Unarmed combat and dual natured creatures, I guess they should never take astral combat. Options

[Badmoodguy88]

As dual natured beings in dracoform, characters can use their
Physical attributes and Unarmed Combat skills in conjunction with
their Natural Weapon attacks on both the astral and physical planes.

This might mean that they can use unarmed combat against astral targets while in their body, but the wording seems to be that dual natured beings can use unarmed combat at anytime to attack astral.

It is a big savings on skills for naturally dual natured beings. But I think it does have the downside of not being applicable to foci, except maybe the strength part.


Just pointing out a few lines of text I had not looked at before. It would help out a few character builds that would have high astral and unarmed combat.

[Mardrax]

Yep. For both astrally projecting mages and dual natured beings, there's little incentive at all to ever take Astral Combat.
Mages are better off casting spells, dual natured beings are better off raking things apart with normal Unarmed.

Question: can a dual natured being use a weapon focus with its associated skill to attack astral targets as well?

[Dez384]

Question: can a dual natured being use a weapon focus with its associated skill to attack astral targets as well?

Yes, you can.


One reason for taking astral combat would be combat mystic adepts. If the violating mage, spirit, or dual natured beings with flight are spamming ranged attacks from the sky, a mystic adept can go full astral and fly up and use astral combat to give the violator a thrashing.

[Mardrax]

How would the adept actually get the power to astrally project? That's full on mage domain, unless I'm forgetting about some metamagic.

[Badmoodguy88]

Yeah, mystic adepts can not project. It is one major disadvantage that stops mystic adepts from being better than mages all the time. That and just one or two points of adept powers is not that great.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

How would the adept actually get the power to astrally project? That's full on mage domain, unless I'm forgetting about some metamagic.

There is a Drug known as "Shade." Live it, Love it, Use it... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

That and just one or two points of adept powers is not that great.

I beg to differ. Mystic Adepts may not be as good as full on mages, but they are MUCH better than full on Adepts. They have access to ALL Metamagics, and that one or two points of Adept abilities can go a long way to providing an interesting character.

[Mardrax]

I thought being a Mystic was all about having 5 points of powers, 1 spellcasting Magic, and a F5 power focus? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

[Stahlseele]

In SR3, there was an Adept MetaMagic that allowed MAgic MINUTES of Astral Projection.

[Dez384]

Yeah, mystic adepts can not project. It is one major disadvantage that stops mystic adepts from being better than mages all the time. That and just one or two points of adept powers is not that great.

Point taken; I'm not as familiar with Mystic Adepts as I should be. But as Tymeaus Jalynsfein said, it could work with Shade.

[Yerameyahu]

Bleh, who wants to rely on weird drugs? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I might allow an advanced metamagic or (expensive) Adept Power, but Projection *is* a great trick. Magicians deserve something. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) There are some threads about this house rule; in particular, search for 'astral adept'.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Bleh, who wants to rely on weird drugs? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I might allow an advanced metamagic or (expensive) Adept Power, but Projection *is* a great trick. Magicians deserve something. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) There are some threads about this house rule; in particular, search for 'astral adept'.

Indeed... Relying upon the drug could get you killed.

I always liked the Metamagic concept to allow the Adept to Project for those few minutes. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Draco18s]

I thought being a Mystic was all about having 5 points of powers, 1 spellcasting Magic, and a F5 power focus? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

It depends on the concept. My drake mystic adept was 3 spellcastingm, 2 PP, no power focus (couldn't afford it).
My PP was spent on things spells couldn't do (mainly passive dice to infiltration related skills)
My spells were for things I couldn't get cheaply with PP (improved initiative, borrow sense, camouflage)
I had just enough spellcasting dice to get those spells off and just enough drain dice to never take drain (low force spells FTW)

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

It depends on the concept. My drake mystic adept was 3 spellcastingm, 2 PP, no power focus (couldn't afford it).
My PP was spent on things spells couldn't do (mainly passive dice to infiltration related skills)
My spells were for things I couldn't get cheaply with PP (improved initiative, borrow sense, camouflage)
I had just enough spellcasting dice to get those spells off and just enough drain dice to never take drain (low force spells FTW)

Indeed. You got to love those Low Force Spells. I know that I do. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[Fringe]

I thought being a Mystic was all about having 5 points of powers, 1 spellcasting Magic, and a F5 power focus? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

Also, the power focus no longer directly boosts Magic, but gives a DP modifier to tests using Magic, unlike previous editions. That means having 1 spellcasting Magic limits you to F2 spells. Not bad, depending on the spell, but Force also limits hits unless you spend Edge on the casting test.

[Mardrax]

Also, the power focus no longer directly boosts Magic, but gives a DP modifier to tests using Magic, unlike previous editions. That means having 1 spellcasting Magic limits you to F2 spells. Not bad, depending on the spell, but Force also limits hits unless you spend Edge on the casting test.

Nonsense. The Magic split is only for purposes of determining ammount of dice for skill tests. The maximum force you can cast a spell at is not a skill test so is utterly unaffected by it and uses the full Magic attribute.

[Summerstorm]

Which is bullshit. (Come on, it REALLY shouldn't be that way - and in my round certainly isn't handled that way) People get to cast using their allocated "spellcasting"-magic and nothing more. You don't want mystic adept ruling the universe now do you? *g*

[Dez384]

Nonsense. The Magic split is only for purposes of determining ammount of dice for skill tests. The maximum force you can cast a spell at is not a skill test so is utterly unaffected by it and uses the full Magic attribute.

Not what the FAQ says:

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. Does this mean that a mystic adept with Magic 6 who has allocated 2 points to Magic skills and 4 points to adept powers can cast Force 6 spells without flinching?

The Magic points allocated towards Magic-based skills counts for all aspects of those skills. This includes: Magic-linked skill tests (Summoning, Spellcasting, Enchanting, etc.), maximum spell Force, overcasting, etc.

For a mystic adept’s adept powers, only the points allocated towards adept powers apply. This includes powers that require Magic Tests like Attribute Boost, the maximum rating of leveled adept powers, etc.

For all other purposes—i.e., non-Magic-linked skills—the mystic adept’s full Magic attribute is used: pressing through astral barriers, initiation grade limit, Masking metamagic, being assensed, etc.

So for the example above, a mystic adept with Magic 6 with 2 points devoted to Magic skills and 4 points to adept powers, the maximum Force he can cast at is 4, and anything over Force 2 is Physical Drain. His adept powers are limited to rating 4 or lower.

[Mardrax]

Yes, you get to cast with a DP of your allocated maging Magic + actual casting skill, plus foci force, spells with up to twice your unsplit Magic worth of Force. This is how it works by RAW. And there's definitely something to be said for it. Feel free to houserule otherwise.

Not what the FAQ says:

The FAQ on this point is dribble. This is one of the reasons some people are so vehemently opposed to the FAQ, as it goes against RAW directly.

[Mardrax]

I'll point out for clarity:

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.

<snip>
Example:
Roxanne is a mystic adept with a Magic attribute of 4. She spends 1 point of Magic for 1 Power Point, which she uses to purchase four levels of Rapid Healing. Her other 3 points of Magic are dedicated to Magic skills. When using her Magic-linked dice pools, such as Spellcasting or Summoning, she will be able to allocate 3 dice for Magic (since the other is tied up in her adept powers). For all other uses, her Magic attribute counts at its full value of 4.

[Falconer]

Dual natured critters yes only need unarmed, UNLESS they can astrally project. Even full mages need token astral combat. (normally 1 rank, specialized in 'defense').

Astral combat does not allow defaulting the skill... so you cannot default a defense against an astral combat 'melee' attack. Natural weapons are a physical power... so are only usefull to materialized/physical forms. So while a mage is better off attacking w/ spells in astral... they're defenseless w/o it against a spirit which suddenly closes the distance and slams him in astral combat (remember astral speeds).



Dez: the new faq is generally very good... however there are two points where it directly contradicts the clearly written rules. The point is it's a FAQ not Errata... (it does not change the rules... only clarifies... and does a good job except those two points... one being mystic adepts and my memory forgets the other).

[Fringe]

I'll point out for clarity:

Here's a place where the FAQ would seem to indicate RAI, but the FAQ isn't an official rule. I imagine you'd have to keep this page pretty handy in a Missions game, since the RAW could encourage some serious shenanigans.

Good luck getting that F5 power focus, though. Availability (Fx5)R = 25R, so you won't be starting the game with it, and it'll be bloody hard to get in-game without a lot of time and/or a pocket pornomancer. In fact, you couldn't start the game with higher than F2 without the Restricted Gear quality (which only gets you a F3). Whatever force, though, the power focus does go well toward compensating for that drawback, though, and you might want to pay more attention to increase your skills.

That might just settle one thing personally--there's little reason not to make my medic adept a mystic adept.

[Mardrax]

Here's a place where the FAQ would seem to indicate RAI,

Please reread the third paragraph of the FAQ bit you posted, which has its point repeated in the example last paragraph. Compare that to the actual rule. They say the direct opposite of eachother, explicitly.
Also if the FAQ had been meant to indicate RAI, the book entry should have been adapted for SR4a, since the FAQ far outdates that.

*shrug* Shooting holes into the FAQ is depressingly easy in some places.

And yes. Medics are often best as mystic adepts. Which goes for a lot character concepts.

[Fringe]

Please reread the third paragraph of the FAQ bit you posted, which has its point repeated in the example last paragraph. Compare that to the actual rule. They say the direct opposite of eachother, explicitly.
Also if the FAQ had been meant to indicate RAI, the book entry should have been adapted for SR4a, since the FAQ far outdates that.

*shrug* Shooting holes into the FAQ is depressingly easy in some places.

I actually didn't post a FAQ bit. But yes, as a few have already said here, the FAQ contradicts SR4A on mystic adepts.

Actually, the latest FAQ revision is 10 February 2011, which is newer than SR4A (Catalyst SR4 FAQ). (Now, I haven't done a point-by-point reading, so I couldn't tell you if they updated anything other than the date.) But since (as you point out) the same FAQ answer appeared before SR4A, if they'd really intended it to supersede the rule in the book they should have published it as such. The fact that they didn't, but still left the FAQ answer hanging out there, points to a disconnect between the people writing the FAQ and the people writing the books.

In almost every case, I don't even think to consult the FAQ, since it's not a published book. (But now also because there's good reason to ignore the FAQ.) I wonder how many GMs insist on following the FAQ even when that document contradicts the books...as a sort of non-errata errata.

[Mardrax]

I actually didn't post a FAQ bit.

Whoops, sorry. Misattribution due to lack of sleep.

I think the only thing they updated in the FAQ is adding there's a novel coming and the old ones are being re-released.
Might be wrong though, but it looks failry unaltered otherwise, at a cursory browsing.
And really, it raises sensibile points now and again, but there's a lot of dribble in it as well if you ask me. Some people swear by it though. *shrug*