Ludicrous is Ludicrous, whether it is Force 16 or Force 100... I understand what your intent was, I just do not agree with your desired goal.

Common Sense does have a place here... My examples above, that you replied to, are both common sense applications to something that has absolutely no coverage in hard rules that I can find... You can say that yes, everything Stacks ad infinitum; I tend to disagree, and say that only the Best spell result functions (Not the first or last one, mind you, just the one with the most successes)...

And for the record... Spell Chaining is never actually addressed. Neither for or against. I prefer to interpret the RAW as somewhat common sensical in this regard; the other route lies madness... BUT, if I was inclined to allow Spell Chaining, any break in the chain would cancel the entire chain... this controls the madness... as it is, I do not allow such tactics. You want to have the Body of a Rhino, Use Increase Body and sustain it, then cast Shapechange... if you cannot satisfy the requirements to get there, too bad...

anyways...

Or they don't stack; instead, only the strongest identical effect applies. Both interpretations are equally valid.

On that note, I don't think my point about interpreting the Shapechange requirement as 'base Body' was adequately answered.

Indeed, Both Interpretations are... I like yours, the strongest applies, all others may be dropped from sustainment

Must have missed that one... what exactly was it?
Let me try from what is listed above here...

Base Body is the Attribute at which the spell is originated... You must have a Base Body equal to +/- 2 points to obtain a new form. If you are outside the requirements, you would need to use either a Decrease/Increase Body Spell to place you within the limits (assuming you could even get there... No Humans to Elephants for example), and then sustain it to cast the shapechange spell... Also, In my interpretation of RAW, You would need to continually sustain the Body Adjustment Spell to keep the Shapechange spell active (and sustained), otherwise the shapechange spell unravels...

Does this work for you?

Armor the spell stacks with worn armor, not with Armor the spell, regardless of the effect, therefore multiple castings on the same target have no (additional) benefit.

E.g. if they don't stack with each other, then a F4 and a F4 is only +4.

My point was that it says "base Body" earlier in the sentence, not augmented Body. If you interpret this to also mean that it uses the *mage's* base Body, it's a built-in limiter on the power of Shapechange, disallowing Increased Body or Shapechange chaining from increasing the Body rating that allows Shapechange options. See?

Incidentally, I'd change Shapechange much more radically if I were houseruling it; this is just a RAW-based discussion.

Grammatically, the relevant sentence is poorly worded It could be "greater or less than her own [base body rating]." But since base body rating is really a critter thing, it seems more logical to mean [body rating]. Having it be base body rating would certainly eliminate most of the tricks though^^ Humans could shapechange into critters 1-5 body rating, end of story^^

Yeah, I'm ignoring the whole 'exactly +/-2' issue, because we all know it's stupid. Personally, I'd make it 'within +/- net hits' and remove the '+net hits to all' aspect, but that's just house rule territory.

Which would make sense. The kind of animal you are able to turn into is limited by your size.

I still think that shapechange chaining is on the top 10 list of stupid ruleslawyer cheese that shouldn't work.

I actually really like that idea; I'm going to steal it for my games^^

What's wrong with +/- 2?

Humans have a body score from 1-9(7 exceptional attribute, 8 genetherapy, 9 surge)
your average human mage can transform from a body 1 to a body 5 creature. from a rat to a dog, but not into a great cat. (body 6)
That body 9 mage (snicker) can go from a 7 to an 11 body creature. (Horse, Rhino, but also not into a great cat)
You need a body of 4,5,6,7,8 to get to turn into a great cat.

Net hits means that if you're at force 6 spell, you can potentially go +/- 6. That's hugely broken. You can transform from a rat to a Sasquash or more with a basic 2 or 3 body.

There is no actual cyber/bioware that increases your body stat.

Net hits makes the spell MUCH more powerful than it is today.

Well, you can't transform into a Sasquatch - it's not a non-paranormal critter.

I think your math on what's broken is a little off; base stats are generally less broken than lower base stats + net hits. Base stats also mean that if you want the really high stats, you're going to be in a really noticeable shape - no more panthers with str 8 sneaking around. But regardless, the whole limitation based on some handwavy notion of conservation of mass makes me sneer.

As I've mentioned before, I also rule that you can't exceed your normal augmented maximums while shapechanged, so it puts a hard limit on the power of the spell, while he net hits rule means it can still be a fun, versatile spell.

You cant shapechange into a human...

"Shapechange transforms a voluntary subject into a normal (non-paranormal)
critter, though the subject retains human consciousness. The
subject can only assume the form of a critter whose base Body rating
is 2 points greater or less than her own. Consult the Critters section,
p. 292, for the subject’s Physical attributes while in critter forme."

Humans are not critters.

Humans are not on Critters section so I cant use their physical attributes.

Ahem. The body 9 mage can go from a 7 to an 11 body creature.

IKerensky, that's an FAQ thing. We *know*.

sabs, nothing *wrong* with +/- 2 (I assume you mean *within* +/- 2, of course), but I would personally rather have a spell that lets you change into a *lot* of different critters (normal, un-buffed) by rewarding net hits, instead of a spell (as RAW) that lets you turn into like 3 super-buffed critters (+net hits to all stats).

I agree that the +net hits to stats thing is.. painful. It turns shapechange into /the/ best combat stat buffing spell in the game. Getting rid of that completely is a nice touch.

It just seems like so much leeway to allow the Mage to go from rat to rhino in alteration.
Maybe its not a big deal. It's just, I can see so many ways that being able to take the Troll and turn him into a mouse would be convenient and useful for doing sneaky sneaky things.

Go to the Johnson Meet with your Troll Street Sam Monstrosity in the shape of a small cat perched on your shoulder.

A mouse with Troll stats.

Well no, if you go with Y's changes.. it's a mouse with.. mouse stats, and troll mental stats.

Troll to cat vs human to cat - does it really matter?

I mean, to get a really buff troll down to kitty cat will take a pretty serious spell^^ And that feels right.

Quoted for truth.


Ok, but you can (Critter) Form into them, as that spell only requires a non-paranormal animal. So, Shapechange into human no, (Human) Form yes.

saying, it requires an animal, so human form is okay.. is stretching it.
Humans are meta-humans, not non-paranormal animals.

It's an FAQ thing. :/ Choose whatever fits your game and your table better.

Badgers are ok, awakened badgers are not.

Therefore Homo Sapiens Sapeins is ok, an awakened one is not (but already being awakened you still keep that quality).

Trinomial name: H. sapens sapiens
Species: H. sapiens
Genus: Homo
Tribe: Hominini
Subfamily: Homininae
Family: Hominidae
Order: Primates
Class: Mammalia
Phylum: Chordata
Kingdom: Animalia

Thanks, I didn't want to go searching for that information again.

That's not relevant, though. All that matters is what SR4 says is a valid choice. Personally, I'd either allow it, or explicitly limit the spell to non-sapients (effectively, everything but humans).

The spell says non-paranormal critters.
Critter form says : non-paranormal animals. But the name is "Critter form"

Humans, Dwarves, Elves, Trolls, Orks are all meta-humans, not 'critters'

I know the FAQ says critterform(human) is okay.. but really that FAQ isn't exactly filled with good information.

That is relevant, as it shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that Humans are in fact non-paranormal animals, which the (Critter) Form spell requires. This is proved by the FAQ, even though people don't like the FAQ.

EDIT:


We can name it Banana Form, and so long as it requires any non-paranormal animal Humans are still a valid choice.

Again, no. Real world biology isn't part of the rules. We didn't need that 'proof' to answer the question, and it doesn't aid us at all in deciding.

We've been through this.

As soon as they decided to base the names for the metatypes on real-world taxonomy (Ingentis, Robustus, ect.) then that allows taxonomy to be used as part of the rules.

They are non-paranormal animals as far as science is concerned. And I wouldn't say beyond a shadow of a doubt. There's several Intelligent Design people who might argue with you. But does Magic make a distinction between Sapient and Non-Sapients? What Tradition, What is their philosophy.

No, it doesn't, Neraph. That's just fluff. Science-y fluff.

You of all people should know not to argue the rules with outside material, right? Anyway, my point is that it doesn't matter: either SR classes humans as 'non-paranormal animals' or it doesn't. GM decides; the FAQ, indeed, gives us a decision, but people are always whining about the FAQ.

I'm one of those Intelligent Design peoples myself, and I have to tell you, under the rules for biology that the scientists have determined, humans are animals. If you define animal differently, humans may no longer qualify. Heck, depending on how you define "life," insects, fish, and plants are not alive.

My point being that in a game of rules, where they give reference to humans being animals (they quoted a part of their taxonomy as part of the rules for the game), and later they have a spell that only asks for a non-paranormal animal, by their own definitions humans fulfill that requirement.

I had no idea Harvard gave out degrees in Rules Lawyering.

Not the rules, the *fluff* for the game. I'm not arguing that humans aren't animals, by the way. My point is that the only source that matters is the rules.

Animal Empathy, for example, specifically doesn't work on 'sentient' critters (I think they mean 'sapient'), which stops it from affecting humans.

Animal Control specifically excludes things with Sapience power or a Magic attribute (do metahumans *have* the Sapience power?).

SR4A, p261, implies a distinction: "Capacitance wire, or proximity wire, detects the electrical charge of a metahuman body (or animal) within 2 meters."

As does SR4A, p262: "Pheromone scanners are sophisticated enough to tell the difference between a metahuman and an animal and can also pinpoint gender, but are otherwise not advanced enough to single out an individual."

As does SR4A, p298: "Ordinary Critters
Like metahumans, the large majority of the animal kingdom remains unaffected by the Awakening."

As does SM, p38: "When manifest, ashuras often take either animal or humanoid forms—though the latter often have extra limbs, oddly colored skin, or animal features."

So. You can see why I consider a restriction of 'no sapient animals, i.e. humans', to be a perfectly valid GM interpretation. You'll find that many spells and affects in SM *do* stipulate non-sapient (because it's clearer and makes sense).

I think the reason for that one is that you'd want to detect people in the area, but that animals will also set it off.

Sure. My point is that the rules, like the general public, uses a human/animal distinction in most cases; even though we all know that humans are animals.

Then I believe you need to reread the definition of "Game"

Nope. We're having a rules discussion.

Thank you for a self-contradictory statement.

And here I thought I was the only one allowed to take things too seriously. Goes to show what I know.

I also have no issues with this...

It's not contradictory, Neraph; it's contextual. Language is like that.

But the spell also specifically that "Consult the Critters section, p. 292, for the subject’s Physical attributes while in critter forme."

As you were adamant on using the specific of the spell rules I am too. I am ok with the FAQ saying you can transform into a human. I am just asking you to point me out in the Critters section the Physical attributes I am to use when I am in Human shape...

Or do I have to interpret the spell rules and refer to another stats somewhere else that aren't specified to be used ? tricky as it would open the door to using the IP that aren't into the spell specification too.

No, the spell that tells you to consult the critters section is Shapechange. (Critter) Form's text appears later and does not include that.

EDIT: Also, interestingly, the Shapechange spell does not allow forms from Running Wild, as they are not listed in the Critter section of the core rulebook.