Author Topic: Were-forms that should not be?  (Read 10172 times)

Offline Rechan

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 654
    • View Profile
Were-forms that should not be?
« on: May 08, 2011, 06:29:50 AM »
So, I understand that when you do a were-form, you become the animal. Not a super charged or super animal, just the animal with a guy inside.

But does the animal form you take have to be an example of the real animal, or can you mess with it? Specifically I'm talking about size here.

For instance, the example of the wereraven has Diminutive Size. Could I choose to just forgo the diminutive size and have a raven the size of a dog? That's Not a raven that currently exists (except for say, maybe an eagle or condor), so is that legal?

Or, let's say I want to be a were-spider, but instead of diminutive size, I want to be a spider the size of a wolf. That defies existing animals. But from a 'strictly power purchasing' standpoint, it would be legal.

So are these kosher?

« Last Edit: May 08, 2011, 06:40:41 AM by Rechan »

Offline BumblingBear

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 2123
  • Rawr.
    • View Profile
Re: Were-forms that should not be?
« Reply #1 on: May 08, 2011, 06:33:10 AM »
You can do whatever you want to do as long as you pay the refresh for the powers.

The book actually says that doing larger size is easier than smaller size.
Myself: If I were in her(Murphy's) position, I would have studied my ass off on the supernatural and rigged up special weapons to deal with them.  Murphy on the other hand just plans to overpower bad guys with the angst of her short woman's syndrome and blame all resulting failures on Harry.

Offline Rechan

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 654
    • View Profile
Re: Were-forms that should not be?
« Reply #2 on: May 08, 2011, 06:41:42 AM »
Side question: If I wanted to create something with poison, how would you do that, as there doesnt' seem to be a poison-based power from a glance through of the rules. Would that just give a larger Weapon effect to say, claws, but only works on biological things?

Offline BumblingBear

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 2123
  • Rawr.
    • View Profile
Re: Were-forms that should not be?
« Reply #3 on: May 08, 2011, 07:48:15 AM »
Side question: If I wanted to create something with poison, how would you do that, as there doesnt' seem to be a poison-based power from a glance through of the rules. Would that just give a larger Weapon effect to say, claws, but only works on biological things?

"Venomous" (I think) is a power right after "claws" for -2 refresh.  It stacks on top of claws and gives the ability to do a maneuver to poison.
Myself: If I were in her(Murphy's) position, I would have studied my ass off on the supernatural and rigged up special weapons to deal with them.  Murphy on the other hand just plans to overpower bad guys with the angst of her short woman's syndrome and blame all resulting failures on Harry.

Offline MarkB

  • Lurker
  • Posts: 9
    • View Profile
Re: Were-forms that should not be?
« Reply #4 on: May 08, 2011, 09:12:30 AM »
One thing to bear in mind is that the main advantage of using existing animals is that you have a working template to build from, that's been refined through millions of years of evolution. The more you mess with that template, the less functional it will be unless you do a lot of 'design' work to compensate.

For instance, a raven's wings aren't designed to support something the size of a dog, so that form may not fly without significant customisation. Likewise, a spider the size of a dog will break all its limbs just trying to lift its own weight.

Offline Belial666

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 2389
    • View Profile
Re: Were-forms that should not be?
« Reply #5 on: May 08, 2011, 10:00:25 AM »
As for wereforms that should not be, were-shoggoth. 'nuff said.  ;D

Offline Haru

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 5520
  • Mentally unstable like a fox.
    • View Profile
Re: Were-forms that should not be?
« Reply #6 on: May 08, 2011, 10:33:24 AM »
There were extremely large spiders in TC, when Harry is using the ways to get to Edinbourgh. Granted, they were Fae of some sort or another, but nevertheless, they exist.

Combine that with Bobs comment on Were-Forms: "William, just a note, there are some were-forms that are supercharged or innately magical."

And I think there is nothing that would speak against it. Other than, maybe, the fact, that a spider the size of a small car is bound to get noticed pretty fast ;)

I would not say you would have to work especially hard to make those forms work, after all it is magic.
“Do you not know that a man is not dead while his name is still spoken?”
― Terry Pratchett, Going Postal

Offline Team8Mum

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 187
    • View Profile
    • Shattered Realities PBW restart
Re: Were-forms that should not be?
« Reply #7 on: May 08, 2011, 11:01:55 AM »
Side question: If I wanted to create something with poison, how would you do that, as there doesnt' seem to be a poison-based power from a glance through of the rules. Would that just give a larger Weapon effect to say, claws, but only works on biological things?

Depends on the type of the poison.
If it is damaging it could just be a bonus to the stress applied following a successful attack
If it's something that hangs round you could apply a Tag of POISIONED following a successful attack that you can then tag for the effect you want e.g
*If it anaesthetic that slows you down gives a negative to alertness roll (and thus initiative)
*Paralyse where you would be using grapple rules against the "might" of the poison- which would probably default to the stress inflicted by the initial attack(I.e. The amount of poison you got into them) unless set independently. (for "just one drop has the strength to kill a thousand people" style poison)
*It could be 'addictive' like the vampire saliva.
*Apply on going stress each exchange until the Tag is removed with a 'first aid' or 'recovery' type test. (e.g First aid  or might check verse the strength of the poison)

Being Fate there are as many ways of doing it as their are poisons ;) work out the 'effect' of your poison and calculate it back from there.
Worse case treat it as a magic item : poison using the potions rules :) see the example on pg 281 YS


« Last Edit: May 08, 2011, 01:49:24 PM by Team8Mum »
I would HATE to be a character in one of the stories I write -
and then there are the days when it looks too much like I AM!

Offline Shecky

  • Bartender
  • O. M. G.
  • ****
  • Posts: 34672
  • Feh.
    • View Profile
Re: Were-forms that should not be?
« Reply #8 on: May 08, 2011, 12:43:13 PM »
When it comes to size, remember the weres we've seen in the books - they tended to have the same mass as the untransformed human. It would seem reasonable that that's the easiest transformation; changing mass would have to do something with the "lost" or "gained" mass-energy, and I'd imagine that adds a big level of complexity to the magic involved.
Official forum rules and precepts; please read: http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,23096.0.html

Quote from: Stanton Infeld
Well, if you couldn't do that with your bulls***, Leonard, I suspect the lad's impervious.

Offline Valarian

  • Participant
  • *
  • Posts: 92
    • View Profile
Re: Were-forms that should not be?
« Reply #9 on: May 08, 2011, 02:12:00 PM »
changing mass would have to do something with the "lost" or "gained" mass-energy, and I'd imagine that adds a big level of complexity to the magic involved.
And then there's the question of where does it go while you're transformed. Not sure I'd want a percentage of my mass hanging out in the Nevernever while I'm having fun flying around.

The change to animal form without affecting the mass transformed is the default. To get hulking size or diminutive size, you have to spend points.
Google Groups for FGII Games:
European FG2 RPG - Fridays & Sundays (8pm UK time)
Using Ultimate FGII and can accept unlicensed player connections on some of the games

Offline Team8Mum

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 187
    • View Profile
    • Shattered Realities PBW restart
Re: Were-forms that should not be?
« Reply #10 on: May 08, 2011, 04:06:38 PM »
And then there's the question of where does it go while you're transformed. Not sure I'd want a percentage of my mass hanging out in the Nevernever while I'm having fun flying around.

scary thought....


(And this is where we see the extent of cross over in the Dresden and Dr Who fan bases...)

http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Adipose if you are not a who fan...
I would HATE to be a character in one of the stories I write -
and then there are the days when it looks too much like I AM!

Offline Shecky

  • Bartender
  • O. M. G.
  • ****
  • Posts: 34672
  • Feh.
    • View Profile
Re: Were-forms that should not be?
« Reply #11 on: May 08, 2011, 04:10:30 PM »
And then there's the question of where does it go while you're transformed. Not sure I'd want a percentage of my mass hanging out in the Nevernever while I'm having fun flying around.

The change to animal form without affecting the mass transformed is the default. To get hulking size or diminutive size, you have to spend points.

Yup, on both of these points.
Official forum rules and precepts; please read: http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,23096.0.html

Quote from: Stanton Infeld
Well, if you couldn't do that with your bulls***, Leonard, I suspect the lad's impervious.

Offline Set Abominae

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 125
  • Give us a kiss.
    • View Profile
Re: Were-forms that should not be?
« Reply #12 on: May 08, 2011, 06:28:27 PM »
Certainly I misunderstood the gist of this thread, but the first thing that leaps into my mind is that were-squirrels should never be.  ;D
« Last Edit: May 11, 2011, 12:57:13 AM by Set Abominae »
No, ma'am. We at the FBI do not have a sense of humor we're aware of. May we come in?


Offline Shecky

  • Bartender
  • O. M. G.
  • ****
  • Posts: 34672
  • Feh.
    • View Profile
Re: Were-forms that should not be?
« Reply #13 on: May 08, 2011, 06:32:08 PM »
Certainly I misunderstood the gist of this thread, but the first thing that leaps into my mind was that were-squirrels should never be.  ;D

Were-sloths. :D
Official forum rules and precepts; please read: http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,23096.0.html

Quote from: Stanton Infeld
Well, if you couldn't do that with your bulls***, Leonard, I suspect the lad's impervious.

Offline MarkB

  • Lurker
  • Posts: 9
    • View Profile
Re: Were-forms that should not be?
« Reply #14 on: May 08, 2011, 07:15:56 PM »
I could mention the con game I played one session of, in which one of the characters was a were-poodle.

A promiscuous were-poodle.