Jump to content

Transform vs Shape Shift: How to Change Oneself


Recommended Posts

You want the abilities of a gargoyle? Do what every other player does. Buy each power with a limitation "Only In Alternate ID", or the limitation " Only Usable When Shapeshifted To An Appropriate Form". Do Not Use Transform To Do This! That, or Multiform into your Gargoyle body.

 

There is no other official way. Multiform into your Gargoyle self spell, or Shape Shift and appropriate powers only when shapeshifted.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 66
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Lads, Lasses... Thank you for the information. Potential viable uses of Transformation, non-self focused mind you, may be mused about elsewhere at another time, but that will be for another time. 

6th edition vol 1 page 307 left hand column   Characters cannot use Transform on themselves. Changing one’s own shape is either a special effect of certain powers, or requires Mult

The thing about Role Playing Games is that the rules are not iron clad by nature. If your not having fun, then change them rules till you are. IYG after all.

18 minutes ago, steriaca said:

You want the abilities of a gargoyle? Do what every other player does. Buy each power with a limitation "Only In Alternate ID", or the limitation " Only Usable When Shapeshifted To An Appropriate Form". Do Not Use Transform To Do This! That, or Multiform into your Gargoyle body.

You misunderstand the core concept... the idea isn't to just turn yourself into a gargoyle like some odd lycanthrope.

The concept is a spell cast that turns "Anybody" into a "Gargoyle" (by adding the abilities and complications of being a gargoyle semi-permenently to the target). This is literally the 6e1 example of Adding Or Removing abilities (see page 307), although I mistakenly said it was Arkelos and not Kasdreven casting the spell.

 

My arguement is that there is no RAW reason he cannot cast it on himself (if he wants)*... however I doubt he would want to use the version I'd allow on himself... being stuck like that for weeks with no magic would suck (human magic being based on the human body means that a gargoyles just can't do it... or something).

 

*and presuming it isn't built primarially to simulate Multiform; such as by being easily reversed or Dispelled.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cantriped said:

...  Note that Multiform expressly prohibits you from having a better alternate form than your base form...

 

Pardon me, but this is incorrect.

6E1 pg 266:

"The character’s true form can have more points than his alternate forms, or his alternate forms can have more points than his true form (before or after accounting for the points the true form pays for Multiform)."

 

If the 'true form' is built as Billy Fungolad with Multiform to transform into Commander Wonder, I think the alternate form would have more points than the base form; however, if the 'true form' is built as Count Notchocula and the alternate form is a mobile mist it's almost certain the base form will have more points.

So, no, Multiform doesn't expressly prohibit you from having a better alternate form than your base form.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, clnicholsusa said:

 

Pardon me, but this is incorrect.

6E1 pg 266:

"The character’s true form can have more points than his alternate forms, or his alternate forms can have more points than his true form (before or after accounting for the points the true form pays for Multiform)."

It is correct in the most recent printing of the rules.

 

Your quote is out of date (or context): "Alternate forms must be regular characters (not Vehicles, Bases, Computers, Automatons, or the like), and are built on the same Total CP (including Matching Complications) as the true form (or fewer CP, if desired)" (CC 81).

Considering that CC/FHC only purposfully omit optional rules, that must have been considered one too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

My google-fu is weak. I was trying to find the thread about CC when it was announced by Derek Hiemforth and he stated that CC would be subservient to 6th ed. in rules hierarchy. 

I don't think such was ever explicitly stated. What has been stated is that CC/FHC are still considered part of the 6th edition ruleset*, and that you should be able to use 6th edition supplements largely unmodified. with 6e1&2 being more exhaustive in its treatment of optional game elements.

 

* Making them the most recent printings of that edition. Despite sufficient purposeful changes to constitute a new edition. Either CC/FHC are the most recent printings of the HERO System 6th edition (and therefore are the most up-to-date), or they are a seperate edition (rendering all counter references to 6e moot). Hero Games can't have it both ways, and insisting on that 6e trumps CC/FHC is not only bad logic but bad for Hero Games buissness... why buy a product with no community or company support?

 

I am certain there is a lot of elitism regarding the validity of CC/FHC versus 6e1&2. But I blame that on Steve Long's childish refusal to support a product that logically out-dates his 'masterpiece'.

 

It has been publically announced by that the powers that be that CC/FHC are Hero Games flagship products.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Cantriped said:

I am certain there is a lot of elitism regarding the validity of CC/FHC versus 6e1&2. But I blame that on Steve Long's childish refusal to support a product that logically out-dates his 'masterpiece'.

 

If by "support" you mean that he won't answer questions related to the content of CC / FHC, shouldn't that be the prerogative of the people who wrote those books?  I mean, making pronouncements about what someone else meant when they wrote something seems... a bit presumptuous, don't you think?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BoloOfEarth said:

If by "support" you mean that he won't answer questions related to the content of CC / FHC, shouldn't that be the prerogative of the people who wrote those books?  I mean, making pronouncements about what someone else meant when they wrote something seems... a bit presumptuous, don't you think?

It should be the preogative of those who wrote CC/FHC, or at least they should have an opportunity... But Hero Games doesn't put them up on a golden pedestal like it has Steve Long. Derek and Michael should have a similarly exclusive Rules Thread for questions related specifically to CC/FHC... or if Steve is the only one willing/able to answer FAQs in an official capacity; he should start supporting the most recent edition (and providing citations for it where available) and the company's flagship products before his refusal to adapt bankrupts the company even further.

Presumptuous maybe...but except where I provide quotes everything I write is, by defination, an opinion. Feel free to disagree with my opinions.

 

My opinion is that CC/FHC are an entirely seperate edition (albeit somewhat backwards compatible), given the number of important differences between CC/FHC, but I am well aware (and have been told personally) that this was not the author(s) intent, nor is it Hero Games offical position on the subject. Regardless, I believe that was the result.

 

1 hour ago, Ninja-Bear said:

I suspect (and it’s only my opinion) that Steve Long won’t comment on  CC/FHC probably do to an undue amount of redundancy. I can see a lot of messages could be like this. Questioner “What about X?” , Reply by Steve “Well on pages xyz in 6th, it’s answered.”

That would be a logical reason (and the one I'd use publically), but its not a very good one... I provide citations from all three books regularly (and I really do hate the 6e1&2 books). In my experience most of the time I can arrive at the same conclusion using either version of the rules. The hardest part is the paper cuts from referencing three different PDFs...

It isn't that hard to note the differences and provide rulings for those using CC/FHC as their primary rules references either. There are only a few ommisions bad enough to deserve an answer specific to CC/FHC. Most of the real doozies were never covered in 6e1&2 either.

No... I fear it is more likely Steve would simply prefer to pretend that CC and FHC don't exist until they finally go away or Hero Games goes belly up. The latter is more likely now that CC is also available in POD.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, ghost-angel said:

This isn't worth our time, another user in the block list.

 

In all the years I've been coming around, I've only had to put one person on ignore.

 

That number may grow to two, the way things are going.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Feeding a palindromedary

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, ghost-angel said:

If someone says "I'm going to use Transform for this, how will that affect things?" - we'd probably fall all over ourselves helping. But when someone has utter comprehension fail despite several people pointing out their misreading... well, we''ve got more interesting people to help.

Someone should cast a transform spell on this thread, from useless waist of space to useful advice which many players and game masters endorse and should be followed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cantriped said:

It should be the preogative of those who wrote CC/FHC, or at least they should have an opportunity... But Hero Games doesn't put them up on a golden pedestal like it has Steve Long. Derek and Michael should have a similarly exclusive Rules Thread for questions related specifically to CC/FHC... or if Steve is the only one willing/able to answer FAQs in an official capacity; he should start supporting the most recent edition (and providing citations for it where available) and the company's flagship products before his refusal to adapt bankrupts the company even further.

Presumptuous maybe...but except where I provide quotes everything I write is, by defination, an opinion. Feel free to disagree with my opinions.

 

Second thing first, for clarity.  I was saying that it would be presumptuous of Steve Long to make pronouncements on what Derek meant in CC.  If you feel that "presumptuous" applies to your posts, well... that's on you.

 

And I'm pretty sure that Steve Long has said (repeatedly) that he only answers questions on the products he has written, and it's not his place to answer questions for products he wasn't involved in.  He's not the Line Developer for Hero Games products any more, and hasn't been since something like 2012.  He's (probably) still one of the DOJ owners/investors, sure, but AFAIK not the top dog at Hero Games any longer.  I believe Jason is.  I think it's admirable that years later, Mr. Long is still willing to answer questions related to the books he wrote.  It's not his place to answer questions on ones he didn't have a hand in.

 

I don't know if Derek or Michael ever offered to handle similarly exclusive rules threads for CC or FHC, or are even willing to do so.  (It would be a decent time commitment, so I wouldn't blame either one if they didn't want to do that.)  If they've offered to do so and Jason turned them down, well, that would be different. AFAIK that's not the case, but I admit I could be wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, BoloOfEarth said:

And I'm pretty sure that Steve Long has said (repeatedly) that he only answers questions on the products he has written, and it's not his place to answer questions for products he wasn't involved in. 

That is his official line yes, and I still say its hooey (a presumptous opinion I admit). I think he just doesn't like that they cut out all his 'carefully crafted' examples, corner-cases, optional rulings, etc... 

 

27 minutes ago, BoloOfEarth said:

I don't know if Derek or Michael ever offered to handle similarly exclusive rules threads for CC or FHC, or are even willing to do so.  (It would be a decent time commitment, so I wouldn't blame either one if they didn't want to do that.)  If they've offered to do so and Jason turned them down, well, that would be different. AFAIK that's not the case, but I admit I could be wrong.

I'm not sure if either would have been made such an offer, when Derek wrote CC my understanding was that it really was intended be just a shorter version of 6e. So why have them also answer questions (and risk them not matching) when in theory all of Steve's 6e1&2 answers should have been universally applicable... Also not sure they would have accepted, neither posts very often, and I imagine Derek and Michael feel much the same way; neither wants to speak for the system because their work was based on the work of those who came before them.

 

But... CC/FHC just aren't the same as 6th was... and while it is generally an improvement (to me), it does have its flaws (*shakes his fist at the nonexistant Wind Levels Table*). Removing Classes Of Minds and Imploding Skills was... probably not the best decision in that regard. It makes compatability and adjudication an issue when you claim two rulebooks represent the same "edition", but they aren't actually interchangable.

Conversely I might have been happier if CC/FHC had been pushed even farther. So that they could stand definitively as their own editions, instead of occupying the ackward position of being treated like Sixth Edition's bastard children by its own community.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lads, Lasses...
Thank you for the information. Potential viable uses of Transformation, non-self focused mind you, may be mused about elsewhere at another time, but that will be for another time. 

In the meanwhile, the content that was intended for here has come about, discussed, and now has meandered elsewhere. If you wish to discuss such, I've not a problem with that being done so in a different Topic. But, this has strayed far enough for now. Let's move past this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Cantriped said:

It is correct in the most recent printing of the rules.

 

Your quote is out of date (or context): "Alternate forms must be regular characters (not Vehicles, Bases, Computers, Automatons, or the like), and are built on the same Total CP (including Matching Complications) as the true form (or fewer CP, if desired)" (CC 81).

Considering that CC/FHC only purposfully omit optional rules, that must have been considered one too.

Yes, I read that, spent a few seconds in thought, then discounted it and continued to apply the rule I decided was properly defined.

Unfortunately, I have a tendency to respond (in posts) as if everyone on the internet knew everything there was to know about me and my relationship with whatever subject is being discussed. No, the therapy doesn't cost much.

 

When I went through CC, I found nothing I would personally use. In this case, applying that rule to multiform means a 400 point character using the multiform ability is automatically weaker than a 400 point character that doesn't use the ability. I didn't want any of my players to think they were being penalized for suggesting the GM should keep track of more than one character for any player that wanted to use some specific power. I still struggle against evolving into the sort of GM that would do this, but, when your the GM, IYG.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...