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.

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.

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*

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 ...

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.

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?

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.

I agree. At least as a negative quality it could be later earned off.

Aspected magicians are always aspected.

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.

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 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif) ) 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.

Agreed, Elfenrir, your proposition would have been a far greater way to go...

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.

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.)

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. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

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).

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. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

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.

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.

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.

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....

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. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

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...

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.

Apparently not expensive enough to warrant the gimping they got.