The New FAQ and me, how it screwed my character Options

[SaintHax]

I'm now 160 karma deep or so in this character, and the new FAQ answered questions never asked. They actaully rewrote the rules-- my question is, am I grand fathered in?

The RAW say, though mystic adepts must split their Magic between Magic-based skills and adept powers, it says that for all other purposes, including the limits of adept powers, the mystic adept uses his full Magic attribute. Which meant I can cast a spell at a Force equal to my total magic attribute, but I'm considerably hindered using only my Spellcasting skill and 4 dice, instead of 7.

The FAQ now states that it's not "for all other purposes". Which frankly, they have never play tested this, as I trailed behind every other archtype in power wise until about the 90 karma mark. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wacko.gif)

[Levithix]

I would think a reasonably GM would allow you to be grandfathered in considering to power level of mystic adepts.

Disclamer: This is the opinion of a new runner who has virtually no experience with magic at all.

[Ryu]

You should be able to make do with a spellcasting magic of 4. Force is mostly important for combat - if you are worried about your damage potential, look into multicasting low-force spells.

[nezumi]

Most experienced GMs don't read the FAQs at all. They have, historically speaking, been terrible, counter-intuitive, contradictory and otherwise a headache.

I don't know how it is with SR4, but I'd wager if you took a poll around dumpshock if FAQs are canon or not, the answer would overwhelmingly be 'no'.

[Dumori]

Also that rule hase been yo-yo with every fucking update they put out. 4th ed 4a this FAQ and dev chats ect ect. For now I'd take the rules that are in the books you'd buy and not the contradictory FAQ.

[DireRadiant]

Most experienced GMs don't read the FAQs at all. They have, historically speaking, been terrible, counter-intuitive, contradictory and otherwise a headache.

You talking about GMs?

[Bull]

Most experienced GMs don't read the FAQs at all. They have, historically speaking, been terrible, counter-intuitive, contradictory and otherwise a headache.

I don't know how it is with SR4, but I'd wager if you took a poll around dumpshock if FAQs are canon or not, the answer would overwhelmingly be 'no'.

You have to walk a fine line, as a Missions GM. Because you can't assume that every player you have show up for your game has read the FAQ. However, the official FAQ is official, and thus something we should be following.

SaintHax: I'll have to look into it. I've always seen it played that way (Your Spellcasting side was always limited by how much you applied toward the Mage side of the Mystic Adept), even before the FAQ. That was also my original reading of it.

I've always considered Mystic Adepts broken as hell, and the SR4 reading (My reading, and the one applied b the current FAQ) was the only time I've ever seem them look even a bit balanced. I had a player under SR2 that played one for a time, and he had 5 Adept Powers and 1 point allocated toward spellcasting. Back then you were limited by the force you bought your spell at, and even then casting Force 6 Deadly Stunbolts and Stunballs was abusive. Sure, he took phsyical train, but the drain on Stun Spells is so pathetic that it didn't matter. He still soaked it every goddamn time.

Under SR4, since you an double your magic rating, if this limiter isn't in place for Mystic Adepts... *shudder* I'm guessing by your comments you have a Magic Rating of 7? So Force 14 Stunbolts, which will have a drain of what, 3 or 4? Sure, physical, but you should be able to soak that. Imagine if you're a Mystic adept that's split 6 and 1.

THis is an extreme example, but from playtesting, this is one of the reason I backed the idea of limiting SPellcasting to just the force allocated, and not total force.

I'll look into it some more and double check things, but I'm pretty sure in this case it's not the rules changing, it's simply it was reworded to be made more clear.

Bull

[bmcoomes]

The RAW say, though mystic adepts must split their Magic between Magic-based skills and adept powers, it says that for all other purposes, including the limits of adept powers, the mystic adept uses his full Magic attribute. Which meant I can cast a spell at a Force equal to my total magic attribute, but I'm considerably hindered using only my Spellcasting skill and 4 dice, instead of 7.

Mystic Adepts
Some adepts choose to learn less than their maximum number of adept powers, preserving some of their Power Points for spellcasting or conjuring. Such magicians are still called adepts by most magicians, though other adepts may refer to the character as following the “Magician’s Way.” Characters who wish to become mystic adepts have the option of splitting their Magic attribute between spellcasting and conjuring or physical abilities. For every point of Magic invested in physical abilities, the character gets one Power Point that she can use to purchase adept powers. Every point of Magic invested in mana-based abilities grants the character one point to use with Magic-based skills. For all other purposes, including the determination of the maximum level for adept powers, the character’s full Magic attribute is used. Such a character will not have as many adept powers as most other adepts, nor will they be able to cast spells with the same skill as true magicians. Mystic adepts may use their adept powers normally.

The way RAW reads and is exampled in both core books you should have been basing your spell forces off only magic points invested to mana-based abilities. This has always been the way our group plays Mystic Adepts, just my 2 cents.

[Ancient History]

That particular entry in the FAQ could have been better written. The intention was to eliminate a perceived flaw in the rules, the effect...eh.

Let us say you have a Mystic Adept with Magic 6; three points devoted to adept powers and three points devoted to magical skills. According to the FAQ, the maximum rating of any of their adept powers would be 3, and the maximum Force of spell they could cast would be 6. When using Magic related solely to adept powers (Attribute Boost, for example), only the points applied toward adept powers would be used (3 in this case); when using Magical Skills, only the points applied to Magical skills would be used (3 again).

As some people have pointed out, this is not in keeping with the rules as written in the book; particularly the restriction on the rating of adept powers is in error. The point it was endeavored to make was that the above Mystic Adept could not, for example, cast a spell at Force 12 because he had could use his total Magic rating. That was perceived as broken.

[SaintHax]

You should be able to make do with a spellcasting magic of 4. Force is mostly important for combat - if you are worried about your damage potential, look into multicasting low-force spells.

I don't damage with spells, I'm a knife fighter. However, I believe it will effect my quickened spells and possibly my extended masking ability I took to mask them.

I've always considered Mystic Adepts broken as hell, and the SR4 reading (My reading, and the one applied b the current FAQ) was the only time I've ever seem them look even a bit balanced. I had a player under SR2 that played one for a time, and he had 5 Adept Powers and 1 point allocated toward spellcasting.

I can assure you this was not the case in SR4-- I was less effective most of the time than players 60 karma behind me until about 90 to 100 karma where I turned a corner. I have no stun spells-- as it's less useful to be a MA and cast damaging spells than a full magician in SR4.

The way RAW reads and is exampled in both core books you should have been basing your spell forces off only magic points invested to mana-based abilities. This has always been the way our group plays Mystic Adepts, just my 2 cents.

The RAW specifically states that maximum adept powers are limited by your total magic attribute, not points into Adept. The FAQ just overturned that. It also states that that's the points you get towards skills, which would be the dice you add to spell casting. I think the phrase "all other purposes" is pretty inclusive.

[Wasabi]

I myself think that unless something is decidedly unclear or breaks the game that the book is fine as-is. I also think every Missions FAQ 'clarification' should be necessary enough to be considered a first draft of an entry for the SR4A official book FAQ. I dont think Bull should be put on the hook for the book faq's or anything outside Missions but I do feel that the Missions FAQ should, IMO not restructure anything except a grievous situation or highlight common misconceptions. [EG: How Possession effectively has a shamanic mask, how the Diagnostics power of machine sprites works, etc]

As to GM quality I've had one bad experience with a Missions GM who has moved on from Missions and the rest have all been from the CGL demo team which were (and are!) all fantastic. Some are better at some things than others but all have been focused on the fun.

[bmcoomes]

The RAW specifically states that maximum adept powers are limited by your total magic attribute, not points into Adept. The FAQ just overturned that. It also states that that's the points you get towards skills, which would be the dice you add to spell casting. I think the phrase "all other purposes" is pretty inclusive.

You are correct that adept power ratings are limited by you total magic attribute. I agree that FAQ is wrong in that aspect as stated by AH too. As with spell casting it states and shows by example the your spell force and spellcasting dice pool are limited by you invested points. All other purposes isn't all inclusive in that it's talking about pass through Wards, Masking, Assensing things that are not directly linked to skills but are based off your attribute it self.

[Banaticus]

Such a character will not have as many adept powers as most other adepts, nor will they be able to cast spells with the same skill as true magicians.

Seems to say right there that you don't use your "full" magic rating when you're casting spells, just the amount of magic that your mage side has been allocated, otherwise you'd be casting with the same skill as true magicians.

Perhaps there was some concern about mystic adepts doing the following...
(this is from my looking over the adept power right now, so it's not even close to an exhaustive list of how mystic adepts might be broken)

Attribute Boost. Allocate just a single magic point to being an adept and you're suddenly rolling 7 dice to see how much to boost Strength, Body, Reaction, Agility, all for twice as many combat turns as successes generated. "Free" attribute boosts?

Enhanced Perception. For mage faces, spend a single magic point for four levels and suddenly you're +4 dice for every assensing test and the loss of one die probably won't hurt for all your mystic mind control spells.

Improved Ability. Same as above, lose one magic point for a +4 dice bonus to a non-combat skill.

Kinesics. Face mages again, lose 1 magic point to get +2 dice to all social skills

Mystic Armour. Lose one point of magic to get a permanent 2 points of armour that work against everything and that doesn't use up a precious focus (focus addiction is bogus -- what other class, other than technomancers, has an addiction chance for doing what they do, but I digress)

Rapid Healing. Lose 1 point of magic and gain 4 dice to natural healing test -- just take the drain, then shrug it off.
Rapid Healing -- this change also stops people who buy combat reflexes 3 and then 8 levels of rapid healing with their remaining two points. Now you have to spend a magic point on spells, and also buy killing hands instead, darn. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

And that's just looking through SR4A just now -- I didn't even touch Street Magic. These seem like a nobrainer to me, which means they're probably broken. The FAQ change really seems to balance things out. I think every GM should go by what the FAQ says about Mystic Adepts.

[edgartwobears]

Besides, Bull is working on updating the FAQ...aren't you Bull?

[Bull]

Besides, Bull is working on updating the FAQ...aren't you Bull?

Heh. Heya Jeff (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

There are actually two different FAQs. The one they're referencing, that clarified some things with the Mystic Adept, is the official SR4 FAQ, which isn't MIssions Specific. Outside of the occasional feedback, I have nothing to do with that one.

The other is the Missions FAQ. That's the one I will be overhauling at some point. But the Missions FAQ isn't really a place to handle rules, but is rather something that provides answers to basic questions about Missions themselves (What are they, how to join them, etc) and to handle Character Creation guidelines as they pertain to Missions Characters.

Bull