Magic vs. Essense, in character creation Options

[Muspellsheimr]

Show me where I quoted it saying "reduces Magic you already purchased". No, it says quite clearly "reduces Magic". Once again, by the rules as written (that I have quoted), Magic purchased during character generation is reduced by Essence loss; at no point does it say the order you obtain these make a difference.

[Morrigana]

Here's where:

For each point or partial point of Essence below 6, the character loses 1 full point from her Magic or Resonance and the maximum for that attribute is reduced by 1.

Okay, cool... now, let's say they don't have any magic at the time I'm reducing Essense. Since they don't have any, how can they lose a full point of their magic rating? They get the maximum reduced, but that only applies after I go ahead and add on magic later on.

[Muspellsheimr]

And as soon as you get your Magic rating, it is reduced - as written. Enough of this shit - I have clearly outlined how it is written, & how it works. You want to argue; go ahead. I don't give a shit.

[Cain]

While I agree with the point he was trying to make, I was amused that Synner got the rules wrong nevertheless:

Your player is correct that there is no defined sequence to the different options in Character Generation. However, there are aspects of character creation which need to be sequential. For instance the metatype (or race/metavariant/etc) ALWAYS needs to be chosen before gear because it impacts the cost of gear (ie. because of adaptation for trolls and dwarves),

Anyone other than me catch this? I.e., trolls and dwarves don't pay for adaptation costs at chargen?

[Muspellsheimr]

Actually, by Rules as Written, they do - kind of. It is suggested that the cost increase is waived at character generation, but not an "actual" rule.

and yes, I did notice that by the way.

[Morrigana]

And as soon as you get your Magic rating, it is reduced - as written. Enough of this shit - I have clearly outlined how it is written, & how it works. You want to argue; go ahead. I don't give a shit.

Except, the rules don't actually state that, Muspellsheimr. None of the quotes you have posted back up your claim that they do.

[Fortune]

And as soon as you get your Magic rating, it is reduced.

It is? So a person with Latent Awakening and an Essence of 2.0 has to pay for all four of those lost Magic Points as soon as he awakens then? I don't see rules for that in the books.

[Fortune]

None of the quotes you have posted back up your claim that they do.

That was my problem last time this came up. Nowhere that I can find doess it actually state that a character must pay BP for 'lost' Magic Points. Merely that his Magic is reduced.

[Stahlseele]

maybe it's one of those german books fuck-ups again . .

[Glyph]

It seemed clear to me, but since it wasn't clear to everyone, I am glad one of the developers clarified the intent of the rules. Word from one of the line developers should be considered official, always when they agree with me.

[Jackstand]

This is one of the main reasons that I endorse a fixed order of stages in character creation. The only complication is with the magician qualities, which, is easy enough to resolve if you simply set those few aside as the first or second stage, resulting in a character creation process like this:

1. Metatype? (or Werethinger, Flying Monkey, Man-Bear-Pig, etc.)
2. Magician/Technomancer? If a magician, what kind?
3. Attributes (Including Edge and Magic/Resonance)
4. Skills
5. Qualities
6. Cash-Money/Gear/Lifestyles/Spells/Adept Powers/Complex Forms/Sweet Karate Moves
7. Contacts

Of course, 1 and 2 don't really matter too much for order, nor do 6 and 7, but enforcing this order on the process in general, and 3-5 in particular, resolves pretty much every issue I have with character creation.

[toturi]

It is? So a person with Latent Awakening and an Essence of 2.0 has to pay for all four of those lost Magic Points as soon as he awakens then? I don't see rules for that in the books.

A person who Awakens with an Essense of less than 6 will lose Magic or Resonance per SR4 p62. The reason why someone with Latent Awakening doesn't is simple - the wording of Latent Awakening protects him from the loss.

[Morrigana]

A person who Awakens with an Essense of less than 6 will lose Magic or Resonance per SR4 p62. The reason why someone with Latent Awakening doesn't is simple - the wording of Latent Awakening protects him from the loss.

That's not necessarily being argued. In fact, it was clarified in Magus's post. What is being argued with is someone's attitude over the whole affair, specifically how they kept touting a wording that is a bit murky as though it should shed a supernova's worth of light upon the subject.

Edit: A bit of clarification.

The magic loss itself was never in question. What was in question is if someone would have to pay BPs for the points they would have lost, or if they don't, at chargen if they add the cyber first. That question is not answered on page 62 or anywhere else in the book.

[toturi]

That's not necessarily being argued. In fact, it was clarified in Magus's post. What is being argued with is someone's attitude over the whole affair, specifically how they kept touting a wording that is a bit murky as though it should shed a supernova's worth of light upon the subject.

The passage that was quoted seems quite clear to me. Magus' post only serves as clarification as to the writers' intent of it. For myself, in a literal RAW interpretation of the passage, it is clear to me that Magic is always reduced, whether you choose to buy it before or after you implant during chargen. That question is very clearly (to me, by RAW at least) answered on page 62.

[Morrigana]

The problem is, in a literal RAW interpretation of the passage, a person only loses magic points they have as they lose cyber. Thus, they can come back after they've already lost the magic, pay to get magic, and not have to subtract any points. Of course, their new magic rating is still limited by their lowered maximum magic rating.

I'll also wait for you to read the edit and tell me your response to it as well. That's where the confusion came in, since it involves things being taken a bit out of order and possible unintended consequences of that.

[Malicant]

A literal RAW interpretation? Oh boy, I really think you're not trolling, but seriously believe the crap you're spouting. Or at least you make a damn fine effort to believe it. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rotfl.gif)

[Muspellsheimr]

Go show where it says "when you loose Essence, you loose Magic". At no location in the book does it say that. It clearly specifies that if your Essence is below 6, you suffer Magic loss - it does not matter when you loose Essence or gain a Magic rating - during or after character generation. Latent Awakening is an exception to this, because it says it is an exception.

[toturi]

The problem is, in a literal RAW interpretation of the passage, a person only loses magic points they have as they lose cyber. Thus, they can come back after they've already lost the magic, pay to get magic, and not have to subtract any points. Of course, their new magic rating is still limited by their lowered maximum magic rating.

I'll also wait for you to read the edit and tell me your response to it as well. That's where the confusion came in, since it involves things being taken a bit out of order and possible unintended consequences of that.

Characters with Magic or Resonance attributes are subject to penalties if they have an Essense lower than 6. For each point or partial point of Essense below 6, the character loses 1 full point from her Magic or Resonance and the maximum for that attribute is reduced by 1. The maximum rating for Magic is 6 + initiation grade (see Initiation, p. 189); for Resonance the maximum rating is 6 + submersion grade (see Submersion, p.238).

No, in the RAW literal interpretation of the passage, the person loses magic (it does not matter if they have the Magic then or later) if they have Essense lower than 6. My post was already in response to your edit. There should be no confusion as to this point per SR4 p62.

As Muspellsheimr stated, Latent Awakening is an exception due to its text. But considering the roulette that Latent Awakening is, I suppose that there should be some incentive to take the Positive Quality.

[Morrigana]

A literal RAW interpretation? Oh boy, I really think you're not trolling, but seriously believe the crap you're spouting. Or at least you make a damn fine effort to believe it. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rotfl.gif)

Let's look at the logic of it:

You go ahead and add cyber to the character, with full intents of going ahead and adding in a bit of magic later on. Then you reference the rule in question. What does it say? That as you reduce essense, you also lose points of magic. You, at current, have no points of magic to lose; you can't subtract from something that doesn't exist. Now, what it doesn't state (read it over if you don't believe me) is whether or not this loss applies to any gaining of magic once you've already lost essense. Nor does it state whether or not you'd have to pay for the points you would have lost. The only similar rule for judging by happens to be Latent Awakening, which also happens to be a special case.

Now, there's two logic paths to follow: The correct one, where you assume the loss of magic points applies to magic since you should have honestly added to that state first, and the incorrect one, where you take it to mean that it applies to time of application instead of having application to future gains of magical ability. Searching through the rules, there really is no clarification as to which two of those is correct, to the point that Magus had to actually ask one of the developers about it.

So, tell me, based entirely on the wording and using only the wording from the book, which one can you provide clear evidence to support? The best you can provide is circumstantial evidence, relating primarily to the order of setting stats within the chapter devoted to character generation. But you cannot say, for sure and based upon the wording entirely, that one path or the other is correct.

The problem is that they made the wording too simplified. This is one of those cases where something that is incorrect or absurd can be argued to be legally allowed due to the wording. If you want another example, do a search for Deus and RFID tags.

No, in the RAW literal interpretation of the passage, the person loses magic (it does not matter if they have the Magic then or later) if they have Essense lower than 6. My post was already in response to your edit. There should be no confusion as to this point per SR4 p62.

As Muspellsheimr stated, Latent Awakening is an exception due to its text. But considering the roulette that Latent Awakening is, I suppose that there should be some incentive to take the Positive Quality.

Provide text evidence from the book itself to support the bolded part, and which supports it clearly and without leaving room for reasonable interpretation.

[Cain]

1. Metatype? (or Werethinger, Flying Monkey, Man-Bear-Pig, etc.)
2. Magician/Technomancer? If a magician, what kind?
3. Attributes (Including Edge and Magic/Resonance)
4. Skills
5. Qualities
6. Cash-Money/Gear/Lifestyles/Spells/Adept Powers/Complex Forms/Sweet Karate Moves
7. Contacts

Of course, 1 and 2 don't really matter too much for order, nor do 6 and 7, but enforcing this order on the process in general, and 3-5 in particular, resolves pretty much every issue I have with character creation.

Problem is, you can't actually build a magician that way. Magician et al are Qualities, so they have to be taken before attributes and special attributes are, as well as skills. You're also blocking out any Qualities that affect skill/attribute costs, such as Exceptional Attribute and Aptitude.

[Malicant]

Let's look at the logic of it:[snip]

No matter how good your arguments, when you try to justify a loophole, you failed even before you started. But this does not prevent you from being incredibly entertaining, of course. Just stop before you get really annoying, will you? I'd say you can go at least two more pages before that point is reached. Or maybe you already passed it at full speed? Who can tell...

[Morrigana]

No matter how good your arguments, when you try to justify a loophole, you failed even before you started. But this does not prevent you from being incredibly entertaining, of course. Just stop before you get really annoying, will you? I'd say you can go at least two more pages before that point is reached. Or maybe you already passed it at full speed? Who can tell...

The thing is, this discussion was already over when torturi and, later, yourself joined in; what I was mainly doing was explaining the discussion and point of contention. The primary argument over the loophole was settled when Magus posted and everyone involved already acknowledged that. Pretty much, no one's actually arguing in favor of the loophole right now; what's going on is someone got a bit miffed over the fact the wording that spawned the confusion to begin with did not automatically clear it up when they reposted it, eventually getting a foul attitude. From that point on, the discussion was primarily to point out to them that it was the wording itself which spawned the problem through a lack of clarity, with them eventually deciding they were frustrated enough that people automatically didn't get the same understanding they did and then leaving the thread. The conversation pretty much wrapped up at that point and then we get it continued by both you and torturi, with him continuing it mainly when I tried to explain to him the context of the argument he was responding to.

Thus, we're not arguing about whether or not the loophole is legal; we're arguing about the logic used to explain the logic behind a challenge to someone who got angry and a bit foul mouthed after the discussion was already settled when the very item they were using to clarify the original point of discussion is what caused the original point of discussion to begin with.

In short, I'm not the one continuing it. I'm just sitting back amused that you and torturi haven't realized you're the ones who are keeping going what should have died several posts ago, and which wouldn't have even existed if it wasn't for a post on page 1. Realistically, the original point of discussion was ended when Magus posted that reply from Peter.

[toturi]

Provide text evidence from the book itself to support the bolded part, and which supports it clearly and without leaving room for reasonable interpretation.

There is no need to. This is the RAW literal interpretation of the text, not the reasonable interpretation of such. RAW need not necessarily reasonable but the literal wording of the rule is clear enough in this case that there is no ambigiuity.

The text clearly states that if your Essense is below 6, you lose Magic. Note that there is no timing to this rule. Therefore it is on all the time, whether now or otherwise.

I am not even arguing about any logic used to explain any point in this discussion. I am simply pointing out something very clear and literal. In short I am not the one continuing it. I am sitting back amused that you haven't realised that you are the one who is keeping going what should have died at post 6.

[Malicant]

blah blah blah

By now you should have realised what exactly it is I am doing and also that I am not afraid to continue. Well, if i wasn't bored and tired, so, you go on, so I can have a good laugh next time I check this forums, will ya? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/twirl.gif)

[wind_in_the_ston...]

You guys are arguing about an argument about a moot point?