TNN Magical Path of the Warrior, Do they still have to be adepts? Options

[Abstruse]

Synner: Any chance you could answer my question then? Does a Path of the Warrior still have to be an adept or aspected magician, or can they now be full magicians?

The Abstruse One

[A Clockwork Lime]

Even if it is, Abstruse, just use the rules and call them something else. Say it's an old Celtic tradition and go from there.

[Synner]

[Wireknight]

I think there was a slight blurb about human path-followers, in Tir na nOg, and how they're basically groupies and devotees, who cannot actually draw magical power from the paths, nor actually join the actual initiatory groups. It's sort of like an Indian Kharmic cycle. Those who are humans are either seeking spiritual evolution(maybe you'll be an elf in the next life and actually be able to follow the paths, instead of cheering from the sidelines) or are degenerate elven spirits who have been cursed to spend this life-cycle as a human(and thus should seek to devote their meager cursed existences to the paths in hope of reincarnating as an elf).

Either way, it's definitely elf-only. It'd be vaguely like playing a human member of the Sons of Sauron or a sane member of PETA.

[A Clockwork Lime]

Ultratech, super powerful elven-only armor and face-recognition weaponry, elven-only magic that dwarves all other magicks, and uberspy elven paladins.

That book really should be banned from being considered canon material. :)

[mfb]

no kidding.

as an aside, it's mentioned several times--can't recall where, offhand--that both TNA and Aztlan are developing magic traditions similar to TNN paths.

[Anymage]

[mfb]

right. and, since MitS doesn't specifically state that Path of the Warrior adepts don't get 1/2 essence on combat cyberware and an extra 2 points of magic, that means that PotW adepts can still be the uber-badasses WK was talking about. gimme a break, man, it's fairly obvious that MitS completely re-wrote the rules for Path mages. that means the rules in TNN are out the window, not just certain ones.

[Anymage]

Uhm, no. P. 20, MITS, under Path of the Warrior:"They gain no special benefits or penalties for this path..." Please read your books before you attempt to argue with a rules lawyer.

[Abstruse]

I'm going to be playing the character personally in someone else's group (I actually found someone in this backwater town who knows enough about Shadowrun to run a game besides me!!), so I wanted to get a feel for what everyone on here thought about it before I even bothered asking the GM (who may not even know about the different Paths). The guy's a multi-game junkie who has core books for about 30 different gaming systems...unlike me, who has every book published for Shadowrun, a solid dozen and a half for BattleTech, a few for D&D, and three for V:TM and that's it. I'm trying to make a solid character with an interesting background who isn't munchie but it also playable. I don't want to totally screw with the guy's head if he's pretty new to Shadowrun with TOO much overload...

The Abstruse One

[mfb]

bah, go ahead--discriminate against those of us who post from work! regardless, it's silly to expect everyone who plays to reference rules from an older-edition book that's no longer in print. there's no way that limitation still applies. "only aspected mages can follow this path" is a fairly important detail; you think maybe it would've been mentioned in MitS, if it was still applicable?

and, now that i look at it:

[toturi]

[mfb]

what, i like being right. anymage challenged my rules-fu, you can't just walk away from that. my rep on the street'd be shot, all the snot-nosed punks would be taking shots at me, it'd be a bad scene.