Let me know what you guys think:

- Ritual Spellcasting removed, now a specialty for Spellcasting. Ritual Spellcasting has a -2 penalty.
- Banishing removed, joined with Counterspelling
- Binding removed, joined with Summoning. Binding has a -2 penalty.
- Sorcery Skill Group now contains Arcana
- Summoning Skill Group now contains Enchanting

Spells:
- May purchase up to Magic x 2 Spells (instead of Spellcasting x 2 Spells) at chargen. For Mystic Adepts, this is the Magic split for spellcasting purposes.

Banishing:
- Complex Action, Opposed Roll, Spirit's Force vs Magic + Counterspelling
- May purchase hits for boxes stun damage first unless...
- If Spirit's Force is higher than the Magic score, then may purchase 1 hit for 1 box of physical damage

Purpose - To remove the BP and karma cost of a relatively niche capability. It's still easier to Stunbolt the Spirit in the face.


Arcana, Enchanting
- It seems odd to have skilled Spellcasters and Summoners without some practical knowledge. You don't have to buy the Skill Group, but when you do, it's a lot more rounded out.




This is just a proposal, there are other buffs and streamlining for the non-Awakened. Technomancers, for instance, spend far less BP at chargen than what they're required to now. And Mundanes get several nifty things. So it's not just "buffz the magez!" this is just the part I'm messing with.

Ritual Spellcasting seems unused, until you figure out how to use it. I don't like removing it, and I don't like penalizing it.

Agreed. It is only used as much as its perceived Usefulness. I would not remove it or penalize it either.
Same for Banishing or Binding, there is no need to alter how they work.

Why would Enchanting be a part of the Conjuration Group? Makes no sense. Should stand alone in my opinion.
Arcana I could go either way on. Not all mages will know how to actually design a spell/foci/etc. If you are interested, you will buy it. It is a powerful capability that I feel needs no inclusion in a group. *shrug*

Oh I've used it (Ritual Spellcasting) since I nominally play the Mages. But since I'm GMing this, or co-GMing it, I won't be and I want to remove some of the barriers.

But okay, those are your opinions. I've yet to see anyone actually spend BP on Banishing after their first character. Binding's worthwhile, however. But just want it folded in.

Enchanting was for those Possession-types, preparing vessels and whatnot. This is Mad Marwynn's Mages and we're discounting all your skills!

Enchanting as part of the Conjuration actually makes sense, since 90% of the PC mages who take it are possession mages preparing vessels.

Folding Ritual spellcasting inside Spellcasting seems reasonable, since right now it's basically so niche that only a select few characters take it, and then only in "MagicRun"-Groups (God I hate that word...)

I actually expected to see some heavy-handed nerfbatting after reading the title, but those changes would actually be refreshing in play. I may give them a try with my group sometime.

Are you generally allowing purchase of more than one specialty for skills, so that a person who might previously have binding specialized in, say, air spirits can have a summoning specialized in (binding, air spirits)?

Heh... Got it. Mad Marwyn's Wizard Brigade.

Thanks! I don't expect to see more than two Awakened in this group of 6 at most. There'll be one Magician (of some kind), but other than that it won't be MagicRun either.




Well these are new characters so no porting problems. But you do bring up a good point about specializations. I think since it's been folded in, I'd rather it be a generic +2 for specializing in Binding.

I strongly disagree with more 'FAQ-based Fuck yeah lets fuck the mystic adepts harder using outdated/wrong rules' things.
Full magic for mysadepts imho, like they get for everythign else. The penalty to spellcasting is enough by itself.

I don't like these rules for a couple reasons: 1) The rules work as written, as intended, and 2) These changes make magic even easier to abuse.

Forgive me, but a lot of the "abuse" of Magic is because of players and the GM. Being fairly experienced in abusing magic, and considering how the non-magic parts are being buffed, I'm not worried about "abuse".

Also... wait, how can they abuse this? If you mean that it'll overpower the rest of the game, then again, I go back to "that's up to the players and the GM" and it won't be the case in our game at least.

This was never intended as a nerf, or even a balance change, but a clean-up.

I don't see that it cleans up anything. I particularly don't understand why ritual spellcasting and binding have inherent -2 penalties. Rituals may be situational, but binding is something pretty much every magician does.

I don't get what this means:

Do you mean that mystic adepts are limited in the number of spells they start with by the amount of Magic they put toward magic skills? If so, I don't understand how that cleans up anything. It hurts mystic adepts and gives no benefit to anyone that I can see.


I'm not sure you know what "practical" means. The Sorcery and Conjuring skill groups are the practical skills of magic; they're the skills that let you do stuff. That's what practical means.

Well, that's why it's up here... you know, for review.

Ritual Spellcasting and Binding are essentially free capabilities now. Hence, the -2s. And yes, that's what it means for Mystic Adepts and I don't see the complaint there. You want to be a Magician, you devote some Magic to it. You want some Adept stuff, you split it off from your Magic. You apply your full Magic to any tests that require it, but for Spellcasting you use the spellcasting chunk of your Magic. It's how we've played it in our group.

They're limited to say 4 or 6 at the start. They'll also start with some Karma and can buy additional Spells.

I said "practical knowledge" not "practical skills" referring to those two skills which should be Knowledge Skills anyway. Arcana is the understanding of how spells work. Enchantment is how mana is manipulated in non-spell ways. Actually, we agree: spellcasting is the practical side. Arcana is the theory behind it.

Let's take guitars for example. I know many guitarists who've never learned formal music, with all the theories and practice and such. They play by ear. There are also those guitarists who've studied for years.

Take one of each type: say they have "Guitars 6". The naturally gifted guy has Guitar Theory 0. The trained fella has Guitar Theory 5. This is how I view it and what I was trying to represent. Because the naturally gifted guy isn't going to write down a song using chords he doesn't know how to read.

Nor will he be able to learn a song through reading the music. That is where your comparison breaks down. ANY mage can LEARN a spell by obtaining a copy of the spell formula. However, NOT everyone of those mages can CREATE that spell independantly. Magic Theory (The Knowledge SKill) does not give you that capability. Only Arcana (The Active Skill) does. And in fact, you need ARCANA to actually utilize Enchanting to its fullest, since Enchanting does not actually deal with Formulae except in their execution. This is why they are NOT originally part of Skill Groups. *shrug*

And yes, your changes do make the Magician character more powerful in many ways (and a little weaker in others). If you are okay with that, then it is not a problem, but it throws off the balance (what little there is).

You, acting as GM in that you are supplying changes to the rules, have already consented to the abuse these changes will incur. Being able to use four skills for the price of two is a powerful thing to allow people to use. So powerful, especially considering the skills involved, that I call it abuse.

It'd be like saying that Automatics is no longer a skill and is now instead combined with Longarms. You'd just take Longarms and have access to the most weapons of any skill ever, for any situation.

Remember fellas, it's not just Magic that's being changed. I'm only presenting Magic which I feel has the subtlest changes...

And with reference to Automatics and Longarms, well it'd be the other way around for comparison's sake (nevermind that the two are competing forms of shooting people). Very few take Longarms compared to the nearly ubiquitous Automatics skill. So if Longarms was folded into Automatics, all the people taking Automatics already would shrug and think about picking up a Defiance T-250.

That'd make the Automatics guys even more powerful. But consider it for the spellslingers: who the hell uses Ritual Sorcery as their primary means of spellcasting? It's not like Longarms, which is perfectly viable as a character's only gun skill. Who created a Banish-centric magician? (Okay actually I did, and some others, as "Exorcists" of some sort).

My point is: these are mechanics not generally used. To encourage their use, I'd like to make it easier to access them. They are NOT worth the BP/Karma in most players' opinions.

I concede your point Tymeaus. However, Mages don't read a formula and learn it that way. The formulae are representations of how mana is shaped to cast the spell, no? The natural musician would learn by listening. The learned musician can learn by either listening to it, or just reading the sheet music.

But your feedback is all appreciated. Gives me much to mull over with my group.

With that mindset, why roll in binding?

Actually, they do.

Costs for both spell formulae and personal instruction are given in a table on the preceding page (181). Magicians cannot "learn by ear;" only free spirits can learn a spell from seeing it cast.

I have never played at a table where Ritual Spellcasting, Banishing, Binding, Arcana or Enchanting was not used. Ever.

I want to see the rest of these changes.

Context matters.

If you're restructuring all the options to be better, then its important to judge all the changes as a whole and see if anything stands out as being too powerful AFTER the dust has settled.

To encourage their use, tell the players that they will be used. Let the players expect that Banishing and Ritual Spellcasting may make things easier, and let the players decide how far they'll take your advice. Simply thrusting options on PCs who may not want said options is not, in my opinion, the way to go.

Generally, however, when something is not worth the BP/karma, then it simply is not worth the BP/Karma, regardless. Some other examples would include Common Sense, Inspired, or Hung Out to Dry. Or gnomes.

Indeed, once I have the bulk of it I'll post them here. But even posting the Magic stuff has been instructive.

In general:

Mundanes:
- Cyberlimbs and some other 'ware have their Essence costs reduced. Cyberlimbs, for instance, are halved as well as some of their nuyen costs. We like chrome.
- Can "buy" one Initiative Pass (to get 2 IPs) with Karma. Still not set. Not determined if stackable with Magic or Tech, probably not.

Technomancers:
- BP/Karma cost of Forms reduced. Some nerfing of Threading (like thread infinity times until you get what you want).

Weapons:
- Heavy Weapons are buffed. Battle Rifles are moved to Heavy Weapons.
- SnS deals the damage of the weapon firing it, as Stun and Electric. To affect drones and so on, the damage must beat the OR.
- Flechette ammo induces bleeding: if Physical damage is dealt to the target, and it can bleed, the target suffers damage per combat turn until stabilized.
- Recoil Compensation from Strength: Brackets are now 5-7, 8-10, 11+ to receive RC of 1, 2, 3 naturally.


Skills:
Optional-May swap out Leadership for Intimidation for the Social Skill Group.
Optional-May swap out one Stealth skill for Escape Artist.


Experimental:
Clubs, Blades, Unarmed, Improvised - New Close Combat Skill Group
Martial Arts: New MA styles, including some sword styles and so on. New MA Maneuvers as well.




Well, I have. And so have these guys. In fact, I believe the few times these skills were used were because I used them years ago. Like when SM was new. I think I used Enchanting to hunt for telesma...



You're right, of course. But it seems... sucky to require someone to have very niche skills, especially in a BP/Karma heavy type like a Mage. Binding is powerful, but Banishing? Shooting the Spirit or casting a spell often works out better. Now if it's just nearly the same as Counterspell, the penalty isn't set in stone, then by gosh I'll give that a try.

This is, in general, meant to be both a "new thing" for old hats and some eye-openers. I want them to try it out, and make it easy to do so. If it sucks and fails, then so be it, I'll try again.

Lack of SKill use is on the Player, not the system. Sounds like your players are not all that imaginative on the Magical Level (though I could be wrong). It is not sucky to make someone pay the price to play a powerful archetype. Mages are VERY powerful, and if you make it cheaper to play such an archetype, they become even MORE powerful (because now it is trivial to diversify out).

Exactly.

In essence, I say good day to you, OP, and may your game get the desired effect. I see little wrong with the rules as they are to warrant such sweeping changes to fundamentals of the system, but I hope they make some entertainment for your table.