if you started out with a Magic Rating of 6, which is never a guarantee...
And the costs for a Pact is based upon the Edge of the Spirit not the Force of the Spirit... Just Sayin'

Ya, but most of the time edge = force

Try telling your GM that you want a pact with an Edge 1, Force 6 Spirit. Neraph, that doesn't mean you!

Was not a comment to propogate the ludicrousness of the situation, just wanted to point it out is all. While a Spirit may indeed have an Edge attribute that is Equal to its Force, that is not always the case, especially for Free Spirits (Whose Edge attribute may be Higher or Lower). Also, if you use "Named" spirits for your summoning (ie, you tend to summon the exact same spirits, time and again), the spirit that you typically summon may have an Edge attribute smaller than its Force.

Perhaps I should have posted "far from unattainable"? I meant to imply that it's fairly easy to get Magic 8, and that's part of the natural progression of many mage characters.


If you're building your own character, you can put 65BP into Magic to have Magic 6. Do you think that if I were building a mage character, and started the game with Magic 6, the GM would say "sorry whoops you now have Move-by-Wire rating 1, drop your magic appropriately"? I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.



I specified Force 3 because that's what's needed to get +2 magic, not because of the cost... Just Sayin'

While it may be part of the expected natural progression, I rarely (I actually have yet to see one at our table) seen a mage with an 8+ Magic Rating since SR4 came into existence. Admittedly, it was more common in previous editions, as you STARTED with a 6. Nor have I seen Force 16 Spells being bandied about at a whim, as your post implied...



Indeed you can... Never said you couldn't... AS for Magic Loss, there are not a lot of causes in SR4A that force Magic Loss, so that is less of an issue. Again, it was less about attaining a magic attribute of 8, than a Spell at Force 16...



Force 2 would probably suffice for a bonus of +2 Magic... But my point about the Cost was that it was not based on the Spirit's FORCE, but on the Spirit's EDGE...

Why *is* that, anyway? Shouldn't everything about spirits be based on force?

Probably because Spirits can Burn Edge just like a PC can... and Free Spirits can raise their edge with Karma (At least the PC version can do so)... That would be my guess anyways...

No… I mean why *Edge* in the first place? If you were choosing a natural number to peg spirits to, would you pick the single rating that basically determines everything about them, or some random luck stat?

Not sure Why... Point taken though...

"Easy to get" (what I posted) is not the same as "Force 16 spells being bandied about at a whim" (what you read). Casting them isn't really trivial due to the drain involved, but it's not hard to get access to them. Once you have this access, when you run out of bubblegum and need to bust out some serious magical muscle, you're able to do so.


It would not suffice. Force 3 is required. The bonus provided by Magic Pact is half of the Spirit's, rounded up.

Yep, Forgot about that Point...
And cost is still based upon Edge...

Yes, the cost is still Edge-based. Do you have a point to that statement, or are you simply repeating it for fun?

Starting to get kind of fun...

But really, that was more the point I was trying to make to you earlier (rather than the Magic Rating required), and you seemed to be ignoring it... just wanted to make sure you actually noticed what I was referencing, that's all...

As for the commonality, or use, of a Force 16 Spell... I have yet to see why something of that magnitude would ever be required for any situation. Sure, you COULD use it if you wanted, but I can concieve of no reason to do so, that something less powerful would not be capable of succeeding against. And if any such situation were to develop, it would be such an edge case that it would not really be applicable as an example.

Anyways...

You're the one that pointed out the Increase Attribute spell from Neraph's bit of idle speculation would require a Force 16 spell.


(bolding mine in both quotes)

In fairness, using Increase Attribute in that situation does constitute 'no reason to do so', because it's ridiculous.

Indeed, I did point out the Ludicrousness of the Requirement, which is why I said it was a Ludicrous Proposition in the first place... the condition was on the example (Stat of 15) provided by Neraph...

Glad that has been settled now... Whew...

And for clarification, in case you did not catch it, Edge cases such as this are a waste, as far as I am concerned. You (generic you here, not pointing fingers) take a situation, and then blow it completely beyond anything that is sane to start with and then expect the result to be sane (Since when are Force 16 Spells sane and common, even if it is not all that hard to get there)... Really?

Ridiculous, huh? Ridicule if it pleases you, but your dislike of the reason (increasing an already high attribute into the stratosphere) doesn't make it suddenly become a nonreason.

I think he meant, say tossing some armor on if you need extra survivability.

You are defending it? Really? Wow...

How so Yera? Bear Shifter Mystic Adept could get that high without any of the other absurdity we've been discussing at all. Unless you mean it's inefficient, rather than ridiculous; that, I would agree with.

Inefficient is as good a reason as any. 'Not needed' is another, and so on. I don't particularly care, I was just pointing out that the mechanical possibility of needing Force 16 isn't the same as a *reason* for needing it.

To both of you:

Hello and good (insert time here). You're in a discussion about the rules of a game (specifically Shadowrun rules as they pretain to the Shapechange spell), and you're complaining that it's "not needed" and "a waste" when someone notes some of the peculiarities of these rules. (After a period where you try to deny the method's feasability.)


Does this post have a point?


I... actually have no idea what you're talking about in relation to my post. Would you mind expanding on this a bit so I can understand what you're saying?

Using Force 16 spells is certainly possible, but generally there are very few situations where it's the most efficient or reasonable way of doing things. So, my example was meant to be "here's a situation where you could cast a force 16 spell, but you would better off doing something else". Since our initial example was talking about using the spell on something with a Body of 16. I should have been more clear, but I was in a hurry =/

*shrug* I think the point that just because something is numerically possible doesn't mean it's useful is perfectly valid. YMMV, hehe.

Not useful in most game situations, perhaps. However, that's no reason not to include it in a rules discussion.

Though I can think of a couple (silly) game situations where it might become useful, like arm-wrestling with dragons, or dodging wide full bursts.

Ok, the +4 armor from one Armor spell stacks with my armor worn, so that increases it by +4, and the +4 from my other spell stacks with armor worn, so that's another +4, and the...

Yes, yes it does. Each spell gives the armor bonus to the armor, not to each other. Good straw man argument though.


Point 1 and point 2 are both perspective of yours based not on what the rules say, but on what you want to happen.

1) The chain is not dependant on the previous links except for when the next link is crafted, otherwise you'd never be able to cast Shapechange as when your Body changes from the spell effect itself the spell effect ends. When you are in the form chosen by the spell, your physical attributes from your previous form stop being important - only the new attributes are important. Therefore, if you cast again, only the physical stats from the first spell are neccessary, and only until the physical attributes for the second form are determined, in which case the first casting is no longer required.

2) That's based on absolutely nothing but your own perception. In the case of the Rules, you would have a Shapechange spell active and another Power activated later that changes the appearance of the subject. The real question here is what happens when you have multiple spells or Powers from different sources that try to interact with each other, and your answer is "They don't because I say so," completely without the backing of rules (exempting Rule 0, of course).

The real question I was looking for you people to answer was this: If you have multiple spells that do similar functions, does the most recent spell take effect? (trying to reword, not different question) Are the previous spells' effects overwritten with the most recent effect? If I cast 4 Mask spells, do they all argue with each other or does the most recent take priority?


I never said I didn't have to meet the requirements of the spell. F16 spells can be made through many different ways - someone else listed two different ways. You can also be Infected and use Essence Drain to boost your Magic up to a maximum of 11 with a starting character.

Technically it was +15 to the stat of the target.

EDIT: For example, the Rhinocerous would be a Body 27 creature. I didn't help my position any, but even so, the possibility of F100 spells are feasible, if not reasonable, and that was my intent.

Psh, Neraph. Next you'll be saying that you can wear 3 PPP helmets, because 'they stack with the worn armor, not each other'. You can't just handwave away the alternative interpretation that you don't like. The whole point is that there are multiple RAW interpretations, man. And when one is abusive, it's wrong.

*cough cough* From a RAW standpoint you can, since nowhere does it state that the PPP pieces are limited to 1 per slot. Also they can be built in to armor or clothing worn, so you can, from a mechanical standpoint, have three or four such pieces built in to your Helmet (+1/+2) or Hard Hat (+0/+2).

That aside, having to deal with multiple Sustaining Penalties is nowhere near being "abusive." If you get four such spells active, you can expect ~ an extra 10 points of armor, with each spell becoming more difficult because of the mounting dicepool penalty, and the whole thing ending up with you having a -8 to all checks, including Reaction Tests to not get hit in the first place. You end up sacrificing your ability to not get hit by super-turtling in an attempt to be able to survive it.

See? Balance.

Exactly. You *would* argue that the RAW doesn't disallow wearing 3 PPP helmets, and you'd be totally wrong. That's my point. (Might as well mention the crazy 'you can wear multiple FFBA' argument, too. Same thing.)

You describe *a* case. You could also invent *other* radically different cases. Multiple casters (including spirits) turtling another single unit? Etc. I *know* that you can imagine plenty of overpowered uses, of all people.

Actually, I'm not wrong. The RAW does support it. That's not wrong unless the RAW is wrong, in which case we need errata.

Note that I am not saying that is how it should be, or even that that's how I run it personally - just that is how, by RAW, it is. I think many people around here get confused between what my personal beliefs are and what the RAW states.

In any event, the questions I have posed have not been answered with satisfactory rules, only with personal beliefs coming from other players/GMs. I am not asking the community here their thoughts on this subject, I am asking the community here how, mechanically (RAW), these situations work. I am convinced that I am correct, but that is not because neccessarily I believe it on baseless causes, but because I have proven and shown how, through the Rules of the Game in question, it does in fact work this way.

@Neraph

Well, if you rule like this you are asking for flying, flame breathing battlecows. (Nothing in the rulebook suggests, that cows don't fly or can't breath fire)

So please stop telling this old munchkin defnition of RAW. (Everything, that is not denied, is allowed)
This is silly and just because you handwave any silly ideas from anybody else, does not mean, that they would not be fair game.

RAW is, that one a Spell may affect one target at one time. Thats RAW.
Telling that spells stack on targets is bending of RAW.

(Like installing two muscle toners rating 3 for a Bonus of 6. Same game here)

Where's it say that an Armor spell is "worn armor"?

It's rather silly to yell at someone for pointing out the vagueness in the rules though.

There's a huge difference between "Everything not forbidden is permissible" and something that is explicitly permitted, but it's limitations are not stated.

Armor Spell stacking was explicitly forbidden in every previous version; it was not in this version. Several other spell limitations that were previously forbidden have been explicitly allowed (Shapechange - Human, for example). I think Tymeaus has given the only argument that might hold some water against it, by RAW.

It is useless to argue with previous editions.


Well, it can't think of something which is explicitly allowed but with unstated limitations.
If you may have multible datajacks, you may have unlimited (untill you hit the essence cap). Well, after the first 100 it starts to get silly, but anyway.

Well, Shapechange Human Form is in because of the FAQ. You may go the way that Humans are in fact animals, but this is not a very good argument.
(Since considering RAW you would not be allowed to talk in Human Form)

It is not said, that spells stick with themselves. And since it is not explicitly allowed, I would consider it forbidden by RAW.

Ok, I'll keep this as simple as I can.

There are rules for spellcasting, correct?
There are rules for sustaining spells, correct?
There are rules for sustaining a spell and then casting another spell, correct?
There are rules for sustaining multiple spells, correct?

So, what happens when you cast the same spell on someone that you (or someone else) is already sustaining a copy of the same spell on?

Clearly, the casting is within the rules - so what happens?

But as opposed to other Special Attributes, player initiative score is Reaction+Intuition so if you gain the physical attributes, you definitely are gaining initiative score from the act of shape-changing...so special attributes are definitely being affected by shape-changing first of all...so your argument that getting the animals IP's is against RAW based on the fact that special attributes cannot be altered through shape-shifting is not a logical certainty. Now, normal critters don't have a magic or resonance score....so with cheetah's it's only down to whether or not you get their IP's. I think that if you are going to get their running rate, then it's silliness that you don't also get their IP's...because then you would look like a really lethargic cheetah and someone with a zoology knowledge skill could spot you out in a perception test....and that's plain dumb. So please don't come with that "well you have to admit that it's a house rule and not RAW"...it's an open question at best.

@Mooncrow

RAW: It is not possible, because not stated. It is like trying to get sqrt(-1) in real numbers. It is just outside of the frame.

Well: There are several ways to handle it. (Outside RAW)
1. The spells interact with each other and try to fight the other spell.
2. The second spell applys and the first is disrupted.
3. They add their values together.
4. Both apply, but just the better effect is obtained.
5. The weaker spell is used in the way of a teamwork test.
6. Both spells are sustained, but only the highest benifit is obtained.
7++. Things I have not thought of yet.

See the point? Giving such diversity it is kind of useless to pick one solution and say it is RAW.

So, people are magically prevented from following the spellcasting rules as written.

Thanks for elucidating your position.

If you stop by RAW, yes.
But lets but it like that: In this case, it is not one of the top priority problems.

It doesn't, and that's not what I was implying.

This is what I was saying. The Armor spell adds to armor worn, so if you have four armor spells active, you've got four different instances of a number adding to armor worn. Therefore, they all stack, albeit indirectly.