Need your oppinion, Magician vs. Mystic Adept Options

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Great Diversion Indeed...
I have imprecise Diction? Should I be offended? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

Thanks for the Input. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[fistandantilus4....]

No, clearly you don't.

Tone it down. The attitudes prevailing here are getting old.

[_Pax._]

At my table, he would lose access to Adept powers until he gained a point he could allocate. What happens if you lose your Magic Attribute (to 0) and you have extra PP allocated through Initiation? HE LOSES HIS ADEPT ABILITIES, regardless of whether he has extra allocated PP or not. Why would a Mystic Adept be any different?

But in my scenario, he still has a Magic Attribute of 5. He doesn't have a Magic Rating of 0 "for adept powers"; he has a Magic of 5, period.

Do you remember when I asked:

So, let me ask you: A 4-2 split, with 4PP and 2 dice for sorcery. Does a F4 spell cause this character Stun drain, or Physical drain? Are they even able to cast a F5 spell?

Do you also remember your answer:

Per the RAW, You cast Spells at your Magic Attribute (for Force Purposes), not your allocation.

What you're doing here is, "trying to have your cake and eat it too." You're trying to go both ways with the rules. EITHER your ability to cast spells (or use adept powers) is strictly limited to that portion of your Magic Rating assigned to that task, or "Per the RAW, You cast Spells at your Magic Attribute (for Force Purposes), not your allocation.". It can't be both. They're mutually exclusive.

The key thing here is, a Mystic Adept has ONE, sole, singular Magic Attribute. Anything that the book assigns to Mystic Adepts as possible, and which requires a Magic attribute of 1+? The Mystic Adept can do.

You could build a 6/0 "split" Mystic adept, with ZERO dice allocated to Sorcery ... and cast spells. F6 spells, even. The catch is you won't be very good at it, because for you "Sorcery + Magic" is the same as "Sorcery + 0". Every PP of adept abilities a Mystic Adept takes at the start of the game, is one less die in their Conjuring and Spellcasting die pool. That's all. That is the entire, whole, absolute, and only drawback of an X/0 split.

You cannot use the skill if you have no Magic Point allocated to it.

The rules never say any such thing. They say you have to have a Magic Attribute. Period. End of Rules.

Now, per your interpretation, allowing the use of skills without the attendant split makes the Mystic Adept more powerful.

No, not really, it doesn't do that at all.

Mystic Adept with Magic 4, Sorcery 4, and for the heck of it, a R4 Power Focus:

• 4-0 split: 4PP of Adept powers, sorcery die pool of 8 (0 from Magic, 4 from Sorcery, 4 from Focus).
• 3-1 split: 3PP of Adept powers, sorcery die pool of 9 (1 from Magic, 4 from Sorcery, 4 from Focus).
• 2-2 split: 2PP of Adept powers, sorcery die pool of 10 (2 from Magic, 4 from Sorcery, 4 from Focus).
• 1-3 split: 1PP of Adept powers, sorcery die pool of 11 (3 from Magic, 4 from Sorcery, 4 from Focus).
• 0-4 split: 0PP of Adept powers, sorcery die pool of 12 (4 from Magic, 4 from Sorcery, 4 from Focus).

Clearly, the more adept PP you start with, the weaker your spellcasting. Conversely, the stronger your spellcasting, the fewer Adept powers you will have. But neither end of the spectrum is "more powerful" than the other.

You, however, would have it be:

• 4-0 split: 4PP of Adept powers, spellcasting forbidden.
• 3-1 split: 3PP of Adept powers, sorcery die pool of 9 (1 from Magic, 4 from Sorcery, 4 from Focus).
• 2-2 split: 2PP of Adept powers, sorcery die pool of 10 (2 from Magic, 4 from Sorcery, 4 from Focus).
• 1-3 split: 1PP of Adept powers, sorcery die pool of 11 (3 from Magic, 4 from Sorcery, 4 from Focus).
• 0-4 split: Adept powers forbidden, sorcery die pool of 12 (4 from Magic, 4 from Sorcery, 4 from Focus).

IOW, exactly and precisely the same, except at either end the Mystic Adept suddenly gets pushed off a cliff.

So much so in fact that you could never assign any Magic points to Sorcery Side Splits and still make summoning and spellcasting rolls.

Gimped rolls.

If an Adept has no Magic Attribute, he has no PP and therefore cannot perform as an Adept. How can you argue that that makes no difference for the Sorcery side of things?

Because you're not just arguing Apples and Oranges here, you're arguing apples and Orangutans. The Mystic Adept in each case never has a Magic Rating of 0. Therefor, trying to justify closing off entire swaths of their abilities by pointing at what happens to people who do have Magic 0, is at the very least downright disingenuous.

You cannot use Magical Skills without the attendant Magical Attribute.

A Mystic Adept with a 5/0 split, has a Magic Attribute. Which happens to be 5.

Any Mystic Adept with a Magic of 5, can cast F5 spells with Stun drain - you yourself agreed to how Spell Force works vis-a-vis the Magic Attribute of a Mystic Adept. Be that magic split 0/5, 5/0, or anywhere in between.

They only receive Magic Attribute Dice for the purposes of using their skills. If you do not allocate them to the Sorcery Side, there are NO DICE to use the skills with, and therefore the skills are unuseable.

The rules do not say any such thing. The rules require you to have a Magic attribute, not to have a certain number of dice from that attribute.

Now, the same goes the other way. If you allocate your Attribute completley to the Sorcery Side of things, then you are a weakened Mage, WITH NO ADEPT ABILITIES.

Until you initiate, and decide to take +1PP instead of learning a Metamagic.

[Falconer]

Actually Pax... I don't think you got what I was trying to argue with TJ about.

The first part about splits being necessary he is clearly wrong... there's no diction anywhere in there which requires it. (it's a GM fiat that isn't all that uncommon based on the p92 warning about abuse.).

The second part about needing points in magic to use magic is much greyer though... his ends can be correct, but the path he got to them was wrong. (it's important how you argue things when munchkins are involved).

The correct authority to cite isn't the mystic adept bit... but the p122 where it states the conditions necessary to 'take or use' the skill. THEN cite the mystic adept bit about the split towards mana-based abilities (and mana-based abilities only) and argue that with those magical skills their magic is 0. So the rules on p122 stop them from being taken or used, unless the individual skill says otherwise.

The authority lies in the combination of the two, not in one or the other.

The problem is a munchkin can make either argument because the mystic adept magic bit is vague enough in it's wording.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

The second part about needing points in magic to use magic is much greyer though... his ends can be correct, but the path he got to them was wrong. (it's important how you argue things when munchkins are involved).

The correct authority to cite isn't the mystic adept bit... but the p122 where it states the conditions necessary to 'take or use' the skill. THEN cite the mystic adept bit about the split towards mana-based abilities (and mana-based abilities only) and argue that with those magical skills their magic is 0. So the rules on p122 stop them from being taken or used, unless the individual skill says otherwise.

The authority lies in the combination of the two, not in one or the other.

The problem is a munchkin can make either argument because the mystic adept magic bit is vague enough in it's wording.

I thought that I DID quote those pieces of information...
Was it that I quoted them out of some sort of Order? I just took them as they came in the book. Quality First and then magical Skills Descriptions 2nd. Did nto think that ORder mattered all that much. Hmmmmm...... Have to go back and look now...


EDIT: I see now... I looked at the Magical Skills section (p122), added it and then deleted it because I thought it was pretty self explanatory with the rest of what I was saying. My Mistake. Thanks for pointing it out. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Falconer]

TJ you never quoted p122, only I did. You kept harping on the mystic adept bits by themselves.... their magic is 0 so they can't take the skills. You never cited the RAW which backed up your argument... (the nut I was curious if you were going to crunch).


But like I said... the problem is the greyness in the rules... the rules say to use *with* the skills. This isn't a requirement in itself... so it leads to an argument that it's not necessary. Even worse they don't say a point of what... 'non-adept'Magic', skill modifier for using those skills (yeah I have a 6(9) spellcasting even though I have no attribute, situational modifier?!. The characters magic is not zero so he can take and use... since for all other purposes his magic is whatever. Since for purposes of the skills it's possible they don't have points of magic (since it doesn't say) it's even possible to argue they're never able to take those skills (an absurd outcome). Not that I necessarily agree. Just that for sake of argument I will play devil's advocate.

But it comes down two ways... on one side... vague wording is great for a GM because it gives him a lot of room to maneuver without players being able to accuse him of house ruling and screwing them (I've seen this cause bad blood). On the other side, most of the time it's just not an argument worth having and you want to be able to just point at the book and tell them to read it. Especially when it's two players arguing and not the player and the GM.

I don't recall you ever quoting p122... only I ever did IIRC. If I'm wrong I'm wrong...

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

TJ you never quoted p122, only I did. You kept harping on the mystic adept bits by themselves.... their magic is 0 so they can't take the skills. You never cited the RAW which backed up your argument... (the nut I was curious if you were going to crunch).


But like I said... the problem is the greyness in the rules... the rules say to use *with* the skills. This isn't a requirement in itself... so it leads to an argument that it's not necessary. Even worse they don't say a point of what... 'non-adept'Magic', skill modifier for using those skills (yeah I have a 6(9) spellcasting even though I have no attribute, situational modifier?!. The characters magic is not zero so he can take and use... since for all other purposes his magic is whatever. Since for purposes of the skills it's possible they don't have points of magic (since it doesn't say) it's even possible to argue they're never able to take those skills (an absurd outcome). Not that I necessarily agree. Just that for sake of argument I will play devil's advocate.

But it comes down two ways... on one side... vague wording is great for a GM because it gives him a lot of room to maneuver without players being able to accuse him of house ruling and screwing them (I've seen this cause bad blood). On the other side, most of the time it's just not an argument worth having and you want to be able to just point at the book and tell them to read it. Especially when it's two players arguing and not the player and the GM.

I don't recall you ever quoting p122... only I ever did IIRC. If I'm wrong I'm wrong...

Yeah, I edited above...
I had it, then removed it as not that important to my argument. Guess I should have left it in. Ultimately, I deleted the reference becasue I felt it was unneeded. How stupid was I for doing that? Guess it meant more than I thought. Oh well. Thanks for straightening me out there. It is appreciated. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[gargaMONK]

I apologize in advance if I missed someone pointing it out, but doesn't the FAQ clarify this issue?

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.

[_Pax._]

If the FAQ says that, then whoever wrote it has never tried actually building a playable Mystic Adept (and I question both their sanity and their intellect). Seriously:

"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."
This alone renders MysAds functionally unplayable.

"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."
And this isn't far behind.

"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."
Yep. Like I said, functionally unplayable.

Almost anything you could possibly get out of Adept powers, a full Magician could get from Cyberware or Bioware. For less Essence cost than a MysAdept would pay, too - leaving them a stronger spellcaster. And let's not forget that it costs 2PP just to astrally perceive, and a MysAd can never Project.

To limit their abilities so strictly to the sub-ratings of their Magic, while still charging them Karma and Initiations on the overall Magic Rating? They might as well rename that Quality to "Ha Ha you Gimped Yourself". (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sarcastic.gif)

[Falconer]

Pax... you forget the worst of it... the FAQ's author even states the FAQ is not errata and should not contradict RAW. So rather than CLARIFY the rules, it actually confuses them!

But this is one of the 3 cases in which it directly contradicts the rules as written. No grey, no yeah that could bbe read in two ways... just flat out directly contradicts.

Namely in the SR4a book (and errata, and reprints)... they say... The mystic adepts points devoted towards magic skills... FOR ALL OTHER PURPOSES INCLUDING maximum rank of adept powers THE FULL MAGIC ATTRIBUTE IS USED. Since the rulebook trumps the FAQ... the FAQ is inoperative.


As for the rest... no you could make a workable mystic adept using the FAQ... just it would suck. People would have to heavily rethink how they built them to make an effective one.

[Midas]

"Every point of Magic invested in mana-based abilities grants the character one point to use *WITH* Magic-based skills."
It does not say required to use... it says for use with. It does not say that points are necessary to be spent to learn these skills. Every point invested merely gives +1 more dice when used with magical skills. There is nothing here which says necessary to buy or a prerequisite for their use.

So, according to your strict reading of the RAW, Mys Ads who devote Magic to the mana-based abilities side of the split gain 1 die to Counterspelling? This makes Mys Ads better at counterspelling than full blown mages. Or is Counterspelling not a Magic-based skill?

Based on your and Pax's interpretation of the RAW, Mys Ads should just get a Power Focus 4 and crank their magic skills up as high as they can, and plow all their Magic into being an Adept who can cast spells cheaply. A DP of 10 (Magic 0 + Spellcasting 6 + Power Focus 4) is plenty much to affect mundanes if an opposing mage isn't counterspelling, and if he is it is only edge cases where the full-blown mage or Mys Ad who has "wasted" his Magic points on the mage side of the split can do much better (statistically an average of 3 dice would net 1 extra hit, which everything else [skill + PF4] being equal equates to 3 full PP of adept abilities).

Admittedly, once you start subtracting visibility and cover mods for the defenders such spellcasting DPs might start looking a little ragged, but in those cases the Mys Ad has 5/6PP worth of badass adept abilities to get the job done a different way.

I am still sticking to my interpretation of the RAW (and my hard-and-fast take on that pesky "vague fluff" on p92). You are welcome to yours, and other GMs are welcome to decide how to run Mys Ads in their games. It's a free world after all.

[Irion]

@Midas
Oh, there are even better ways. Just put nearly everything in spellcasting and use initiations to get powerpoints...


@Falconer

Namely in the SR4a book (and errata, and reprints)... they say... The mystic adepts points devoted towards magic skills... FOR ALL OTHER PURPOSES INCLUDING maximum rank of adept powers THE FULL MAGIC ATTRIBUTE IS USED. Since the rulebook trumps the FAQ... the FAQ is inoperative.

Yes, but not your interpretation of the corebook.
Thats done a lot talking about the FAQ and I really come to hate it.
True there often several possible interpretation, because the book did not state it black on white. So THATs what the FAQ is FOR.
If you really want to say the FAQ is WRONG by RAW you need a statement to PROVE it.
For example: To determin the maximal force of spells, mystic adepts use their FULL magic attribute.
But there are not any such statements.
Yes, without FAQ your interpretation is valid.

@_Pax._

Almost anything you could possibly get out of Adept powers, a full Magician could get from Cyberware or Bioware. For less Essence cost than a MysAdept would pay, too - leaving them a stronger spellcaster. And let's not forget that it costs 2PP just to astrally perceive, and a MysAd can never Project.

Yes, as a normal adept is weaker than a cyber adept. Which is due to the way essence loss is handled and 4 points of essence loss can be reduced to only 2 or even 1 point of lower magic.

[Yerameyahu]

use initiations to get powerpoints...

This *is* still an optional rule, right? So it's kind of a big assumption for these hypotheticals.

[Falconer]

Midas: Read through the thread.. you'll notice I was was playing devil's advocate. I was not advocating for this, and I most definitely did not say points to there add to skills. I was blasting the imprecise language used because it allows the arguments (even the silly ones) to even be made. It gives points... points of what? Magic Points vs Power Points. They should have come out and said so.



Irion: Just a little full of yourself here. Read the FAQ entry, and read the mystic adept bit in the SR4a they DIRECTLY CONTRADICT. It's not even a little grey.

I'm normally the one DEFENDING the FAQ and Ancient History (the guy who wrote it way back before retiring from shadowrun). I rather LIKE the FAQ... it's a major improvement over the prior one. But to argue that certain things can be read multiple ways is arguing 'what the meaning of 'is' is'. That does not mean that the author got every little which thing right. Some things like splitting dice pools they actually did intend to muddle the waters (because as they kept adding more +dice sources splitting was starting to get busted. Even I can admit that... the problem is no standard is ever put forward in RAW/errata for what is a post/pre split dice source or situational mod!).

There are only 3 cases in which it directly contradicts RAW.... HMHHV and using treatment to restore essence. Splitting dice pools, and Mystic adepts.

You want an example of this... here you go...
"For all other purposes, INCLUDING THE MAXIMUM LEVEL FOR ADEPT POWERS, the character's full Magic attribute is used."
FAQ
"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."

Note they directly contradict each other! And the latter one expressly does NOT act as errata... since it does not act as errata it's non-functional. If published as errata it would change the rules.

An argument can be made that for purposes of use with the magic skills... only those points are used. So it is possible to argue that force levels for spells only magic points might be considered. You'll find I'm not hostile to grey readings of things when they're appropriate. What I object to is people 'inventing' new requirements as house rules whole cloth then calling it grey. Again this falls back to p122 of the skills section... 'to take or use' these skills the mystic adept must have a magic of 1 or higher... but for purposes of of use 'with those skills' only his magic points apply as his magic rating. So yes an argument can be made that his max force on spells and summonings for drain purposes is set only by his magic points. (though you cannot argue both the mystic adept cannot take the skills at all, and his full attribute is used for casting purposes... without contradicting yourself! So either the RAW allows you to take them always because you're a mystic adept and cast at anything up to your full Magic rating... or it only allows you to take them if you have a Magic Point and only cast them up to your Magic Point limits)

And even grey is not all bad... it gives GM's reason to run the games as they see fit without players being able to say you're singling me out by house ruling against me and other real-life angsty bits.

[Irion]

Yes, they are contradicting in the one sentance, that the full magic attribute is used for adept powers. Thats it.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

If the FAQ says that, then whoever wrote it has never tried actually building a playable Mystic Adept (and I question both their sanity and their intellect). Seriously:

"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."
This alone renders MysAds functionally unplayable.

"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."
And this isn't far behind.

"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."
Yep. Like I said, functionally unplayable.

Almost anything you could possibly get out of Adept powers, a full Magician could get from Cyberware or Bioware. For less Essence cost than a MysAdept would pay, too - leaving them a stronger spellcaster. And let's not forget that it costs 2PP just to astrally perceive, and a MysAd can never Project.

To limit their abilities so strictly to the sub-ratings of their Magic, while still charging them Karma and Initiations on the overall Magic Rating? They might as well rename that Quality to "Ha Ha you Gimped Yourself". (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sarcastic.gif)

One of our GM's used the FAQ rules... It worked okay, but did lower the power level of the Mystic Adept a bit... Was not really all that bad, in actual play, but then, I don't really throw around a lot of Overcast spells in game (All the ones I consitently used were effective at Force 3, 95% of the time - Character has a Casting Magic of 3), so.... It DID NOT render the Mystic Adept unplayable at all... *shrug*

Additionally, your indication that a Mystic Adept needs 2 PP to astrally perceive is wrong. It is only 1 PP. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[_Pax._]

@_Pax._

Yes, as a normal adept is weaker than a cyber adept. Which is due to the way essence loss is handled and 4 points of essence loss can be reduced to only 2 or even 1 point of lower magic.

My point was, that a Cybered Full Magician, is in almost every single last conceivable way, superior to an uncybered Mystic Adept. Plus the Magician can Astrally project, and perceive for free.

Additionally, your indication that a Mystic Adept needs 2 PP to astrally perceive is wrong. It is only 1 PP. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Typo. *shrug*

As for playability under the FAQ's misapprehension of the RAW? We're going to have to agree to disagree about that. If I pay for 5 magic, and go with a 2-3 split, I should not be stuck slinging F3 spells to avoid physical drain, and F6 spells maximum. It's entirely bad enough to not have as many dice for casting and summoning, IMO.

[Falconer]

Actually Pax, it's not that bad. It's only the adept side of things which suffers from the lack of full magic. You're overreacting to how much it changes things... try playing under it then comment.

So also toss me in the boat of... yeah great you did a 2/3 split... you're limited to force 3/6... now pick spells accordingly and don't act like a full mage because you're not. Really at the end of the day.. it stops mystic adepts from acting like full mages.. that's about it... unless they do something like a 1/4 split or the like and keep their magic reasonably high. As for the rest... yeah mage tossing 12 dice or a mystic adept tossing only say 9 or 10... yeah real big difference *sarcasm*.

And it does keep Mystic adepts from being OP (which they can quickly spiral into if you're not careful). Because they can pick from the best of all worlds... magic spells, adept powers, or cyber/bio as best fits their needs.

[_Pax._]

As for the rest... yeah mage tossing 12 dice or a mystic adept tossing only say 9 or 10... yeah real big difference *sarcasm*.

And, four or five Magic attribute increases down the road (all priced at the total rating) ...? Assuming the character is honestly and sincerely "exploring both sides" ...? Now the full magician is tossing 16 dice, and the MysAd only 11 or 12 dice, and is casting F5/F10 compared to the Magician's F10/F20. The gap widens more and more, post-CharGen.

[Falconer]

You make it sound as if the mystic adept isn't getting anything for all that... the power points silly.

If you wanted to make a full mage... roll up a full magician. Don't try and cherry pick the best out of mystic adept... then complain that you're not as powerful as the full magician when you only paid 10BP for the mystic adept quality instead of 15 for the magician. And are also benefiting from PP enhancements the mage can't use as well as metamagics the mage can't access.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

And, four or five Magic attribute increases down the road (all priced at the total rating) ...? Assuming the character is honestly and sincerely "exploring both sides" ...? Now the full magician is tossing 16 dice, and the MysAd only 11 or 12 dice, and is casting F5/F10 compared to the Magician's F10/F20. The gap widens more and more, post-CharGen.

As it should. Mystic Adepts are neither Adepts nor Magicians. They SHOULD be weaker... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[_Pax._]

As it should. Mystic Adepts are neither Adepts nor Magicians. They SHOULD be weaker... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

But, my contention is: they should not grow increasingly weaker by comparison.

[Krishach]

But, my contention is: they should not grow increasingly weaker by comparison.

That is a very good point I've run into as well. I've yet to see a mystic adept who, long term, keeps an even split magic to adept. In my limited experience, they tend to start with some mix and then focus one way or the other.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

That is a very good point I've run into as well. I've yet to see a mystic adept who, long term, keeps an even split magic to adept. In my limited experience, they tend to start with some mix and then focus one way or the other.

That is a Natural Progression, though. You will, eventually, decide to concentrate on one or the other, dependant upon concept. As long as you are exploring both sides of the equation, you should be okay. The two that I have are about even. For at least one of them, I can see it eventually diverging from an even split. Not there yet, to be sure (2/3 Split), but it may be coming in the future.

[Krishach]

ahh, but the balance question is: if you kept it dead even, could it still perform as well as a divergent choice?