Shadowrun
Shadowrun Play => Rules and such => Topic started by: hemgath on <03-01-11/0746:39>
-
Certainly one of the most abusive spell since the FAQ say :
Can you take Human Form as a version of the (Critter) Form spell? What about Troll Form?
Yes, since humans are, strictly speaking, non-paranormal animals. Metahumans and metavariants are paranormal, so Troll Form, Nartaki Form, etc. are not viable versions of the (Critter) Form spell.
So, if you cast this spell on you, you can incredibely up your physicall skill, same in an easiest way than the particulary powerfull « increase [atribute] ».
For exemple, Juan-Dylan the magician with 6 magic and 6 spellcasting (spe Manip) cast the spell (Critter) form « human »… With power foci, totem and somme extragift, we can considere he cast this spell with a total of 17 dices.
His physical stat are : Body : 3, Ag : 2, Reac : 5 and str : 1 (is drain stat are 6/6)
Juan Dylan decide to cast the spell at 5 and it succeed… (take some drain…).
And now can sustain it with a focci… or decide to had a -2 dice…
So now is physical stat are :
- BODY : 3+5= 8
- AGI : 2+5= 7
- REAC : 5+5=10 *
- STR : 1+5 : 6
Wowww !!!!
1/ i think not, but, Since this is not specified, can you exceed human maximum augmented attribute (9) ? If yes, directly use edge to cast the spell ;)
* so in this case REAC=9
2/like it says in the spell rules : under critter form, you can’t make action that require speech, even if ou are under an « human » form ?
3/Action require speech include simply speacking ?
4/ being able to transform itself into a human, is he not completely abused?
Thx for advice, lightning and answer ;)
-
Well, first off, I don't like it. But, it is possible to do. :P
First off, you'd have to go by the Critter's base stats. That would mean average Physical attributes (all three's), NOT the magician's attributes. So, in your example, he'd wind up with 8's across the board. (Again, don't like this...)
1) Cannot go above augmented max for a Human. 9 is your limit.
2) I'd enforce this. If you're going to break a spell, then accept a limitation that you won't be able to talk.
3) No speaking at all. You do retain the ability to cast (per the spell's rules).
4) It sounds like it...
Here's how I picture it. If you cast Human Form, then you're reshaping your body into what you think the ultimate bad-ass combatant you can envision (Bruce Lee, Mr. T, Chuck Norris, Argent). However, doing so "warps" your vocal chords, preventing you from being able to communicate.
Some other things to consider when thinking about this:
A) You still don't have the skills to back up your new body. You are relying on your regular skills/defaults to perform the tasks. Sure, you might *look* and move like your hero, but you'll still have trouble throwing a punch like them.
B) Drain's cheaper on using Improved [Attribute] AND it goes off YOUR abilities. You might not get all 8's, but in your example, you'd get the Reaction 9. Of course, you're maintaining four spells instead of one, but still...
-
I'd also rule that you can't use Human Form if you are already human...
-
Thx for this answers
Well, first off, I don't like it. But, it is possible to do.
;), like say in other game:
"that's pok..." hmm sorry, "that's rules!"
First off, you'd have to go by the Critter's base stats. That would mean average Physical attributes (all three's), NOT the magician's attributes. So, in your example, he'd wind up with 8's across the board. (Again, don't like this...)
Ouppsss... Forget this because i speack about "human" change and not lion or bear ;) But it's right...
So 8 in all stat, cast the spell @ 6 (find a good and sweet focci seller) and you max all your physical attribute ! (or take psyche... ;) )
B) Drain's cheaper on using Improved [Attribute] AND it goes off YOUR abilities. You might not get all 8's, but in your example, you'd get the Reaction 9. Of course, you're maintaining four spells instead of one, but still...
Sure, but generally classic magician don't have his 4 physical stat @3... ;)
And make 4 VD test, even if the drain is lesser, seam to be more dangerous than one only bigger VD test.
I'd also rule that you can't use Human Form if you are already human...
That an idea, but for exemple the char who use this spell on our table is a Dwarf magician... ;), which does not really change the prob.
-
I wouldn't let a player utilize this, but then, none of my players use magicians.
But, all of a sudden, I have an idea for a psychopath mage that turns himself into a giant mute serial killer. Hmmmm.
-
I personally don't see a problem with a human form spell. To get the big stat buffs you will have to have a fat sustaining focus or sustain it yourself, reducing it's efficacy. A big shiny aura and problems with wards also come with these stat bonus'. As your genetics are unchanged by the spell any tissue samples or other biological security info all still matches you. Other than the effect is meaty not illusory, how does this differ from physical mask? Bonus' to physical stats, you're still a mage and likely lack the skills to use them. If you do then you've skimped on other things, far more important to magic types.
As to the loss of speech, well usually critter form turns you into a critter, ie lacking in the vocal chord department. Turning into a human form will not have that drawback IMO.
-
I have zero problems with using this spell, including:
- A transforming from a human to another human seems perfectly legit
- Maximum attributes should be capped as normal (ie Human = 9)
- Keeping speech. I concur that normally being a critter is the RAI of the rules...but if becoming a human, well, humans can talk.
- Start with basic attributes (Human = 3) plus successes. yep.
- Sustain it all you want. As per any sustained(/quickened) spell, there are balanced complications aligned with having an ongoing active magical effect on your person.
There's an old JP poster (forget the name...Andromorph or something?) who recommends quickening a shapeshift spell to just change gender for a year :o, so there's a canon history of the spell being utilised to be a variant metahuman (granted, in previous SR versions)
Amusingly, if you're a human mage with a Body of 6, you can't change into another human (± 2 only precludes the attribute of 3 to start with :P)
Nah, this sounds like fun. Go for it.
-
I have a problem with it from a very simple perspective.
If the Combat Mage (pg. 99) casts "Elf Form" on himself and scores an average of 3 hits, then he goes from:
B: 3
A: 4
R: 4
S: 3
C: 4
I: 3
L: 4
W: 4
to:
B: 6
A: 7
R: 6
S: 6
C: 9
I: 6
L: 6
W: 6
And what's his price? -2 DP Modifier, active astral signature. That's a lot nicer than going the game-design route of using Health spells (which would be 8 separate spells for a total -16 DP modifier).
Further, if one wanted to be a stickler for these sorts of things, the shapeshift and [critter] form spells allow you to take the form of a mundane "critter". Neither SR4A nor Running Wild classify or treat metahumans as "critters", and make a point of separating "sapient critters" from "metahumans". They are not, in game terms, equivalent. Ergo, metahumans /= critters and shapeshift/critter form require a mundane critter be the destination form, QED Sapeshift/critter form does not allow a metahuman form to be the end result.
Personally, I'd invent a new spell, [metahuman] form. You take on the traits of that metatype/variant (ie, replace your racial stat adjustments, powers and qualities with those of the destination form) and if you're attempting to mimic a specific person whom you have seen / heard before, your hits on the spellcasting test are added to any subsequent disguise checks to pass yourself off as that person.
This is, IMO, a much more balanced approach to the idea.
-
You can't take any metahuman form other than human with this spell, per the FAQ listed in the OP. So (Elf) Form is not a viable use for the spell. According to the wording in the FAQ, Catalyst is lumping humans in as sapient, non-paranormal critters, while other metahumans (Elves, Dwarves, Trolls, etc) are 'other'. Also keep in mind that mental attributes don't change with either version of the spell. So using this spell to change into a human sets your physical stats at 3 + hits and leaves your spellcasting stats unchanged. I don't see anything broken with it. The drain is 3 worse than Improve (Attribute) which has far nastier applications for a spellcaster while not making your clothing unwearable. I'd argue that any mage who shapechanges from a body of 3 wearing clothes tailored for someone with a body 3 size who becomes a body 9 size has just done a Hulk and shredded everything they are wearing. You are tougher and faster now, but are naked, good luck to you sir.
-
You are missing a couple important points. Page 211 SR4A "Her Mental attributes remain unchanged." So no mental stats are effected. Also the OP quoted a relevant point from the FAQ "Can you take Human Form as a version of the (Critter) Form spell? What about Troll Form?
Yes, since humans are, strictly speaking, non-paranormal animals. Metahumans and metavariants are paranormal, so Troll Form, Nartaki Form, etc. are not viable versions of the (Critter) Form spell." Lastly, generally, what bloody good are increased agility and strength to a combat mage?
-
Lastly, generally, what bloody good are increased agility and strength to a combat mage?
When you start with 2 Reaction.... never underestimate a few extra dice added to Ranged Combat defense tests :'(
-
You are missing a couple important points. Page 211 SR4A "Her Mental attributes remain unchanged." So no mental stats are effected.
Fair enough.
Also the OP quoted a relevant point from the FAQ "Can you take Human Form as a version of the (Critter) Form spell? What about Troll Form?
Yes, since humans are, strictly speaking, non-paranormal animals. Metahumans and metavariants are paranormal, so Troll Form, Nartaki Form, etc. are not viable versions of the (Critter) Form spell."
And the FAQ has never once been wrong, I'm sure. Sorry for the sarcasm, but the number of times the FAQ contradicts the explicit word of the book leads me to disregard the FAQ out of hand. If you want to debate it's merits as rules interpretations, there are numerous threads already in existence which do so.
My challenge still stands, show me one sourcebook which defines any metahuman (human or otherwise) as being a "critter" vice a "mook" or "Prime Runner".
Lastly, generally, what bloody good are increased agility and strength to a combat mage?
This is a single example, not a comprehensive example. If you wish to nit-pick, substitute human adept or mystic adept for combat mage. I'm sure they'd appreciate the AGI/STR. Even so, you get the benefit of two spells for the price of one if you're only interested in BOD and REA.
For the record, Billy, unless you're using the "custom fitted" rules in arsenal, the game generally ignores details like the cut of your clothes. And besides, no one said you couldn't make your "human form" spell turn you into a human of your exact build, just better stats.
-
My challenge still stands, show me one sourcebook which defines any metahuman (human or otherwise) as being a "critter" vice a "mook" or "Prime Runner".
Humans are animals with nifty thumbs and big shiny brains instead of wings, flippers, or improved senses. I don't need a sourcebook for that. But I concede that it does make it a GM's call.
This is a single example, not a comprehensive example. If you wish to nit-pick, substitute human adept or mystic adept for combat mage. I'm sure they'd appreciate the AGI/STR. Even so, you get the benefit of two spells for the price of one if you're only interested in BOD and REA.
.
For many adepts and MAs it will be pretty nifty, unless/untill their bod exceed the +/-2 restriction. Then the spell returns to the land of "useful but not uber".
-
For the record, Billy, unless you're using the "custom fitted" rules in arsenal, the game generally ignores details like the cut of your clothes. And besides, no one said you couldn't make your "human form" spell turn you into a human of your exact build, just better stats.
Under that logic, the advanced ranged combat modifiers at the back of Arsenal for different sizes based on the Body attribute makes no sense. And it's in print in a sourcebook. Granted they are optional rules if you find that they slow your game down, but the application is still there. For game purposes, it seems like the designers intend for Body to at least abstractly represent size even though they specifically say it doesn't in SR4A.
As far as the (Critter) Form spell and FAQ are concerned, if you read the text of the spell, it says:
Pg. 211 SR4A
Critter form works like the Shapechange spell, but only allows the
subject to change into a specific non-paranormal animal. Each critter
form is a different spell (Eagle Form, Wolf Form, and so on).
The FAQ states that humans count as a non-paranormal animal, which is definitely included in the description of the spell. They likely restricted the choice to human, vs. other metahuman types to avoid the stat trickery you pointed out in your example. And the spell may indeed be better for certain specific applications, but so what? Are you implying that all spells in the book should be interpreted in such a way that they are balanced with other similar spells? Because that certainly isn't the case. Even without the FAQ, you could legally transform yourself into a human just based on the wording though I would have thought other metas were included before the FAQ spelled it out. If human is the only option, I don't think there's anything wrong with that spell at all. Also, since the OP was a discussion specifically about the FAQ and its representation of this spell, why are you telling people not to discuss it here?
-
Critter Form is a limited version of Shapechange, and as such, has the same limitations.
Specifically:
Shapechange transforms a voluntary subject into a normal (non-paranormal) critter, though the subject retains human consciousness.
Critters refer in general to all non-human creatures
This is another example of the FAQ not following the RAW of the source books. If the RAI was for Critter Form to allow for a "human form" spell, then the book needs an errata to that effect, not an FAQ.
For the record, Billy, unless you're using the "custom fitted" rules in arsenal, the game generally ignores details like the cut of your clothes. And besides, no one said you couldn't make your "human form" spell turn you into a human of your exact build, just better stats.
Under that logic, the advanced ranged combat modifiers at the back of Arsenal for different sizes based on the Body attribute makes no sense. And it's in print in a sourcebook. Granted they are optional rules if you find that they slow your game down, but the application is still there. For game purposes, it seems like the designers intend for Body to at least abstractly represent size even though they specifically say it doesn't in SR4A.
The modifiers in the back of Arsenal have to do with abstraction of body size with regards to ease of hitting a target. They do not then apply the modifiers to whether or not clothing fits between characters. This is handled explicitly by the optional "custom fitted armor" rules at the front of Arsenal, and still is unrelated to Body score. If you want to impose a house rule that establishes "small, medium, large, XL, Troll" clothing sizes, you're welcome to do so & it might even be a good idea. But, it's not, at present, a part of the RAW as far as I can read.
With regards to telling people not to discuss the FAQ, I chose my words poorly. My intention was to avoid a thread derail by discussing, generally, whether or not the FAQ should be treated as RAW. As to the specifics of any thread asking about a specific point of the FAQ & the game impact, I approach it as follows:
(1) The FAQ is a clarification, it is not RAW.
(2) Where the FAQ can be shown to contradict RAW, the FAQ should be disregarded.
In this instance, I have specifically shown that Shapechange (and, subsequently, Critter Form and is, in fact named "critter" form, not "animal" form) is limited to "critters" and that "critter" is specifically defined as a non-human creature. Therefore, the FAQ explicitly contradicts the RAW as shown above and previously. As such, it is my opinion (and my response to the OP) that the FAQ should be disregarded as far as the (Critter) Form spell is concerned.
-
Critter Form is a limited version of Shapechange, and as such, has the same limitations.
Specifically:
Shapechange transforms a voluntary subject into a normal (non-paranormal) critter, though the subject retains human consciousness.
Critters refer in general to all non-human creatures
This is another example of the FAQ not following the RAW of the source books. If the RAI was for Critter Form to allow for a "human form" spell, then the book needs an errata to that effect, not an FAQ.
You are quoting Shapechange and, though (Critter) Form follows most of the rules for Shapechange, it doesn't follow the rule you list. (Critter) Form specifically changes what you can turn yourself into with different wording. I quoted it above but I'll do it again.
Pg.211 SR4A
Critter form works like the Shapechange spell, but only allows the
subject to change into a specific non-paranormal animal. Each critter
form is a different spell (Eagle Form, Wolf Form, and so on).
So Shapechange turns you into non-paranormal Critters. (Critter) Form changes you into a non-paranormal animal. RAW clearly allows for humans under the wording of the spell. You can't Shapechange into one, but you can certainly (Human) Form into one. Strange, but true.
-
Critter Form is a limited version of Shapechange, and as such, has the same limitations.
Specifically:
Shapechange transforms a voluntary subject into a normal (non-paranormal) critter, though the subject retains human consciousness.
Critters refer in general to all non-human creatures
This is another example of the FAQ not following the RAW of the source books. If the RAI was for Critter Form to allow for a "human form" spell, then the book needs an errata to that effect, not an FAQ.
You are quoting Shapechange and, though (Critter) Form follows most of the rules for Shapechange, it doesn't follow the rule you list. (Critter) Form specifically changes what you can turn yourself into with different wording. I quoted it above but I'll do it again.
Pg.211 SR4A
Critter form works like the Shapechange spell, but only allows the
subject to change into a specific non-paranormal animal. Each critter
form is a different spell (Eagle Form, Wolf Form, and so on).
So Shapechange turns you into non-paranormal Critters. (Critter) Form changes you into a non-paranormal animal. RAW clearly allows for humans under the wording of the spell. You can't Shapechange into one, but you can certainly (Human) Form into one. Strange, but true.
Actually, the way I read it is that Shapechange allows you to choose the critter you want to switch into at each casting. [Critter] Form is locked into a specific critter when you get the spell (hence, why it's cheaper on the drain). If you have Shapechange, you can choose to change into a wolf, bear or eagle, but if you have Wolf Form, you're only changing into a wolf.
-
It also means that, but if you look at the wording of the paragraph description for (Critter) Form you'll notice that the wording for what you can change into is different than that of Shapechange, even though they are supposed to be two different versions of the same base spell. It's a fine difference, but its still there and the FAQ echoes this since you can take (Human) Form as a version of the (Critter) Form spell but you can't turn into a human with the Shapechange spell. Seems weird, but that's the way the rule read and it is reinforced by the FAQ.
-
I don't see it that way. IMO, when a spell says "works like Spell X, except..." the "except" portion is additive. That is to say, Critter Form has the following rules:
"Rules of Shapechange"
- Must be mundane critter
- Must be +/-2 Body of target
- Physical stats = Critter's + Hits from spellcasting
ADD:
+ Limited to a single, specified, non-paranormal animal.
Nothing tells me that the wording of Critter Form does the following:
"Rules of Shapechange"
- Must be mundane critter
- Must be +/-2 Body of target
- Physical stats = Critter's + Hits from spellcasting
ADD:
+ Limited to a single, specified, non-paranormal animal.
And if it does that, why wouldn't it do this:
"Rules of Shapechange"
- Must be mundane critter
- Must be +/-2 Body of target
- Physical stats = Critter's + Hits from spellcasting
ADD:
+ Limited to a single, specified, non-paranormal animal.
I find if you don't assume that which isn't written (in this case, that you are to ignore limitations on Shapechange in favor of new limitations introduced in Critter Form) things work out and make a lot more sense.
-
I see your point and I simply can't agree with you. Having seen the same thing come up in other game systems, either with naming conventions or weird ways they work in different situations, I can easily see how (Critter) Form can have a different target form than Shapechange even though they have linked rules (which is really besides the point, since this is a Shadowrun discussion and all systems are different). Why? Because the last paragraph says it does.
End form of Shapechange: non-paranormal critter.
End form of (Critter) Form: specific non-paranormal animal.
That is the only condition of the spell that changes, and there is a change because it says "works like the Shapechange spell, but... (different form)". All other aspects of the spell remain the same, only the final form is different.
-
.....
Because the last paragraph says it does.
End form of Shapechange: non-paranormal critter.
End form of (Critter) Form: specific non-paranormal animal.
That is the only condition of the spell that changes, and there is a change because it says "works like the Shapechange spell, but... (different form)". All other aspects of the spell remain the same, only the final form is different.
Until I see a distinct and dedicated SR ruling otherwise, my 'Golden Law of Common Sensetm' is going to rule:
non-paranormal animal == non-paranormal critter.
Ergo animal and critter are synonymous keywords that can include non-Awakened creatures such as humans.
Simple. Fair. Measurable.
Billy my boy, I think you're chipping to find a much deeper linguistic discrepancy than is actually present.
Hell, even the spell Critter(form) says you become an animal! Problem solved!
-
I don't think there's anything wrong with the interpretation given by the FAQ. If someone wants to use the rules given per the FAQ, they should totally do that. This thread was a discussion of using the FAQ as it pertains to a spell. People are arguing about the FAQ being wrong, but those are people who don't use the FAQ anyway so I'm not quite sure why they are throwing their two cents into the discussion. If they don't want to use it, great. I'm not bothered either way. I am simply discussing what was put forward as the OP. Took me a while to figure out that people weren't arguing the finer points of the FAQ ruling from a use standpoint, rather they were arguing over the use of the FAQ in general which is not what this thread was started for.
-
I don't think there's anything wrong with the interpretation given by the FAQ. If someone wants to use the rules given per the FAQ, they should totally do that. This thread was a discussion of using the FAQ as it pertains to a spell. People are arguing about the FAQ being wrong, but those are people who don't use the FAQ anyway so I'm not quite sure why they are throwing their two cents into the discussion. If they don't want to use it, great. I'm not bothered either way. I am simply discussing what was put forward as the OP. Took me a while to figure out that people weren't arguing the finer points of the FAQ ruling from a use standpoint, rather they were arguing over the use of the FAQ in general which is not what this thread was started for.
Ok, with the rampant use of double/triple/quadruple negatives above....what are you _actually_ saying? ???
The OP's questions were answered within the first 3 posts. What were the rest of your posts about then? :o
-
Keep in mind that "[critter] form" is a template for a large number of spells like wolf form, armadillo form, and so on. Regardless of what the text of the spell says, the [critter] must be a critter for the template to even apply.
-
Keep in mind that "[critter] form" is a template for a large number of spells like wolf form, armadillo form, and so on. Regardless of what the text of the spell says, the [critter] must be a critter for the template to even apply.
Critter = Animal.
Are you advising that a Human doesn't count as an animal? But a Gorilla does? And a Jellyfish? And an Octopus? (Running wild).
You'll give a Shapechanged PC the elemental attack of an Electric Eel, the Echo Location of a Dolphin, or the +3 reach of a Giant squid, but you won't give them opposable thumbs unless they're a gorilla?!
That's a very odd line in the sand you're drawing there...
-
Ok, with the rampant use of double/triple/quadruple negatives above....what are you _actually_ saying? ???
The OP's questions were answered within the first 3 posts. What were the rest of your posts about then? :o
Are you being serious about the negatives? I try to use proper bastardized American English, but sometimes I get carried away when I'm determined on explaining my point of view about something. I'm not seeing them though.
As far as the continuing posts, there was some discussion of the finer points of what the FAQ would or wouldn't specifically allow and the exact implementation if you decided to use the FAQ and cast (Human) Form as a spell after the first 3 posts. I rather liked the debate. I just thought the bits which boiled down to "FAQ = wrong" weren't in the theme of the OP and said so accordingly.
I'll reiterate that I don't think being able to turn into a human with this spell is awful, as there currently aren't any spells which allow you to do so. There is the Shift critter power which I think lets you, but I'm not sure what critters even have access to it (this came up the other night, anyone know?). The Drain is higher for this spell than it is for Improved (Attribute), which I think is a far more broken spell all round in regards to game balance. The limits for the (Critter) Form spell are still pretty strict (no metas, no magical stuff, body restriction still in effect), so I doubt it could be widely abused an in fact would allow some less normal looking characters get around in the real world easier than they previously could (albeit with an active magical aura from the spell).
Again, the ability for the spell to turn you into a human is a direct extraction from the FAQ. I'd never used the spell before myself, so hadn't considered it and it probably wouldn't occurred to me if I had. Apparently it did occur to someone at Catalyst, and that someone had access to making input in the FAQ so there you are. Them splitting hairs about the final form wording between the two variants of spells is a little odd, but not extraordinary. Spell naming conventions aren't a good indicator of what a spell can be used for either. They are simply names. All rules content for a spell comes from its statline and descriptive text.
-
Ok, with the rampant use of double/triple/quadruple negatives above....what are you _actually_ saying? ???
The OP's questions were answered within the first 3 posts. What were the rest of your posts about then? :o
Are you being serious about the negatives? I try to use proper bastardized American English, but sometimes I get carried away when I'm determined on explaining my point of view about something. I'm not seeing them though.
*laughs* ;D Yes, indeed I was serious, and will highlight them in blue from the rest of your response:
I'll reiterate that I don't think being able to turn into a human with this spell is awful, as there currently aren't any spells which allow you to do so. There is the Shift critter power which I think lets you, but I'm not sure what critters even have access to it (this came up the other night, anyone know?). The Drain is higher for this spell than it is for Improved (Attribute), which I think is a far more broken spell all round in regards to game balance. The limits for the (Critter) Form spell are still pretty strict (no metas, no magical stuff, body restriction still in effect), so I doubt it could be widely abused an in fact would allow some less normal looking characters get around in the real world easier than they previously could (albeit with an active magical aura from the spell).
Again, the ability for the spell to turn you into a human is a direct extraction from the FAQ. I'd never used the spell before myself, so hadn't considered it and it probably wouldn't occurred to me if I had. Apparently it did occur to someone at Catalyst, and that someone had access to making input in the FAQ so there you are. Them splitting hairs about the final form wording between the two variants of spells is a little odd, but not extraordinary. Spell naming conventions aren't a good indicator of what a spell can be used for either. They are simply names. All rules content for a spell comes from its statline and descriptive text.
OK, I think I've inferred the following:
- You would allow Human Form
- There is some confusion in the spell Text description
- You agree with the FAQ in this regard (and take umbrage at other's derogatory comments aimed at same)
OK, so, I'm actually in agreement with you on all of the above. Whew! :o
Note: I couldn't find a FAQ query that actually allowed this. Can you send me a link?
FYI, the Shift(Human/metahuman) power is limited to Shapeshifters.
-
Interesting, I read those as being separate articles compressed into one sentence. That is "I don't think... so it isn't", to me isn't a double-negative when it is making two points about a single topic. I was brought to understand that it was a double negative when you used two (or more) negatives in a single point as support for an idea "I don't like no damned Yanks in my pub, mate" or something like that as a rough example. Well, semantics aside....
I would indeed allow (Human) Form. I don't think the FAQ is 100% consistent. The main sourcebooks are also inconsistent. That shouldn't be a reason to discount them out of hand.
There is a little confusion about the spell description, but I think that now it boils down to whether or not the FAQ should be used at all. If yes, (Human) Form is OK. If no, (Critter) Form cannot be used to get (Human) Form.
I agree with the FAQ in most regards, because some of the things it brings up are good for clarity. I don't want to be in the habit of cherry picking rules to use either out of the FAQ, the Errata, or the print text, so I try to use everything unless there is a clear disconnect in which case I use a logical houserule.
Can you take Human Form as a version of the (Critter) Form spell? What about Troll Form?
Yes, since humans are, strictly speaking, non-paranormal animals. Metahumans and metavariants are paranormal, so Troll Form, Nartaki Form, etc. are not viable versions of the (Critter) Form spell.
Is the actual quote from the FAQ, which is one huge HTML page with links that don't work. Kind of aggravating to use, but what do you do? ;) Here's the hyperlink:
http://www.shadowrun4.com/game-resources/frequently-asked-questions/ (http://www.shadowrun4.com/game-resources/frequently-asked-questions/)
Spell in question is about halfway down.
-
Keep in mind that "[critter] form" is a template for a large number of spells like wolf form, armadillo form, and so on. Regardless of what the text of the spell says, the [critter] must be a critter for the template to even apply.
Critter = Animal.
Are you advising that a Human doesn't count as an animal? But a Gorilla does? And a Jellyfish? And an Octopus? (Running wild).
You'll give a Shapechanged PC the elemental attack of an Electric Eel, the Echo Location of a Dolphin, or the +3 reach of a Giant squid, but you won't give them opposable thumbs unless they're a gorilla?!
That's a very odd line in the sand you're drawing there...
A critter isn't an animal, it's a "non-human creature" (p. 292, SR4A) as quoted upthread. Of course a human is an animal, but it's not a critter. The "human form" spell already exists, and it's called "physical mask." ;)
-
Doesn't work the same, as it is still an illusion (just one that works on tech). If you are normally 2ft, tall for instance (a pixie), Physical Mask doesn't help you open doors without flying or allow you to sit comfortably on a methuman sized seat. Same for a masked troll trying to pass as a non-troll. (Human) Form actually changes your physical characteristics to that of a human, with all the benefits and penalties that entails.
According to the FAQ, the (Critter) Form spell allows for animals, which as you point out includes humans. So you don't have to turn into a critter to benefit from (Critter) Form, per the FAQ. The spell text also says animal. The title saying critter could mean anything, the spell text says what the spell actually does.
FYI, the Shift(Human/metahuman) power is limited to Shapeshifters.
That came up the other night as well, as an answer to the same query. However, that is listed on pg. 88 of the runner's companion and only allows for a human form. The one I'm curious about is on page 85 and allows for all manner of forms, including metahumans and animals. I just can't find a critter that has it.
-
I was joking about physical mask, thus the smiley. :)
So you don't have to turn into a critter to benefit from (Critter) Form, per the FAQ.
First, the FAQ is useless where it contradicts the rules.
Second, while it might technically be true that you can turn into an "animal" rather than a "critter," you're still limited to changing into the creature in the spell name. And that has to be a critter. Which is not a human.
-
The spell doesn't say its name in any way affects the final form of the spell. Can you cast Shapechange if you don't in fact plan on changing shape? A Force 4 possession spirit of man possessing a bear, uses Shapechange (as a spell) to up the bear's physical stats from net hits since it isn't already at the augmented max, for example. The name doesn't define the spell, just gives it an identifier that sounds neat for gameplay. The spell description defines what it actually does.
And again, if someone doesn't want to use the FAQ, that's fine. I don't think it contradicts, you think it does. I can live with that. I was just discussing the implications of the FAQ on the spell as both are written. For me, (Critter) Form saying animal instead of critter makes a difference, especially when the FAQ specifically cites it as a difference. I don't see the contradiction, given my logic on spell naming conventions.
-
FYI, the Shift(Human/metahuman) power is limited to Shapeshifters.
That came up the other night as well, as an answer to the same query. However, that is listed on pg. 88 of the runner's companion and only allows for a human form. The one I'm curious about is on page 85 and allows for all manner of forms, including metahumans and animals. I just can't find a critter that has it.
While it's implied this is a general critter power (especially for shifting between different animal forms) the only example I can find for this is for shapeshifters on p87 of the Runners' companion under the Optional Rule sidebar. Check the sub-heading 'Not always Quite Human'.
-
Nevermind. I know what they are doing now. /shakes fist at Catalyst.
-
So you don't have to turn into a critter to benefit from (Critter) Form, per the FAQ.
First, the FAQ is useless where it contradicts the rules.
Second, while it might technically be true that you can turn into an "animal" rather than a "critter," you're still limited to changing into the creature in the spell name. And that has to be a critter. Which is not a human.
A) No, the FAQ is where confusions on rules are clarified. Where is it contradicting the rules here?
B) Who says critters can't be human? Yes, it's implied that critters are 'generally the non-human foes blah blah gumph' on P.292 SR4A, however Critters can be prime runners, sapient and any/all options that PC's have.
Critters are also implied to be animals for purposes of Shapechange and Critter form.
Nobody doubts anywhere that humans are animals (biologically nor mentally), so what's with the strange contradiction you're saying that defines:
'Humans are animals, except where animals are critters for purposes of spellcasting'
I don't understand the technical point you're trying to prove here? ???
-
Page 292 is more specific than that: "Critters refer in general to all non-human creatures that characters may encounter." Critters are non-human. Shapechange lets you become critters, not humans. Critter form is a specialized version where you choose the form when you buy the spell, instead of when you cast. The FAQ is contradicting at least one of these rules.
I'm not saying that humans are not animals, but simply that they are not critters, and these spells only allow you to assume the form of critters.
-
Page 292 is more specific than that: "Critters refer in general to all non-human creatures that characters may encounter." Critters are non-human. Shapechange lets you become critters, not humans. Critter form is a specialized version where you choose the form when you buy the spell, instead of when you cast. The FAQ is contradicting at least one of these rules.
I'm not saying that humans are not animals, but simply that they are not critters, and these spells only allow you to assume the form of critters.
I understand exactly the reference you're pointing to, but I don't believe it's explicit.
'Critters refer in general to all non-human creatures characters may encounter.'
Emphasis mine
Yep, generally the case. However, the word 'generally' gives a large amount of wriggle room as it means 'not always'.
However, by your definition all trolls are critters. They're non-human, ergo they are critters (they may ALSO be grunts, but that's irrelevant)
Also all plants are now Critters, so as soon as Catalyst provide stats for a houseplant (to ensure the Body±2 restriction is met) you've just allowed Mages to Shapechange into a petunia.
I think your definition for exclusively separating humans is overboard. And when you look at the simple weight of evidence, it's the more complicated option:
A) If humans are excluded, then we face multiple contradictory statements regarding same, including a FAQ entry
B) If humans are included, then we have zero contradictory statements, and a supporting FAQ entry
Option B is simpler for me and my group *shrugs*
-
I'm loath to make arguments based on fine points of language, however: I took "in general" to mean "as a class" rather than "as a rule of thumb." In other words, critters are the class of all non-human creatures. And in context, it's clear that critter does not include trolls, but does include plant creatures.
And don't forget, if you include humans, you have the weird bit that the spell doesn't allow you to speak, even though it's a familiar form that is capable of speech. Don't you count that as a contradiction?
-
No, just a fun oddity of magic. Want the human form? No talky talky.
-
I'm loath to make arguments based on fine points of language, however: I took "in general" to mean "as a class" rather than "as a rule of thumb." In other words, critters are the class of all non-human creatures. And in context, it's clear that critter does not include trolls, but does include plant creatures.
How is that clear? On one hand you say: Critter = non-human, which you're now expanding to non-Metahuman?
You're 'loathe to make arguments based on the finer points of language', but you're then prepared to exclude trolls from critters even though they pass the 'non-human' requirement? It seems like your making more exceptions than you need to. I don't follow your logic.
Especially since you're agreeing to let mages Shapechange into petunias, but not humans.... :o
And don't forget, if you include humans, you have the weird bit that the spell doesn't allow you to speak, even though it's a familiar form that is capable of speech. Don't you count that as a contradiction?
Definitely an oddity, but no more a contradiction than the body ±2 restriction. I find it much more odd that a mage with Body =2 (around a 50-70kg perhaps?) can Shapechange into a cockroach or sparrow (Negligible mass, body = 0), but not a Cheetah (Body 5, maximum weight 64kg). But nobody's worried about that little issue (I'm certainly not. It's just a quirk of the magic)....
The speech issue applies across the board and also stops the perfectly speech-capable parrot from squawking 'Polly wants a cracker'. It's a simple spell limitation, nothing more.
-
Petunias aren't plant creatures. Sentient carnivorous trees are plant creatures, and therefore critters.
And it was my impression that the rules are sloppy about distinguishing "humans" and "metahumans."
-
Petunias aren't plant creatures. Sentient carnivorous trees are plant creatures, and therefore critters.
Venus fly trap then :D
Also, I don't believe there are any sentient (do you mean sapient?) plant creatures yet defined in SR. The Awakened Ivy and Sangre del <x> trees would probably also count though, yes?
And it was my impression that the rules are sloppy about distinguishing "humans" and "metahumans."
A perfectly valid impression, but again, it's a linguistic technicality you're permitting on one hand, while disallowing another linguistic technicality that you don't like. This inconsistency is what is confusing me about your point of view
So, to clarify from your perspective:
1) You wouldn't allow humans for either Shapechange or (Critter) Form, for the simple reason that you don't believe they count as mundane critters?
2) Even other mundane critters with speech (eg Parrot) have said speech power removed for this spell?
3) Body ±2 restriction makes perfect sense to you, in all cases?
4) Trolls are not critters (but are critters if subsequently infected with HMVV)?
5) Other mundane critter powers are perfectly valid for these spells (Giant Squid +3 reach, Electric eel elemental attack, birds flight, snake venom, spider silk extrusion, octopus shape squeezing)?
-
1. Correct. (Also, I think the name template for the [Critter] Form spell requires a critter, even though the spell text uses the non-game term "animal" instead.)
2. Correct, although I wouldn't object to a GM who wanted to allow it.
3. Seems reasonable at first glance, why wouldn't it be?
4. Correct. Notably, trolls don't have critter powers, but troll dzoo-noo-qua, fomóraig, and ghouls do.
5. Dunno off the top of my head, I haven't looked into it.
-
1. Correct. (Also, I think the name template for the [Critter] Form spell requires a critter, even though the spell text uses the non-game term "animal" instead.)
2. Correct, although I wouldn't object to a GM who wanted to allow it.
3. Seems reasonable at first glance, why wouldn't it be?
4. Correct. Notably, trolls don't have critter powers, but troll dzoo-noo-qua, fomóraig, and ghouls do.
5. Dunno off the top of my head, I haven't looked into it.
No worries., and thanks for the response :)
1) Hmm, so are you saying Spell-text should be disregarded?
2) Hmm, so this is a possible option, but humans is an outright 'Hell no'?
3) See Cheetah example in above posts...
4) Trolls do indeed have critter powers: Enhanced Senses: Thermographic vision. (Please don't now tell me that Critter Powers are excusively different to Racial Metatype abilities, even though they perform exactly the same function... that would sound silly, and I think you're cleverer than that ;D)
5) There are some fun examples ;D
-
The spell text shouldn't be disregarded, it's just that the spell template shouldn't be disregarded either, and it's more restrictive.
-
There is no spell template. Naming a spell isn't required as part of the rules for designing a spell and so doesn't have any bearing on what the spell does.
Steps for spell design:
1) Choose spell category
2) Choose spell type
3) Choose range
4) Choose duration
5) Determine effect
6) Calculate Drain Value
7) Final touches
It doesn't even require naming in final touches. So I could create a spell called "Create (Oranges)" but the spell is actually a type of Stunbolt that screams "PWN!" as it impacts a target. Alternately, I could leave the spell unnamed and it would still work according to the conditions I set down during spell design. "The Unnamed Spell" has a certain flair I quite like anyway. Naming conventions are, as all spells in any list are created through the above process, irrelevant.
-
The spell name is a clear indicator of the rule as intended, and I think it's perverse to discount it.
-
The spell name is a clear indicator of the rule as intended, and I think it's perverse to discount it.
Hmmm, we're getting into Linguistic technicalities and opinions again ???
Old argument. I'm out :-X
-
Stop calling me a pervert! :) Discount! Also I thought you were a champion of not using RAI to establish rules Bradd? (not talking houserules here)
-
I think it's fine to try to discern RAI, I just think the FAQ mostly does a poor job of it.
-
I just disagree that spell name is an intention of anything, is all. Spell name is given no significance anywhere in the text. Every spell in the book could just as easily be named Spell #1, Spell #38, Spell #Apple, and their effects and restrictions would still be identical to the way they are now. Looking through spell creation, I just don't see from a rules standpoint how name has anything to do with the process. I'd definitely not call discounting it as a rule factor perverse.
-
Hm, I can't help but think that people would be much less comfortable with the discrepancy if it were more blatant. For example, if critter form said you could change into a particular kind of flower, I'm sure that most people would think it was an error in the text, rather than an odd variant.