1) Mystic Adepts
What, exactly, is the point? I suppose somebody out there likes the idea of "watered-down physad + watered-down magician," but I just don't see it.
2) Mentor Spirits
WTF? Hermetics who follow a totem? Shamans without one? I'm so confused. Have shamans been retconned such that they never did require a totem to use magic, but only thought they did, or is this a symptom of the rising level of mana in the Sixth World?
3) No More Hermetic Circles
OK, the first two were really just "What the smeg?" issues, but this I definitely don't like. The whole thing about needing a circle to summon elementals was one of my favorite bits of hermetic fluff. It was one of the points of real difference between mages and shamans; in SR4 it seems like the only distinctions between them are window dressing.
Full Version: Magic in SR4
Isn't this more a bitch thread than a genuine question thread? Why put up window dressing to the contrary, especially considering your strong disdain for that sort of thing?
1) Sometimes you want a mage who has more than one avenue to ass-beatery. Or a physad who can also hurl lightning. Just a different way of getting the job done.
2) Yes, Hermetics that follow a totem. Say, an OTO member who believes he's been contacted by the representation of Baphomet, or a Freemason who is guided by angelic spirits. Or maybe a shaman who just follows a wholistic path without calling a particular spirit his own, such as a Shinto officiant or a Siberian shaman. (Shaman is a Siberian term, and they generally didn't have totems per se.)
3) A circle is just a form of magical lodge. While I do miss needing specific aspects for specific elementals, not having to own a warehouse to have multiple circles up at once is awesome.
2) Yes, Hermetics that follow a totem. Say, an OTO member who believes he's been contacted by the representation of Baphomet, or a Freemason who is guided by angelic spirits. Or maybe a shaman who just follows a wholistic path without calling a particular spirit his own, such as a Shinto officiant or a Siberian shaman. (Shaman is a Siberian term, and they generally didn't have totems per se.)
3) A circle is just a form of magical lodge. While I do miss needing specific aspects for specific elementals, not having to own a warehouse to have multiple circles up at once is awesome.
1) There really isn't a point except for flavor reasons.
2) Almost all shamans are going to have a mentor spirit.
3) There is no difference between mages and shamans except for fluff, their drain stat, and the shamanic mask. I really can't think of any other differences
There is very little difference between shamans and hermetics in order to streamline the system. From what the books say it doesn't appear to be due to anything, not even the rising level of mana you suggested. It is just the way it is and seemingly in SR4, the way it has always been.
2) Almost all shamans are going to have a mentor spirit.
3) There is no difference between mages and shamans except for fluff, their drain stat, and the shamanic mask. I really can't think of any other differences
There is very little difference between shamans and hermetics in order to streamline the system. From what the books say it doesn't appear to be due to anything, not even the rising level of mana you suggested. It is just the way it is and seemingly in SR4, the way it has always been.
A) Because someone will want to do it.
B) Not everyone that calls themself a shaman in real life has a "totem spirit" and there are plenty of fantasy tropes where the big bad wizard draws power from veneration and/or a pact with a higher power.
C) Game balance. Hermetics were very resource-heavy considering the cost of Hermetic libraries and circles (temporary and permanent). Plus, the whole Hermetic circle bit was a bit weird with the temporary mana barrier while in use thing.
Technically, none of these are a retcon in the strictest sense, the changes just represent the evolution of the understanding of magic. Or so it can be argued.
B) Not everyone that calls themself a shaman in real life has a "totem spirit" and there are plenty of fantasy tropes where the big bad wizard draws power from veneration and/or a pact with a higher power.
C) Game balance. Hermetics were very resource-heavy considering the cost of Hermetic libraries and circles (temporary and permanent). Plus, the whole Hermetic circle bit was a bit weird with the temporary mana barrier while in use thing.
Technically, none of these are a retcon in the strictest sense, the changes just represent the evolution of the understanding of magic. Or so it can be argued.
1) Because adepts that can possess themselves with warrior spirits and toss the occasional bolt of lightning are cool.
2) In real life hermetics commune with all kinds of mentor spirits, just like shamans do. I just wish SR would get rid of the "you can only have one mentor spirit" rule.
3) You can still use hermetic circles if you want, they're called Binding Materials now. Personally I loved SR2, but I love SR4 a lot more since they broke down the artificial "wizards vs clerics" distinction between hermetic mages and shamans. If I wanted to play D&D I'd buy a sack of weird dice and play D&D.
2) In real life hermetics commune with all kinds of mentor spirits, just like shamans do. I just wish SR would get rid of the "you can only have one mentor spirit" rule.
3) You can still use hermetic circles if you want, they're called Binding Materials now. Personally I loved SR2, but I love SR4 a lot more since they broke down the artificial "wizards vs clerics" distinction between hermetic mages and shamans. If I wanted to play D&D I'd buy a sack of weird dice and play D&D.
1) MAs get to do counterspelling. It makes them worth the extra points for me.
3) Yes.
3) Yes.
I like the Idea of a ystic adept because i can make a mage with 4 magci and an adept with 2 magic.
Which for me works out as oh look my mage has 2 passes on each initiative cause I take the adept power improved reflexes then I just run him as a mage.
Cheaper than buying a focus can't lose my adept power like I could if someone stole my focus no casting needed it's always on no initiation needed to quicken so many things makes it better.
Which for me works out as oh look my mage has 2 passes on each initiative cause I take the adept power improved reflexes then I just run him as a mage.
Cheaper than buying a focus can't lose my adept power like I could if someone stole my focus no casting needed it's always on no initiation needed to quicken so many things makes it better.
And rule 1 of gming still applys, if you don't like it - Change it.
You don't have to allow Mystic Adepts (though I too like the option)
Mentor spirits are available, just insist that all Shamans have then, and don't allow them for Hermetics.
State that Hermetics require a specific set of binding materials for each elemental type, and that they must be purchased separately.
SR4, Main rule book, P54
'If something in these rules doesn't quite fit or make sense to you, feel free to change it'
You don't have to allow Mystic Adepts (though I too like the option)
Mentor spirits are available, just insist that all Shamans have then, and don't allow them for Hermetics.
State that Hermetics require a specific set of binding materials for each elemental type, and that they must be purchased separately.
SR4, Main rule book, P54
'If something in these rules doesn't quite fit or make sense to you, feel free to change it'
A mystic adept may start "watered down", but such characters can become very effective with karma. Not that they have to start out weak. You can hard-max your Magic and be a magician with 1 point of adept powers for flavor, or an adept with 1 point of Magic to get counterspelling (way cheaper than the Magic Resistance power, at least as far as using up power points).
And some concepts benefit from getting abilities from both sides - for example, a stealthy type who has adept abilities boosting stealth and perception, complemented with spirits providing concealment and spells such as invisibility or levitate.
And not every option in the game has to be optimal, either. It is like any of the other options in an open build system, where you have to find the right balance between being enough of a specialist to be effective, but enough of a generalist that you have some flexibility.
And some concepts benefit from getting abilities from both sides - for example, a stealthy type who has adept abilities boosting stealth and perception, complemented with spirits providing concealment and spells such as invisibility or levitate.
And not every option in the game has to be optimal, either. It is like any of the other options in an open build system, where you have to find the right balance between being enough of a specialist to be effective, but enough of a generalist that you have some flexibility.
| QUOTE |
| 1) Mystic Adepts What, exactly, is the point? I suppose somebody out there likes the idea of "watered-down physad + watered-down magician," but I just don't see it. |
I've never liked these, ever since a 2nd ed game waaaay back in the day, when one of our local power gamers showed me just how annoying a 5 magic Adept, 1 magic Spellcaster could be. Force 6 stunbolts and Stunballs had PATHETIC drain codes, even if you are taking Physical Drain instead of Stun Drain.
I still don;t like them, but with the newer system and the change to how Force and Overcasting works, that same munchkin can only toss force 2 Stun spells.
The main point of it, I think, its to allow your Mystic Street Fighter characters. Characters able to channel their chi into a small Fireball, or the like. It has it's merits, though it urns the game a bit cartoony, IMO.
of course, I'm also the guy who did up rules for Gargoyles from the Disney Cartoon, so... I'm not one to talk
| QUOTE |
| 2) Mentor Spirits WTF? Hermetics who follow a totem? Shamans without one? I'm so confused. Have shamans been retconned such that they never did require a totem to use magic, but only thought they did, or is this a symptom of the rising level of mana in the Sixth World? |
It's a bit of a retcon that was done to simplify and streamline spellcasters a bit, as well as to open up more possiblities and options to players. From what I recall from playtesting (and honestly, I may be misremembing things here), this wasn't done so much for Hermetics/Shamans, but rather as a way to integrate all the other traditions better. Forcing everything else into the Shamanic mold occasionally made things a bit wonky.
Personally, I view this as an evolution of Magic. Once upon a time, Adepts weren't even a part of the main rules, but were extra stuff in the Grimiore. As time passes and the study of magic progresses, they learn to do more and more.
The barriers between the traditions breaks down, and somewhere a Hermetic figures out how to call up a spirit on the fly. Elsewhere, a Shaman learns bind a spirit for a longer period than just until Sunup or Sundown. Eventually, this knowledge is passed on, and quickly becomes common knowledge.
| QUOTE |
| 3) No More Hermetic Circles OK, the first two were really just "What the smeg?" issues, but this I definitely don't like. The whole thing about needing a circle to summon elementals was one of my favorite bits of hermetic fluff. It was one of the points of real difference between mages and shamans; in SR4 it seems like the only distinctions between them are window dressing. |
Magic is thought and belief. If you are taught to rely on a circle, then you will need one. Get taught to do without one, and it's no longer needed. The whole concept of belief and thought shaping magic has been around since 1st edition, really. It really came into it's own with Awakenings in 2nd ed.
You still need to do a ritual to bind a spirit. And the book even says that many people still use a Lodge (or Circle, which was really just a Hermetics lodge) to do so, though it's no longer a requirement. You say it yourself, that it as a bit of fluff in the old setting, and it can easily remain so.
As i said above, one thing that the developers were going for was to simplify the game a bit, and streamlining spellcasters was a part of that. Now the player gets to define the caster and what he does. If you want to use CIrcles or Lodges for stuff, feel free. And as a GM, it's easily within your rights to keep those rules as a carry over.
Bull
None of those three things prevent you in any way whatsoever in keeping the "traditional" approaches as the mainstream, yet they allow players to do lots of different things or variety.
It's going with the general principle in the game design to not have classes. You get to choose all the specific options.
It's going with the general principle in the game design to not have classes. You get to choose all the specific options.
| QUOTE (Glyph) |
| A mystic adept may start "watered down", but such characters can become very effective with karma. Not that they have to start out weak. You can hard-max your Magic and be a magician with 1 point of adept powers for flavor, or an adept with 1 point of Magic to get counterspelling (way cheaper than the Magic Resistance power, at least as far as using up power points). And some concepts benefit from getting abilities from both sides - for example, a stealthy type who has adept abilities boosting stealth and perception, complemented with spirits providing concealment and spells such as invisibility or levitate. And not every option in the game has to be optimal, either. It is like any of the other options in an open build system, where you have to find the right balance between being enough of a specialist to be effective, but enough of a generalist that you have some flexibility. |
...as a GM I had a player who made up an elf Social based mystic adept of the Voodoo tradition. By choice of powers and spells (such as Kinesics & the spells Orgy and Control Thoughts) this character was pretty tough. As a Face who used a spirit of man to sustain an increase Charisma spell, she routinely threw a bucket of dice in social skill tests and rarely failed at summoning and frequently overcasted (until the FAQ declared that drain damage could only be healed by rest).
Her motto was something like, "Why do I need a gun when I just make them shoot each other?"
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.