Based on the way the book is written I'm a bit confused on something.

If an Adept with Magic 5 (3 for magic, 2 for adept power points) cast spells, what number is used to determine if a spell does S or P drain (or is even possible)?

With the above adept, is a force 4 spell, Stun drain (due to 5 points to magic and RAW says that for all other things you use actual magic rating), or Physical (due to 3 points in spellcasting. Book says those 3 points are 3 dice, but does not talk about spell levels regarding adepts).

This post is horribly written, but it's late and this idea just hit me.

Help please.

I am not sure. Going from memory, you would use magic 5 to determine if the spell was stun or physical but you only get 3 dice to add to your spellcasting skill when you cast the spell. But it might be reversed. I haven't played one yet, I never liked the concept so this is all from memory, and mine sucks.

Personnally I would consider the character as a Magic 2 Adept and a Magic 3 Mage (with no astral projection/perception), so Force 4+ would be Physical drain.

Otherwise a *single* point dedicated to spellcasting would allow a character to pack most of the punch of a "full" mage - same drain resistance, same spells power, just a few less successes on your spellcasting rolls (that can be alleviated with focuses, specialisations and the like) - with an hefty heap of Adept powers points available, for 2/3 the BP cost.

But the rules are rather murky about the way this is intended to works, and I didn't find definitive arguments one way or the other.

emphasis mine

Until I'd read that I'd always thought that spells would be limited based upon the points spent on "mana-based" abilities. However, based on how it works for adept powers it got me wondering. Hence my question.

I believe this is a case where the behavior changed between SR4 and SR4a. As Aerospider quoted, in SR4, the switch from S to P drain was limited by the points allocated to magic. And the level of Adept powers was limited by the points allocated to adept.
However, as Caadium (who started this question) quoted, SR4A is different. Based on posts from the highly knowledgeable (AH, etc...), under SR4A the switch from S to P drain is determined by the total magic attribute, not the allocation to magic.

Yours,
Joel

Oops, yes you're quite right. I hadn't appreciated that the FAQ I quoted was pre-anniversary.
Looking at the Caadium's quote and the accompanying example in SR4A I agree with using the full Magic attribute for determining stun vs physical drain.

Wow, this is a major twist I had not followed for a mystic adept I play. He has 2 points of Magic devoted to Spellcasting and Summoning, and he has often paid physically for summoning spirits over Force 2. Could someone please point me in the direction of the discussion(s) to which Joel alludes?

In response to my asking AH to describe the change to Mystic Adepts, Mystic Adept Thread, Ancient History post.

Yours,
Joel

Thanks, Joel!

Thank you Joel! If I'd have found that post I woulnd't have had to start this thread.

I'll have to think about how this change affects Mystic Adepts, but on the surface, I think I like it. They now have the same magical potential (from an adept, or mana perspective), but due to their split focus they are not as skilled. Whereas before they were not only less skilled, but also had less potential ability. No matter what, they are still hampered by not being able to Astrally Project or Perceive (without something like an Adept power kicking in).

Yes, it is possible to abuse this (as with many other things in this or other games) through things like Foci. However Foci cost a lot of cred (aka BP at creation, no to mention bp to bond); and normal mages have a hard enough time with bp, and most Mystic Adepts need to split their focus even more. This means that for most MA's the bp to get the Foci will be hard to come by. And for those that due try to abuse it, there is always focus addiction.

That FAQ should be shredded and burned. It's so badly out of date, and even worse it actively contradicts the rulebooks in many spots. The purpose of a FAQ is to clarify, the purpose of an errata is to change.

And more often than not it fails at that goal.

For this instance, the rule did not change between Shadowrun 4 and the Anniversary printings. However, the FAQ should not be used. It is over 3 years out of date, and even when it was being maintained, in several instances, it directly contradicted the rules as written &/or added confusion to a rule it was intended to clarify - this being one of those instances.

In addition, if memory serves, developers (Synner, I believe) have essentially said the FAQ should not be used, because it has not been updated or supported for years.



In answer to the other question, either way is technically Rules as Written, as there is no explicit rule written on it. However, the rules strongly support using the full Magic attribute for the purpose of determining maximum Force and if Drain is Physical or Stun, by it's ruling on the maximum level of Adept powers.

Ancient History's quote on the subject adds additional weight to the ruling, but does not in itself determine what is correct - he is an author of the books, but is not a developer. And the clarification has not made it into official errata yet, so even developer input only clarifies how it was intended to work, not how it actually does work.

Crazy. So a Magic 5 character, split 3 adept powers/2 spell+conjuring, can still cast a F10 spell? Or are they limited to F4, but it's never physical drain?

They can indeed cast that force 10 spell, but will be doing so with 3 less dice (Those Magic Points dedicated to Adept Powers)...

Keep the Faith

They can cast an F10 spell, taking physical drain. Or an F5 Spell taking stun drain.

This is either crazy or sensible (or what the rules always intended, according to some people reading; or a massive change, or ...)
It does increase the effectiveness of Mystic Adepts somewhat.

Yours,
Joel

Wow. That's not how I read it. I see a 5 mystic at 3 adept / 2 spell as being able to cast no more than a Force 4 spell, but that only causes Stun Drain. Ditto for a Force 4 spirit.

Quite allot actually. And makes me wonder why they changed their original thoughts (aka: FAQ) about this but not change the text in SR4A to match.
Not that the text in the book needs to change but if they where running it as a change from the old book and FAQ they should have not done a direct "copy/paste" on it. Or gave better examples on how it works. Without that information you are forced to use outdated "official" material to fill in the gaps.
Dumpshock is not "official" material unfortunately. And will not be until we get a FAQ sticky on the home page where we can put all the accumulated rules changes/FAQ's on these boards.

Actually the FAQ contradicted the prior rule text as well Mikado. In my printing... "For all other purposes, including the determination of maximum level for adept poewrs, the character's full Magic attribute is used." Fairly easily understood.


It's this kind of silliness which is why the FAQ isn't worth the paper it's printed on. It does so elsewhere as well.

The purpose of a FAQ is NOT to change/errata the rules. The purpose of a FAQ is to clarify them.


Mind you we're still waiting for the 4a errata's for all the core books. Makes me wonder if we'll ever see them.

SOMEWHAT? This boost Mystical Adepts straight above magicians in most applications of magic. Holy crap, really... i don't think i would do that in my group. In high-end levels this upsets the balance insanely into the mystic-adepts favour. For example Manipulation spells and combat spells now are effectively the same power as from a full mage (if you split at least 50/50) unless it gets to completely insane level when going against magically guarded foes. But in the middle-to-high casting there is virtually no difference (In those levels drain doesn't really occur that much)

Yes, in my books (SR4 and as a side note SR4A) it is the same and that is how we ran it for a while. Until the FAQ came out. I remember it well; I played a mystic adept at the time when it got hit with the nerf bat. I'm just saying that it would be nice if the "new" book would have a different example or written differently so people (who remember the FAQ) would know that things have changed back.
I will agree that the FAQ did contradict the rules in the book but since it was an "official" change it was/is a valid rules change. Though they should have put it in errata not a FAQ.
AND why Catalyst needs to state on the website that the old FAQ is no longer valid.

I don't think this puts them above magicians as you say, it makes them viable and useful, but different. Do not overlook the Astral component that a magician gets over a Mystical Adept. Sure, a MA can buy Astral Sight, but that alone costs 1 full point of magic. And an MA can never astrally project, and therefore never get into the astral realms. At its core, I think this difference gives magicians and edge. Of course, a lot of this will depend on your game(s); if you don't get into astral elements then you are correct. But every type of character can suffer that way depending on your game (no hacking, so hackers/TM's are useless, etc).

I honestly think that this was one of those unforseen consequences that came about as SR4 moved to the dynamic spell level system that we have now from what previous versions of SR had used. Such is life sometimes.

(emphasis mine)

Wait! Wait! Are you guys reading this as saying that (2 X the whole Magic Attribute) can be used to determine maximum Force of spell and spirit? Surely it means simply that overcasting Drain doesn't occur beyond the full Attribute.

I agree wholeheartedly this reading magnifies the power of the Mystic Adept, making him way overpowered if the spellcaster/adept split does not limit spells and spirits.

Great form spirit with the astral gateway power anyone?

I think limiting the force of MA's the way you're suggesting is actually crippling to the character concept. Given they lose easy access to the astral, I see no reason to limit them further.