Shapeshifting into a Magical Creature

[ezzelino]

@One Shot

@ezzelino

The single sentence (in the boxes in p.23 and 22) where the authors use "shapeshifter" before is incompatible with the sentence we are discussing. In that sentence, Bjornaer are explicitly not shapeshifters. In this sentence, the explicity are.

Thus your argument is incorrect; you have to accept that the authors have not used the term shapeshifter consistently.

The authors were - wrt to the "other" in "Bjornaer magi and other shapeshifters" - indeed not consistent.

But this certainly does not turn somebody changed by a Muto spell cast by another into a shapeshifter. And the MuCo guidelines do not vary wrt to the Characteristics of shapes assumed, if a spell Range increases beyond Personal.

Cheers

One may or may not agree with you that someone whose shape is changed against his own volition should be considered a "shapeshifted" rather than a "shapeshifter" (Kevinschultz does have an excellent point though, about Lycanthropes). But the issue is moot; the rules in the box tell us what happens at least to those who change of their own volition. As you yourself point out, others follow the same rules because it makes no sense for the magic to differentiate.

[ezzelino]

@One Shot

@KevinSchultz

To be consistent with that, you would have to argue that lycanthropes aren't considered shapeshifters either, because it's the curse that's changing them, rather than their own volition.

ArM5 distinguishes shapeshifters and lycanthropes explicitly: both in the ArM5 definition of Virtues and Flaws, and in HoH:MC p.22 box. HoH:MC p.23 Statistics of Shapechangers does not mention lycanthropes either - so there is no reason to apply that chapter to lycanthropes.

@"HoH:MC p.23 [i

Statistics of Shapechangers[/i]"]
For
Bjornaer magi and other shapeshifters,
determine the statistics for the creature
as described in the appendix, then follow
these steps:

1. CHARACTERISTICS
   For all Characteristics other than
   Intelligence/Cunning:
   ...

2. CUNNING vs INTELLIGENCE
   If the shapechanger is a lycanthrope,
   apply the Cunning score of the animal,
   otherwise retain human Intelligence.

[KevinSchultz]

@One Shot

]The authors were - wrt to the "other" in "Bjornaer magi and other shapeshifters" - indeed not consistent.

But this certainly does not turn somebody changed by a Muto spell cast by another into a shapeshifter. And the MuCo guidelines do not vary wrt to the Characteristics of shapes assumed, if a spell Range increases beyond Personal.

The MuCo guidelines don't say anything at all about the Characteristics of the shapes assumed except that "...they leave the transformed person's Intelligence and knowledge intact." Which seriously suggests that all others ARE changed. Which, in turn, is completely consistent with HoH:MC. - Intelligence and Abilities are maintained, although your human instincts (in the form of human General Abilities) are locked away until you are transformed back, and are instead replaced by the Animal instincts.

Or to put it another way - can you find anything that says that a total MuCo effect ONLY affects Str/Sta/Dex/Qck? Because I'm not seeing them.

Which leaves us in a bit of a quandary - because if such an explicit claim doesn't exist, then we're just inferring things. If we don't want to do that, then either we follow the rules in HoH:MC for all transformations, or else a MuCo(an) is not NEARLY as useful as I've understood it.

[Berengar]

@KevinSchultz

Or you can argue that Per/Pre/Com can arguably be physical characteristics....which I agree that they can be. But in that case, then MuCo can affect them.

See Shapeshifting into a Magical Creature .
I don't see, how Siz increased by MuCo must not alter Prs, and eyes improved by MuCoAn must not change Per. It is dependent on a lot of context: just where to put the Characteristic, and where the context modifiers, looks like a troupe decision. A Siz +8 dragon in his cave might have an increased Prs due to his Siz, while in front of Notre-Dame de Paris he might not.

Cheers

[Berengar]

@ezzelino

But the issue is moot; the rules in the box tell us what happens at least to those who change of their own volition.

Why?

Cheers

[KevinSchultz]

@One Shot

@KevinSchultz

To be consistent with that, you would have to argue that lycanthropes aren't considered shapeshifters either, because it's the curse that's changing them, rather than their own volition.

ArM5 distinguishes shapeshifters and lycanthropes explicitly: both in the ArM5 definition of Virtues and Flaws, and in HoH:MC p.22 box. HoH:MC p.23 Statistics of Shapechangers does not mention lycanthropes either - so there is no reason to apply that chapter to lycanthropes.

As Ezzelino pointed out - yes, it does. The rules also say "if the shapechanger is a lycnthrope" - which makes complete sense if we assume that "shapechanger" refers a general "people who change shape" rather than the rather strict definition you are using. Hence my "logical gymnastics" comment.

[Berengar]

@ezzelino

@"HoH:MC p.23 [i

Statistics of Shapechangers[/i]"]

2. CUNNING vs INTELLIGENCE
   If the shapechanger is a lycanthrope,
   apply the Cunning score of the animal,
   otherwise retain human Intelligence.

Yes, this is a reason to apply Statistics of Shapechangers also to lycanthropes - so to all the category 2 of Shapeshifting into a Magical Creature . That still doesn't make somebody affected by a MuCo spell into a shapeshifter, though.

Cheers

[ezzelino]

OneShot, just re-read the passage I cited and you quoted half-snipped, and you'll see that in the box on p.23, shapeshifter and shapechanger are used interchangeably, and appear to apply to all folks defined as shapechangers in the box on p.22. This includes characters who have their shape changed into an animal by Hermetic magic. It's not that hard

[KevinSchultz]

@One Shot

Yes, this is a reason to apply Statistics of Shapechangers also to lycanthropes - so to all the category 2 of Shapeshifting into a Magical Creature . That still doesn't make somebody affected by a MuCo spell into a shapeshifter, though.

Cheers

What it is is evidence that a shapechanger and a shapechanged are covered by the same rules. Which means that one of your arguments against considering MuCo(An) as a "shapeshifter" ability is no longer valid. In own words:

In any case, somebody changed by a Muto spell is not an "other shapeshifter" even in the widest sense.

[Kevin Schultz] Except literally...

No, especially not literally. There is an obvious difference between shifter and shifted - just as between maker and made, or leader and led - that needs no further explanation.

So - that line of argumentation is no longer valid, as we have established that there is at least one instance (a lycanthrope) of it not being the case. Lycanthropes are affected by an outside force, and yet, by the rules, are still considered "shapechangers". Unless your argument is that "it's not a Muto effect, it's a demonic curse, which is a completely different external change, and thus not relevant."

[KevinSchultz]

Or, if you like: an explicit reference that tells us to use these rules:

Magi of Hermes, pg. 10.

"The following animal shapes are generic. To modify them to suit a particular human, use the rules on page 23 of Houses of Hermes: Mystery Cults."

In context, this is for a Jerbiton magi who has a number of ReCo(An) spells that allow him to shapeshift into the aforementioned animals: cobras, bats, and camels.

Now, to be fair - this is MoH - which, from what I recall, is considered somewhat apocryphal in these parts. Still - it's further evidence that shapeshifter and shapechanger are, in fact, synonomous in the context of these rules.

[Berengar]

@KevinSchultz

Lycanthropes are affected by an outside force, and yet, by the rules, are still considered "shapechangers".

That was clearly stated in HoH:MC p.22 box, and never contested. Why bring it up at all?

@KevinSchultz

Or, if you like: an explicit reference that tells us to use these rules:

Magi of Hermes, pg. 10.

"The following animal shapes are generic. To modify them to suit a particular human, use the rules on page 23 of Houses of Hermes: Mystery Cults."

In context, this is for a Jerbiton magi who has a number of ReCo(An) [sic! - but they are rather MuCo(An)] spells that allow him to shapeshift into the aforementioned animals: cobras, bats, and camels.

Now, to be fair - this is MoH - which, from what I recall, is considered somewhat apocryphal in these parts. Still - it's further evidence that shapeshifter and shapechanger are, in fact, synonomous in the context of these rules.

([sic!] added by me)
This argument is only apparently weak. Since MoH is edited by David Chart and part of ArM5, for rules reference it is certainly as good as the other ArM5 books. And while the text you found does not change a bit of Statistics of Shapechangers, in its place it makes only sense if the MuCo(An) spells on MoH p.12f are affected by that Hoh:MC chapter. So it shows how Statistics of Shapechangers was authoritatively understood in 2009 to cover MuCo(An) spells.

Which AFAICS resolves our discussion.

Cheers

[KevinSchultz]

Fair enough. Moving on to an unrelated point...

@IronBoundTome

BUT I'd also argue that a dragon should use the MuAnCo base for Birds not land animals as the creature can fly. Adding wings to a creature is not enough to grant effective flying, the transformation should be more wholesome to allow flight without additional magical help. Written as:

OK, in the research for the previous issue, I managed to actually find that "categories of medieval beasts" that I thought existed. Turns out it's in (you guessed it), HOH:MC, pg. 38

@Houses of Hermes

1. Type and size

There are four categories of beasts: Birds, Fish, Hoofed Beasts, and Clawed Beasts. Birds are self explanatory. Fish includes amphibians such as frogs, toads, and salamanders, and reptiles such as snakes and lizards, as well as more traditional fish and whales. Hoofed Beasts includes both domestic animals and wild ones. The category of Clawed Beasts contains all creatures that do not fit into the other types.

So it looks like a Dragon would probably not be a Bird - as from the above description, I'd argue that (despite a modern understand of evolution), only a bird is self-explanatory as a Bird. Rather, it would either be a Fish (because it's arguably a big lizard), or else a Clawed Beast.

That being said, if you take it to be a fish, you have the advantage of keeping it in the same magnitude as a bird; however, personally this feels odd to me. For lack of a better argument, it 'sounds' better to me to categorize a Dragon as a Clawed Beast - probably only due to the name. However, I still would put a +1 mag addition for the complexity/hybridization of its wings. This may be a YSMV issue, unless we can get clarification from someone who understand medieval taxonomy better than I.

Of course - in looking at a water dragon: one that lives in a swamp, for example - probably doesn't have wings, and lives in water - which means it's really like a Fish. Which means that the more simple animal is at a higher magnitude of difficulty. However, I suspect this is me using a modern understanding of animal physiology, rather than the mideval mindset of "it lives in water - it's more complex than something that lives properly on land."

[ironboundtome]

Nice find. Dumb luck on my writing that it stays at the same level. Given the way the book ref divides up all creatures into just those four types a bit of fudging is healthy anyway.

[Tugdual]

@KevinSchultz

So it looks like a Dragon would probably not be a Bird

I'd say Dragons are orthogonal to this, in the same way Mammals can be bird, fish or either beast.

Although en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon implies fish.