Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Dumpshock Forums _ Shadowrun _ Apected magicians.
Posted by: FuelDrop Sep 17 2013, 10:20 PM
I've been looking over the Aspected Magician priority gen, and to be honest they are truly suffering.
I mean, you're an Aspected magician, you're already underpowered.
So if you have to be magic and you've only got priority D to throw at it then maybe it's workable, but beyond that...
At priority C you can either get an apected magician at magic 3 with 2 points (15 karma) in a magic skill group... or be a full magician or mystic adept with magic 3 and 5 spells (25 karma). Oh, and Adepts get more magic than them.
Come on! Aspected Magicians are already getting outclassed by the full magician or mystic adept in flexibility without giving the full casters MORE karma worth of benefits at the same priority.
Priority B isn't much better. An Aspected Magician gets 5 magic (to the Adept's 6, in spite of this being the highest priority for both of them) and a rating 4 skill group (50 karma). Mystic adept and full Magician? Magic 4, but 2 rating 4 magical skills (40 karma) AND 7 spells (35 karma).
I mean seriously? Aspected Magicians only get one type of magical skill, at least let them be good at it!
Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Sep 17 2013, 10:22 PM
But, they are not Deckers... so too bad, they just have to suck it. 
Posted by: FuelDrop Sep 17 2013, 10:26 PM
I bet they wouldn't have this problem if they were Aspected Mystic Adepts...
Seriously, Why would you take them compared to a full caster, outside of concept?
Posted by: Lobo0705 Sep 17 2013, 10:47 PM
I agree, there is literally no reason, at all to ever be an aspected Magician unless you have a concept in mind EXCEPT if you take Magic D and want to be non-physical adept Awakened character. That's it. Apart from that, they suck. 
Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Sep 17 2013, 11:05 PM
Seriously, Why would you take them compared to a full caster, outside of concept?
Not everything is about the numbers.
Posted by: Sendaz Sep 17 2013, 11:07 PM
Plus with going with a lower magic priority you can put a bit more into stats or skills, the latter meaning you can balance out some of the missing skills in any case.
Not ideal, but it is there.
Posted by: X-Kalibur Sep 17 2013, 11:24 PM
Seriously, Why would you take them compared to a full caster, outside of concept?
I personally think mys ads should have to aspect their casting since they aren't splitting the magic pool.
Posted by: paws2sky Sep 17 2013, 11:39 PM
As it stands, being an aspected magician is a terrible, terrible choice. Not only do you get crap from full mages in-game, but you're also penalized during character creation.
One possible fix: Bump aspected magicians' magic up by one point at B and C priority. Leave Priority D where it is because, as Lobo0705 pointed out, that one actually works.
With this fix, Magic 6 with Skill Group 4 at Priority B would be great, actually. You could take priority C skills and use your 2 skill group points to raise your group rating to 6. Now you're a serious magician. You're out of luck in terms of no starting spells/preparations, but you'd be kind of terrifying as a conjurer.
Side Note
Posted by: Chrome Head Sep 17 2013, 11:49 PM
Yeah, we've discussed it before, such as http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=39569&view=findpost&p=1255148. Point-wise, aspected magicians are not worth it by a long shot. In terms of karma, you get more or the same for being a full mage over an aspected mage -- that's right you lose karma by going aspected magician instead of full mage in priority C, not even considering that you have the disadvantage of being aspected on top of that.
Craziness.
Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Sep 18 2013, 01:47 AM
Craziness.
You do not Lose Karma in Character Creation (Both Choices have 25 Karma to spend), the choices are just not equal in comparison.
I do agree, however, that many people would not take Aspected Magician over the other choices, if they choose by the numbers.
Posted by: Dantic Sep 18 2013, 05:38 AM
Your failure is in not choosing to be a Decker.
By not choosing to be a Decker you are missing out on the spirit of 5th ed.
Also you are missing out on all the favorable mechanics that have been included in this edition specifically catering to Deckers, but mostly you're missing out on the spirit of the thing. 
Posted by: SpellBinder Sep 18 2013, 05:46 AM
Could be worse.
Could've been a technomancer.
Posted by: FuelDrop Sep 18 2013, 06:11 AM
Aspected technomancer. My god, the horror.
Posted by: Dantic Sep 18 2013, 06:26 AM
I only do one thing, and that is edit files, but I do it very well.
Posted by: FuelDrop Sep 18 2013, 06:46 AM
But not as well as a full technomancer, and nowhere near as well as a decker.
Posted by: SpellBinder Sep 18 2013, 06:54 AM
Posted by: grid.samurai Sep 18 2013, 07:58 AM
This is somewhat subjective. I understand the point being made here, but a lot of players get a challenge out of playing a concept over a min/maxxed creation. The way I see it, the player doesn't get screwed by playing an aspected magician - they get the fun of playing a character who isn't at the top of their game. I usually enjoy roleplaying the flaws over the perks anyhow. I usually enjoy roleplaying over rollplaying also.
But to each their own. 
Posted by: FuelDrop Sep 18 2013, 08:40 AM
But to each their own.
The two are not mutually exclusive. The point is that we've had the theme of this edition being "Power at a price", yet here we see a build who's all price, no power. Playing a non-optimized character for concept is fine, and is actually how I often play, but having something like this which is far worse than the equivalent full caster at the same priority means that you're better of picking the full caster and just not taking the skills you don't want, thus creating the same concept without limiting the possibility of character growth at a later date.
Posted by: Sendaz Sep 18 2013, 09:18 AM
Yes, it is Power at a Price.
It just so happens that Aspected's Price is paying for Mystic Adept's Power, guess you didn't read the fine print.
Posted by: FuelDrop Sep 18 2013, 09:20 AM
It just so happens that Aspected's Price is paying for Mystic Adept's Power, guess you didn't read the fine print.
*Gets out electron microscope* Hang on a second... Hmmm.... yep, you're right. I can't believe I missed that.
Posted by: Sendaz Sep 18 2013, 09:31 AM
Joking aside, aspected is one of the weird spots in magic. Like you said, if it's a concept you want you could just go full mage and only pick the skills relevant to that concept.
The key difference is though, Aspected do NOT get a choice as their magic is handicapped. A Conjurer adept will never be able to do spells just as a Sorcerer adept can never grasp the concepts to reach into the planes and call a spirit to them.
Following on this concept to say that an Aspected should be equal to the full mage in benefits is not necessarily true.
On one hand we can argue that since they are limited in their scope, they would put more into that focus and as such should be karma-wise the same.
But on the other, they are magi-handicapped and the concept was there to allow people who wanted a bit o' magic without having to buy the full package to be able to access some level of mojo to operate with.
Part of the problem is there is only 5 tiers to split this between, otherwise we could spread it out more and show the distinction better.
If you want the full karma benefits, then pay for the full mage and adapt the skills to your concept, it's a simple as that. Then as your character grows you can remain the same or expand as you see fit.
Posted by: shonen_mask Sep 18 2013, 09:40 AM
I'll admit that there is even less reason to use an aspected mage except for the cheaper karma in the priority charts.....
It's more of a transition archtype between non awakened and awakened characters.
Not really chumps though since they are still a good concept.
Maybe a augmentation candidate?
Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Sep 18 2013, 01:20 PM
Problem is that this option is not playing an Aspected Magician. It is playing a Magician who chooses to move in a specific direction. However, in play, if the player is frustrated with his abilities, all he needs do is to branch out his expenditures and badda-bing, badda-bang, now he can perform as a Full Magician. The Aspected Magician does not have the luxury to do so, so they are entirely different things. So, no, it is NOT the same concept at all.
And no, you are not limiting character growth at all by choosing Aspected Magician over Full Magician, you are just eliminating a path on which the character can grow. Which is also not the same thing at all.
Posted by: Chrome Head Sep 18 2013, 02:20 PM
I do agree, however, that many people would not take Aspected Magician over the other choices, if they choose by the numbers.
I'm a bit annoyed that you randomly contradict me without checking, whereas I referenced where to find the explanation (this appears in the quote you included). No, the aspected magician receives 10 karma points less than the full mage in priority C. They each get Magic 3 (25 karma), the full mage and mystic adept get 5 spells (25 karma), and the aspected magician gets a rating 2 skill group (15 karma). In priority C, in terms of numbers, it costs 10 karma to receive the "right" to be aspected instead of full mage or mystic adept. This is pretty harsh.
Posted by: Jack VII Sep 18 2013, 02:21 PM
I think they should have gone with a 2/4/6 Magic Attribute progression for everyone (D/C/B for Adepts/Aspecteds, C/B/A for Full Magicians/MysAds). Granted, this doesn't make up for the wide disparity between Aspecteds and Full Magicians/MysAds (goodbye 2/3s of your utility), but it would at least allow someone to play an aspected magician with a Magic Rating of 6 by prioritizing, you know, Magic, without having to dip into SA points.
I'm also of the opinion that MysAds should be aspected, although I am sure 90% would still go spellcasting, so it wouldn't really change much.
Posted by: Chinane Sep 18 2013, 02:29 PM
And that would be totally ok, if the strength was in the ability to branch out, paid by a smaller ability in the aspected magician's field of expertise.
However, if you play a full magician specialized on pure spellslinging, his strength advantage does not only lie in the ability to branch out to other areas of magic later. At Priority C he is also of higher value in the specialist's domain and at Priority B same value - better customizability could count as plain better here too, though.
Regardless, at no point does the full magician actually have to pay a price for not being aspected.
Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Sep 18 2013, 02:53 PM
NO he doesn't, since the Categories ARE NOT KARMA oriented. You are artificially creating that distinction. *shrug*
PriorityGen IS NOT KARMAGEN.
I do not Randomly contradict you. I have points that I make, and the idea of Karma Inequality that you keep touting is a false one (Karma is not used to create the character). You are trying to create a fight where there is none. The fact is that Aspected Magicians are weaker than Full Mages (whether you believe it should be that way or not - personally, I would think it would be the other way around). PriorityGen reinforces that distinction. Probably in a bad way.
Yes, the inequality is Harsh (I believe that I said that too), but SO WHAT. Aspected Magicians ARE NOT MEANT TO BE AS POWERFUL AS FULL MAGES in SR5, apparently. You are trying to equate them in power, and that is a doomed experiment from the start. You keep saying that they are not equal in Karma, but the system does not set up characters through Karma at creation now, it uses Priority (with a Karma Kicker at the end, which both types receive in equal measure). NO they are not equal. Yes, they are both playable. Maybe, when the designers create the KarmaGen system, you will see a difference in the build at that point, but I would not hold my breath for that one. Could it have been better? Of course it could. That goes with the entirety of SR5.
Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Sep 18 2013, 02:58 PM
However, if you play a full magician specialized on pure spellslinging, his strength advantage does not only lie in the ability to branch out to other areas of magic later. At Priority C he is also of higher value in the specialist's domain and at Priority B same value - better customizability could count as plain better here too, though.
Regardless, at no point does the full magician actually have to pay a price for not being aspected.
Never said that the design implementation of SR5 was good. Just that it is. There are many areas of SR5 that definitely could have been implemented much better. Sad, really, but this was pretty much what I was expecting. Great Ideas implemented poorly. No disrespect to the Writers (there is a LOT of really great stuff there), but it is a failure of the Line developer to bring it together as a cohesive whole. *sigh*
Posted by: xsansara Sep 18 2013, 07:06 PM
Seriously, this is not about flavour, but about game design.
Offering a player two choices, in which one choice is inferior in ANY way, that is not offering a choice at all.
Yes, I do know that if you ask 100 people if they like to have 10$ or 100$, 2% will take the 10$, but that does not disprove my point. It just shows that some humans are non-rational. And having such a non-rational player in your troupe, it is not in the interest of the GM to have such obviously bad choices. Non-rational players will be under-powered by default, having different power levels in your group is challenging, therefore having more bad choices than the usual bad choices you get by allowing people to put points in Guitar playing is not helping.
Plus, it devalues a whole character concept, which now 98% of the players will not take, therefore robbing the game of potential variety.
I am not asking for a point-by-point equilization of mages vs. sams vs. hackers or all those advantages and disadvantages. These matters are too circumstancial to make balancing easy and are prone to hang on details only revealed after years of active gaming. I am asking for a meaningful choices when the parameters to observe are easy to grasp and compare. Not providing those just shows that either an error has occured or the developer's have not bothered to think about the issue for more than 3 seconds (which is about the time the brain needs for rational thinking to kick in and to calculate the relevant numbers). Or they happen to share TJ's view that the consumer has to eat the food he is served, no matter the taste. Because that is really not true. And much good writing in the book proves the contrary, I would think.
So this is errata material, same as the MysAd ...
Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Sep 18 2013, 09:15 PM
Offering a player two choices, in which one choice is inferior in ANY way, that is not offering a choice at all.
Yes, I do know that if you ask 100 people if they like to have 10$ or 100$, 2% will take the 10$, but that does not disprove my point. It just shows that some humans are non-rational. And having such a non-rational player in your troupe, it is not in the interest of the GM to have such obviously bad choices. Non-rational players will be under-powered by default, having different power levels in your group is challenging, therefore having more bad choices than the usual bad choices you get by allowing people to put points in Guitar playing is not helping.
Plus, it devalues a whole character concept, which now 98% of the players will not take, therefore robbing the game of potential variety.
I am not asking for a point-by-point equilization of mages vs. sams vs. hackers or all those advantages and disadvantages. These matters are too circumstancial to make balancing easy and are prone to hang on details only revealed after years of active gaming. I am asking for a meaningful choices when the parameters to observe are easy to grasp and compare. Not providing those just shows that either an error has occured or the developer's have not bothered to think about the issue for more than 3 seconds (which is about the time the brain needs for rational thinking to kick in and to calculate the relevant numbers). Or they happen to share TJ's view that the consumer has to eat the food he is served, no matter the taste. Because that is really not true. And much good writing in the book proves the contrary, I would think.
So this is errata material, same as the MysAd ...
No Doubt...
You are very correct, as you will never be able to absolutley balance out the choices.
I disagree, however, that an Aspected Magician, as it stands, is a bad choice, it is just not optimal. Much like Choosing MysAds IS the optimal Choice in SR5.
Posted by: Shemhazai Sep 18 2013, 10:14 PM
tl;dr This post explores ways to maximize or minimize Magic and Edge while combining skill group points from the Magic and Skills priorities to get more value. As has been explained by others in another thread, there are poor choices scattered among these options.
The quick fix is to just house rule it to give aspected magicians more skill group points and maybe more magic, along with spells, rituals and alchemical preparations. Why on earth wouldn't they know these things just like other magiians? Aspected conjurers should get a few bound spirit services.
Having read through the magic chapter, yeah, aspected magicians are a disappointment. And not just in character strength, but in overall implementation. It's like they got the chargen cost way off, or that it was unfinished when the print deadline arrived.
My biggest disappointment was that aspected magicians can't astrally project. Why? I think I know. They didn't want characters getting Priority D magic and then being able to float around like a ghost. That's why D is only for adepts and aspected magicians, neither of which can astrally project.
The other disappointment is the poorly calculated (opportunity) cost (or possibly unfinished priority table). To work around that some, try to come up with a good blend of Metatype/Magic/Skills columns, because those three are intertwined. You can add to your skill groups with skills group points from the Skills column and add Magic points from the Metatype column for a more minmaxy build to offset some of the opportunity cost, but probably not enough to make it worthwhile to many players.
You can get Human A and Aspected magician D for Magic 6 and Edge 7, maxing out both.
Another approach would to pick Dwarf B or Ork B to get Magic 6 and Edge 1 to lowball the amount of Karma you pay to bump up Edge a couple of points. That would leave the big priority A open.
Similarly, you could choose Troll A or Human C for Magic 2 Edge 6 (7 if human), spending Karma if you wish to bump your Magic up a point. With this choice, you could alternatively get Exceptional Attribute (Magic) and have Magic 7 Edge 1 (2 if human). That human would leave priorities A and B open!
Choosing Elf B along with Lucky would give you Magic 2 Edge 7. Again, this leaves priority A open.
Or Troll B or Ork C to dump both Edge and Magic. Priority A, and possibly A and B are open for you here.
For Aspected magician C, there is that crappy rating 2 skill group, but as others have pointed out, combined with Skills A or B, it's a significantly better value.
You can choose Elf A for Magic 6 Edge 6, maxing both. Combine this with Skills B for 6 in your magical skill group and 1 in... Athletics of course. Human A works too if you don't mind throwing away a special attribute point, but you can do the same by choosing Aspected magican D (and forsake the two magical skill group points). I think I have a better trick below.
Take Human A along with either Exceptional Attribute (Magic) for Magic 7 Edge 7 or Lucky for Magic 6 Edge (freaking) 8. Again, you can choose SKills B to have 6 in your magical skill group... and Athletics 1 of course.
There are several ways to minmax Magic over Edge with Aspected magician C. One is Human D for Magic 6 Edge 2, leaving A and B open for either 6 magical skill group + 1 Athletics of course, or a 6 in another group and a monstrous number of other skills. Another route is Dwarf B or Ork B along with Exceptional Attribute (Magic) for Magic 7 Edge 1, along with Skills A if you want the monstrous skillset. (Note the two skill groups at rating 6. Not a bad value.)
To maximize Edge (with admittedly non-minimized Magic), Pick Troll A for Magic 3 Edge 6 along with Skills B for the 6 magical skill group plus 1 Athletics of course. Or, pick Elf B along with Lucky for Magic 3 Edge 7 along with Skills A for the monstrous skillset plus two full skill groups at rating 6 each.
To dump both Magic (sort of) and Edge, pick Troll B or Elf D for Magic 3 Edge 1, troll having all those priority A skills and elf having choice of priorities A or B skills.
Aspected magician B gets tricky. Choosing it with Dwarf A or Ork A (Human or Elf if you don't care about throwing away special attribute points) along with Exceptional Attribute (Magic) or Lucky gives you your choice of Magic 7 Edge 6 (7 if human) or Magic 6 Edge 7 (8 if human) (or throwing away another special attribute point for Magic 6 Edge 6 without any qualities). You can choose Skills C for 6 magical skill group, but Attributes are now quite low. Anything that throws away points here (choices other than Dwarf/Ork with quality) might be very sub-optimal.
To max Magic while dumping Edge, pick Dwarf C or Human E for Magic 6 Edge 1 (2 for Human). The Skills A gives you 14 skill group points, kind of meh. That would be two groups at 6 plus one at 2 for a rather small extra value. Should it be Athletics? Outdoors maybe? Humans can opt for Skills C to stick with the 6 magical skill group while having killer priority A Attributes AND 50,000 nuyen to play around with. Maybe get some nice foci, car, lifestyle with magical workshop and so forth.
The question is, are such character concepts unplayably underpowered as compared to full magicians with the rather good Attributes and Skills? You weren't planning on buying a bunch of cyberware, cyberdecks, or drones, were you?
Posted by: Smash Sep 19 2013, 02:23 AM
I'm going to play devils advocate here for a second.
1) In 4th Ed was aspected magic worth taking? I'd say no. You got a one off minor karma bump and from that point on you were 1/2 to a 3rd of a magician. I never did it, and I don't think I ever saw one in any games. That being said:
2) Is the point of Aspected magicians that they get less magic but more of everything else or is the point that you just get less and learn to deal with it? I'd say the point is the latter. That doesn't make it a good choice for the balance nazis out there, but I don't think it's aimed at them because they'll all be playing Mystic Adepts anyway.
Unfortunately you can't please everybody. Personally I think they should have kept it as a negative quality.
Posted by: SpellBinder Sep 19 2013, 02:37 AM
I agree. At least as a negative quality it could be later earned off.
Posted by: X-Kalibur Sep 19 2013, 05:38 AM
Aspected magicians are always aspected.
Posted by: SpellBinder Sep 19 2013, 07:20 AM
In SR5, yes, they're stuck in the rut and they can't get out.
In SR4 (Street Magic), where it was a negative quality that gave you BP/karma for character creation it was something that could be later bought off.
Posted by: ElFenrir Sep 19 2013, 07:51 AM
I admit, I preferred the older Aspected Magicians. When you did sacrifice some things, for *greater* power in another area; specializing, if you will. It was sensible, and it worked.
In 2e, for example(back when Force points were tied to Resources, everyone's favorite 
) they'd have Magic B, which means they could load up on foci, or maybe be a cybermage, or maybe both, with 50 Force Points for spells to play with; the most Force a human magician could have would be 35, which if you broke it down, allowed for quite a bit more foci or 3 more Force 5 Spells right off the bat(4 spells at 4, or 5 at 3 with expendable fetishes or something, etc.) They gave up astral projection, and they gave up ever being able to do any other stuff except for their thing(granted, you saw more spellcasters than conjurers, and you didn't see many Aspected Shamans...but I HAVE seen a couple of conjurers in my day and they were quite nasty with the foci load to say the least and were actually physically capable, sort of turning them into a tag-team of Spirit + Conjurer.)
3e came around, and linked Force Points to magic-only once again, Aspected Magicians got *more* points to spend, because they gave up everything else.
4e they did start to get weird. It's now a negative quality, it wasn't even in the main book and you can still *use* the stuff. I...really don't know what happened here and why they decided to upset what had been working what was IMO fine for the past decade and a half before this edition, but I guess there were reasons behind it. In a way it almost seemed like they were trying to make the concept *lighter* on the person by not locking out the other stuff forever(they could still Astrally Project as well if they were Full Magicians), but I just didn't really see the reasoning behind the change.
How I'd have done them in 5e:
-Allow them to be taken B, C, or D;
-Magic rating 6, 4, 3
-For Sorcerers, give them *more* spells/preparations/etc; give them 12, 8, and 6 or maybe 12, 9, and 6
-Have their extra spells cost 3 Karma/Spell instead of 5 to symbolize their specialization;
-Allow them to bond appropriate Foci at 1 less multiplier for their chosen branch(so a Conjurer bonds Spirit Foci at Rating x Karma, Spellcasters bond Spell Foci like that as well, Enchanters bond Enchanting foci at 2xRating, POWER FOCI ARE NOT INCLUDED-nor are any other foci besides these, and regular Availability and Price of foci are the same so it doesn't change the level they're allowed to get at the start, also they have equal chances for Focus Addiction as well, of course, so it still behooves the aspected magician not to abuse this.)
-Give Conjurers 3, 2, or 1 bound spirits(depending on level taken)
-Give the appropriate Skill Group at 6, 5, or 4 depending on level taken
Basically, I would turn them back to the specialists they *always* were. Even better possibly at their chosen aspect, but utterly incapable of anything else(also, loss of Astral Projection stays.) I decided to add the Foci in to make up for the fact they lose out on some other stuff(for example, with the limit of Spells you're allowed to have now-no more than twice Magic-that sort of takes away an advantage they used to have of all the extra spell points, so I decided to fill something in for it.)
I mean this was sketched out quickly and not really playtested, so I don't know how it would work in practice, but it seems like it could be cool.
Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Sep 19 2013, 02:31 PM
Agreed, Elfenrir, your proposition would have been a far greater way to go...
Posted by: Jack VII Sep 19 2013, 03:00 PM
One of the devs or freelancers said the reason they didn't go with spells/preparations/spirits for Aspected Magicians was because the Conjurers would receive a depreciating benefit (services get used up, spirits disappear).
As an alternative, maybe replace the Skill Group points with a flat +2 Dice Bonus to any skill test involving their specialty (Sorcery/Alchemy/Conuring) and/or treat their Magic as +X for tests involving their specialty?
This is, of course, treating Aspected Magicians as specialists rather than cripplecasters.
Posted by: ElFenrir Sep 19 2013, 04:06 PM
Good point about the Conjurers. It always has been a bit of a hairy aspect with them. The +2 Dice for any skill test(along with the skill groups, magic, and everything as I put above, with the Foci bonus as well, perhaps), along with Magic + X? That could work rather nicely. I mean-it has worked well enough in the past but you're correct that Conjurers tended to be rarer due to said deprecating benefits.
(I think one benefit with 2e and 3e was the whole thing with the two different spirit types working differently. Also, to this day I'm not sure what they meant, but we always played it that you could be a 'Magic Adept' of Shaman or Hermetic mage, but Shamans could also be 'Shamanic Adepts', where they could only cast spells/spirits of their totem.)
Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Sep 19 2013, 04:30 PM
(I think one benefit with 2e and 3e was the whole thing with the two different spirit types working differently. Also, to this day I'm not sure what they meant, but we always played it that you could be a 'Magic Adept' of Shaman or Hermetic mage, but Shamans could also be 'Shamanic Adepts', where they could only cast spells/spirits of their totem.)
Well, In previous editions (Prior to 4th), you could always use your Force Points in Chargen to create an Ally Spirit. Which made the Aspected Conjurer pretty powerful indeed. At least it was common at the Tables I played at in Texas, anyways. Can't remember if that was a rule or not.
Posted by: Jack VII Sep 19 2013, 04:37 PM
If I recall correctly (I believe this is from 2nd Edition), but they had Aspected Magicians (both Mermetic and Shamanic) that had to pick either spellcasting or conjuring as their area focus (sort of sucked for Hermetics as their brand of summoning is basically binding in 5E, with associated costs whereas Shamanic Summoning was 5Es summoning on the fly). They also had Shamanic Adpets in the Core book that allowed a Shaman to aspect and they could only cast spells and summon spirits tied to their totem (Shamans were the only ones allowed mentor spirits back then and they had to take one). Then, when the Magic book hit, they introduced (can't remember the exact name) Elemental Aspected Hermetic Mages who could cast spells form a specific area and summon elementals tied to that spell type (Fire Elementals & Combat Spells, etc).
Posted by: ElFenrir Sep 19 2013, 04:54 PM
Oh yeah, Shamans weren't Shamans without a Totem, and Hermetics couldn't take a Totem at all. (I think I saw some houserules later on for that, but nothing official.)
And you're right-digging through my old magic books from 2e 3e, the Elemental Aspected Magicians did exist. I don't think I ever saw someone play one though. (I think it was Air=Detection, Earth=Manipulation and Water=Illusion for the other three, with them being totally unable to cast Health spells.)
Of course, the Hermetic and Shamanic difference was more. Besides the whole 'Shamans had Totems, flat out' and totally different spirits(Shamans also needed to be in the proper areas to summon them) Shamans of course only needed a Shamanic Lodge to deal with their things, while Hermetics needed like, hundreds and thousands of nuyen worth of libraries they needed to keep safe.
Still, though-even if they were worried about Conjurers having the deprecating bonuses...I don't quite get why the answer was to 'just make them worse in every possible way rather than specialists.' Unless they wanted to change what the nature of the aspected magician was. Which, well...as I always say, stuff is easily houseruled.
Posted by: X-Kalibur Sep 19 2013, 05:16 PM
What about giving Aspected Mages a drain advantage instead? Not sure what the sweet spot would be, in terms of what would work. But then they might potentially work as they currently are.
Posted by: FuelDrop Sep 19 2013, 09:56 PM
I did consider having aspected magicians ignore positive background counts of less than half their magic attribute due to their focused training, but I wasn't sure how balanced that would be.
Posted by: Voran Sep 20 2013, 01:36 AM
Maybe if they gained that quality like adepts that further let them develop powers under a certain umbrella cheaper. 4th ed? So an Aspected Mage starts of kinda junk, but 'benefits' long term through cheaper upgrades or something.
Posted by: shonen_mask Sep 21 2013, 11:13 AM
Everyone complained in SR4 about the karma cost of characters relative to others. Technomancers were too expensive relative to hackers. Mystic Adepts were too expensive, compared to hackers......
Now Aspected Mages are in the outhouse. Even with a potentially high attributes and skills priorties...
Just leave it up to chance. That is what makes an RPG sellable, chance of a give action. Not assurity....
Posted by: binarywraith Sep 21 2013, 12:17 PM
Dunno what the deal is, but apparently not building a character for assured success and not designing a game to have all options be of absolutely equal worth points wise is a sin these days.
Posted by: Jaid Sep 22 2013, 05:26 AM
people were arguing that technomancers were too expensive in karma in SR4? really?
in SR4, technomancers were insanely strong at what they did. they deserved their high karma costs... they were plenty powerful enough *with* high karma costs...
also, why would anyone compare mystic adepts to hackers? the two don't fill the same role at all, generally speaking...
Posted by: Dolanar Sep 22 2013, 05:43 AM
actually a Mystic Adept can fill the hacker role quite well, what with having a permanent Increase Logic spell on & Adept powers boosting their skills beyond most people's abilities.
Posted by: SpellBinder Sep 22 2013, 06:11 AM
in SR4, technomancers were insanely strong at what they did. they deserved their high karma costs... they were plenty powerful enough *with* high karma costs...
...
Posted by: Jaid Sep 22 2013, 06:39 AM
well, no. taking something that is too strong and nerfing it until it is too weak obviously won't ever lead to balance, no matter what archetype you're looking at. why would their former level of power have anything to do with how much power they *should* have? if we were to somehow come up with an objective way to quantify the power of an archetype, and we decide that the ideal is to have 5 units of power, it doesn't matter whether something has 1 power units, 6 power units, or 100 power units, the desired target is to hit 5 power units. taking something that has 9 and then nerfing it down to 1 doesn't average things out to 5 power units and make something balanced, it just takes something that was too good and makes it suck, leading to needing to make it better than it's new state.
regardless of how powerful technomancers were in the previous edition, the proper target was to make them about as good as anything else provided the same level of commitment is made. now, we don't have any objective method of quantifying things such that we can point to a given archetype and say it has 1 or 5 or 10 power units, so the best we can hope for is to get things fairly close... but either way, how powerful they were before has absolutely nothing to do with how powerful they should be now; how powerful they should be now is the same regardless of what they were like in a previous edition.
Posted by: SpellBinder Sep 22 2013, 07:00 AM
Was just trying to say that if technomancers were properly expensive for the power they probably wouldn't've been gimped so much.
Posted by: xsansara Sep 22 2013, 07:39 AM
Well, I do hope for an errata'ed priority table, because this is where the problem lies, isn't it?
However, I just noticed that astral projection has been taken away from an aweful lot of people.
I am somewhat divided on that. Yes, it cuts down on the number of occasion when the magic people do their reconnaisance thing and the rest twindles their thumb, sort of like the same problem the Hackers have. In our troupe, we have 3 awakened characters and not one of them can astrally project. Still, they do magical recon by summoning spirits and having them scout out the location. So the TM does the Data Search and places some drones, the face (and everyone else) does some legwork and the mage (MysAd) summons an air spirit to scout out the magic defenses. Weirdly, this works out well. I do remember Sr4 runs that started with a botched astral recon, usually due to a player mistake, unsettling the whole plan (not necessarily a bad thing). Still, I can force Bad Things by GM by ruling that the spirit was caught and the astral signature traced with a ritual, if it is part of the plot.
Now to the downside. It takes away alot of detail. The spirit will never make a dare to press through a mana barrier, it will not be curious about weird background count and it will only tell what I, as the GM, allow it to tell. The Astral World, worked out with such detail, is now rarely used, if at all.
Posted by: shonen_mask Sep 22 2013, 05:40 PM
in SR4, technomancers were insanely strong at what they did. they deserved their high karma costs... they were plenty powerful enough *with* high karma costs...
also, why would anyone compare mystic adepts to hackers? the two don't fill the same role at all, generally speaking...
Yes. I read more negative comments on technomancers and their karma cost than the opposite.
And why compare any character to another really is a better question.
but mystic adepts were a choice if augmentation was not high your list I guess.
Posted by: Jaid Sep 22 2013, 11:23 PM
However, I just noticed that astral projection has been taken away from an aweful lot of people.
depends on perspective, i guess. mystic adepts, so far as i am aware, have never had it. neither did regular adepts. prior to SR4, aspected magicians also did not have it, if i'm not mistaken.
so from my perspective, unless they take it away from regular full magicians, they aren't taking it away from anyone =S
Posted by: binarywraith Sep 22 2013, 11:59 PM
Without spells grounding through active foci, and with even more retarded possession enemies, astral projection is more of a hindrance than a help these days anyway.
Posted by: paws2sky Sep 23 2013, 02:54 AM
Indeed. I don't recall Astral Projection ever being available to anyone except full magicians, even through metamagics.
-paws
Posted by: Jaid Sep 23 2013, 04:34 AM
-paws
well, some spirits can allow it. great form guidance spirits being one example from 4th edition.
Posted by: Slithery D Sep 23 2013, 04:44 AM
Shamanic and Elemental Adepts had it, not sure if that was SR2 or SR3.
Posted by: ElFenrir Sep 23 2013, 07:43 AM
SR2. I think they could get away with it given their much more limited lists of things to cast. Where a 'sorcerer' could cast every spell out there(and damn good), the Shamanic/Elemental adepts were generally only casting 1 or 2 types. (Of course, Shamanic adepts could 'game' it a bit, a Wolf shaman adept could cast both Combat and Detection spells while summoning Forest spirits, but even then that locked them out of the other 3, still pretty limited). Hermetic adepts could only ever cast 1 type and 1 type only, since each element was linked to a type(save Health, which they could never cast as I mentioned.)
So giving them Projection? IMO it worked. I don't think though, anything else had the ability to project besides those two, and the Shamanic/Elemental aspected folks haven't been around since 2e. Part of my brain remembers some Astral Adept around somewhere(an adept that worked pretty much in astral space) but I think that ended up being a houserule muddling with actual rules since I can't find it in either the Grimoire or MitS.
Posted by: paws2sky Sep 23 2013, 10:05 PM
I stand corrected. 
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)