The specialization bonus is obviously intended to be used to create the dice pool, not modify it.

Arguably the reason the specialization bonus is referred to as a "bonus" is to keep it from being a "modified skill." Otherwise, the rules are that when you go to improve a skill with karma, you use the modified value to calculate improvement cost as opposed to the base. Also there's a limitation on how much higher a modified skill can be over the base skill. Specialization doesn't play by those rules.



You don't need errata to clarify RAI.

I would not say that it is obvious in any way; Your view is personal opinion... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

When RAI remains fuzzy, you do indeed need an Eratta... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

When the people who made the game keep an updated FAQ on their website, and they say something explicitly like:



You don't have to go a long way with your personal opinion to figure out what they intended.

Again, it is not a Eratta, which is what you use to alter rules. And if you look real close, you will see that the FAQ is not accurate for SR4A (Glaring rules mistakes, in direct opposition to the Rules as printed in the actual books)... AND, It is not updated. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

What they intended is not the rules that they wrote. Want to change the Rules, write an Eratta, not a FAQ.

What he said +1

Yes. She doesn't know the steps to the dance but she uses her incredibly high Dancing dice pool to overcome the negatives and is able to correctly follow the steps. Baryshnikov can probably pick up on a waltz very quickly but if you asked him to perform Swan Lake without knowing the choreography it'd be pretty dicey.

From the FAQ:



Otherwise, having not carefully inspected every entry in the FAQ, could you point out some of the glaring rules mistakes?



In RAW they just fail to specify the complex case of building a dice pool with specializations and then splitting it.

Personally, I don't see why a FAQ on the official website is not sufficient clarification.

And yet, if it was actually updated, the glaring rules contradictions would have been fixed, yet they were not. So, no, it is not updated.

I can give you one example right off the top of my head... Mystic Adepts and how they treat their magic rating. The Book uses the rating (Total Rating) as the cap for Adept powers and the cap for your Spellcasting/Summoning for Overcasting. The Faq completely contradicts that...

As for why the FAQ does not cut it, it is a FAQ, not an Eratta. If you want to fix a rule, you use Eratta.

The book says



I've always read that section to mean that spending Magic points on phys ad abilities "locks up" that magic and prevents it from being used for spellcasting. It doesn't say "Every point of magic invested in mana-based abilities grants the character one point to use in Spellcasting tests." It says "with Magic-based skills." That's sort of a vague statement.

Could you read that either way? I guess. But when the FAQ contradicts one interpretation, it is not a "glaring contradiction." Rather, it just shows that when you decided what they meant, you chose something different than what they later came out and said they actually meant. Obviously since the question is in the Frequently Asked Questions file, it's a point that a lot of people have gotten stuck on, and not some definitely cut-and-dry matter like you're saying it is.

No, what it says is that if you have 6 magic, and you split the Magic at 4 Adept, and 2 Spellcasting, You use the magic of 2 for the actual skill roll for Spellcasting/Summoning (How you construct that Dice Pool), but your Magic rating is still 6 for determining how you Cast those Spells/Summon those Spirits (ie where Stun/Physical breaks at for overcasting/summoning). Likewise, your 4 Adept points are what you are allowed to spend upon Adept abilities, but you could have 6 Levels of Critical Strike because your Magic is a 6, not a 4. Look at the examples in the SR4A book, it makes it all very clear.

The FAQ is completley opposite of the book at that point, and if one of the questions is incorrect, how many more are incorrect? The problem with the FAQ is that it was written by the Then-Writers for SR4, and then was half-assed into SR4A with no thought as to how the rules had changed.

In the end, If you want to CHANGE A RULE, you need an Eratta, not a FAQ. FAQ's do not FIX anything, they attempt to clarify. In this case, the SR4A FAQ fails at that miserably.

The relevant portion, which the FAQ ignores and contradicts, however comes directly afterwards:
This line has always been there even in the first printing of SR4 (p. 187).

No, it what it says is (and I'll add the rest of the line):



What you've done is determined that "with Magic-based skills" means only on the Spellcasting/Summoning/etc tests. What other people (including myself) have done is determined that "with Magic-based skills" means on the Spellcasting/Summoning/etc tests as well as for determining Force, since Force falls within the reading of "with Magic-based skills." Force only ever comes into play when using Magic-based skills, and your Magic attribute (when using Magic-based skills) is what you would use to determine the Force of a spell.

The people who make the game obviously side with the latter group.

In other words, you read it wrong. Other people read it wrong, too, hence why the clarification is offered in the FAQ.

Just like with splitting dice pools.

If you're going to complain about glaring contradictions in the FAQ, it would help for the contradictions you think are in there to be, well, glaring.

Dakka Dakka provided the relevant Quote from the Rules that you apparently are missing.
Also, Did you even look at the Examples? It is all there... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

That line is included in what I quoted from the rules. "For all other purposes.." et cetera.

If you read "with Magic-based skills" to include the Force, like I've explained, then it's already specified and "for all other purposes" doesn't have any bearing.

Oh, and "for all other purposes" generally means: "we couldn't think of anything else that this could apply to, but use it like this just in case you find something obscure." Not: "this was intended to apply to this super-obvious and incredibly important thing that the entire rules are centered on, but we just didn't want to waste five words on it."

Except that:



If the Adept is using his Full Attribute for determining levels of Adept abilities, the Mage is using the Full Attribute to determine the Force at which his spells become Overcast. No one is arguing that the dedicated Points of Magic are the only points used to construct dice pools for the Skill Tests... Any thing else falls under the "For ALL OTHER PURPOSES" Clause indicated above.


Anyways... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

Apples and oranges. Adept max power level does not equal Magician Force. It explicitly states that for adept powers they're allowed to buy a level up to their full Magic attribute, but it doesn't explicitly state that they're allowed to cast/overcast based on their full Magic attribute.

Obviously (since they were getting questions on this and saw fit to clarify it in a FAQ), they meant for it to be read in such a way that Force is limited as I described earlier.

If you screw up interpreting something, the correct response is not to claim that the rules are extremely clear and that the clarification (and all other associated clarifications) is wrong. The fact that there's a clarification strongly implies that the rules are not extremely clear.

If you include the maximum level for adept powers but not the maximum force/overcast force, what is there besides the maximum for adept powers? "all other purposes, including the determination of the maximum level for adept powers" means that there must be at least one other thing to which the full magic attribute applies.

It is not a clarification but a rules change, which has no business in a FAQ.

The rules are clear though. do you use any magic-linked skill to determine force? No, you pick a number between 1 and twice your magic Attribute. Skill has nothing to to with it.

Could we get back to specializations now?

Cut and paste previous stuff about what "for all other purposes" generally means.



It doesn't seem like a rules change for me, because I've never read it in a different way than is clarified in the FAQ.



"Every point of Magic invested in mana-based abilities grants the character one point to use with Magic-based skills." Selecting Force is part of using Magic-based skills. It doesn't specify that the Magic attribute only applies to Magic-based skill tests.



Sure. You apply Specialization bonuses when constructing the dice pool, before you split the pool. Dice pool modifiers (such as for wounds, range, cover, et cetera) are applied to each part after the split.

There is a tracked bike in Arsenal, and bikes can be converted to have other movement modes like hover or walker.

But can you get a hover skateboard?

Sure, you just have to make one...

Alternatively, if your GM allows it, you could try using any flying medium drone (like the omnipresent Rotodrone) as a skateboard.

Aren't there skimmer discs already. Just duct tape them to a board. Give them 20/50 speed and use the other characteristics of the discs, finished.

I doubt that the classical hoverboard can fly much higher than 30 cm. BTW do they exist in other fiction besides back to the future?

Isn't that a bit fast? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)