You are forgetting 2nd edition, where Awakenings stated flat out that Aspected Magicians excelled at their branch of magic, and of course if you made your character via the point system this was born out as Aspected Magicians got almost half again the starting power points.

Really it was only in 1st edition where Aspected Magicians were portrayed as weak mages. And that was when they were called Sorcerer Adepts. An Aspected Sorcerer hasn't been an "inferior spellcaster" since he got that name.

-Frank

I can agree with Ancient History that the reason they are better is because they only have one area to work in. I think my biggest problem is the inability to use Astral Perception normally. I can accept the choice between Sorcery, Conjuring, and Enchanting, but I can not accept a -4 Assensing pool. I believe that they used to be limited to Perception but not Projection and I feel this is fine. That they are flawed is true.

I believe you are mistaken.

To the best of my knowledge SR1's Grimoire introduced Magical Adepts (the then-equivalent of Aspected magicians) as magicians limited to one skill.

SR2's Grimoire did away with the concept and replaced them with Elemental Adepts and Shamanic Adepts (I believe the latter were in fact in the corebook).

To the best of my knowledge Awakenings has no reference whatsoever to any of the preceding types of magicians, but introduces the Astral adept (which could use both astral perception and projection but no other magical skills). Awakenings also contains the introduction of the concept of Aspected mana/power.

Then, SR3 (the core book) incorporated Aspected Magicians into the core rules - divided up between Conjurers, Elementalists, Shamanists and Sorcerers (emphasis mine):

At no point were Aspected magician's said to excel. In fact, both the general description and the individual aspected types descriptions describe them as "limited". The "often" conditional was intended to indicate that being more skilled was not always the case, but that mechanically they were more versatile in their chosen magical skill and spells simply because they were Priority B magicians.

Magic in the Shadows pretty much ignores Aspected Magicians, but introduces Wujen Aspected Magicians (similar to shamanists and elementalists in SR3 core).

Aspected Magicians have always been portrayed as limited magicians, and that is how we portrayed them in SR4. The variation introduced in Street Magic is that Aspected Magicians can use other Magical Skills outside their aspecting, but do so at a significant penalty. Yes, this could equally have been represented by buying Incompetency (or several) in the non-aspected Magical Skills, but the truth is that the penalty is not a Skill-related Incompetency but an inherent flaw in the magician's mana wielding abilities and far more extensive (and, in fact, you can buy Incompetency on top of Aspected Magician).

For those who would prefer the logic that the limited talent forces specialization and greater expertise, we introduced the Expert Aspected Magician Tweak Option.

Initiation and Metamagic. This is where good, experienced mages are defined by their choices.

I like the cost structure of initiation. Some kind of ordeal is mandatory, and gives at least a minimum ingame meaning to the new grade. It may still be reduced to dice-rolls, but to each group their own. I find it very fluffy, so both fluff and crunch done well.

The ordeals are mostly neat. I don´t understand why a geas taken this way can´t be removed, from a balance POV. But at least Suffering(name?) is not favourably balanced, too. And the one where you give an attribute point. So maybe that was not of concern. Who can find the no-brainer for those who want an ally spirit?

Hmm, I´ll not do metamagics in one go anyway, so let me just say that Flexible Signature from the main book is still my only choice for the first initiation.

I loved the idea of tiered metamagics, and giving metamagics learning prerequisites.

In fact I think that prerequisites would've been a better way to go entirely. Rather than making metamagics "adept-only" or "mage-only", maybe divining should have had a prereq of "Must possess either Astral perception," or something.

This was one of the chapters I ended up writing for some reason or another and wasn't expecting to. The primary goal was to update the better SR3 ordeals and metamagics, and tweak some of the others - some of the ordeals hadn't sat well with me all the way back to SR2 Grimoire (not the ordeal itself, but rather the mechanic). Another thing I wanted to do was formalize the tiered organization (which had actually been part of several metamagics for a while) and reorganize how some of them related to one another. Finally, there were a few like Geomancy and the Adept metamagics that I wanted to tweak the underlying mechanic so it was consistent with other SR4 game mechanic functions (ie. Geomancy fits right into Jay Levine's background count/domain and aspecting rules).

Another thing I wanted to address was the fact that previous editions seemed to suggest Initiation was relatively uncommon (though this was never a fault of the actual Initiation writeup just that many of the NPCs and grunts weren't stated as Initiates in campaigns and adventures) when pretty much every magician player I know racks up at least a couple of grades as soon as possible. Particularly in SR4 where you buy the Magic point separately, becoming an Initiate is very much an option - and the rules needed to reflect that.

I'm pretty happy with the way this chapter came out, with the tiered metamagic system characters now have to consider the effects of choices a couple of initiations down the line, rather than picking the "good ones" willy nilly.

I had some trouble with some of the ordeals as geas, suffering and sacrifice basically cost you 10 bp/20 karma and thus aren't really an option considering you save about 5 karma for undertaking them in the first place. Also meditation seems a bit weird as its almost impossible to use for your first grade but gets increasingly simple when trying to achieve higher levels of initiation. I don't know if that was intended.

The new metamagic is pretty nice though i think filtering might be too strong depending on how often the gm uses background counts.

Also i liked the suggestion of the older books that initiation was rare, especially as players should consider the necessary downtime of their chars in order to reach grades which should be a real problem for most shadowrunning teams.

One of the things players from old editions will note are the lack of certain metamagics. After a lot of deliberation, a number of the least-used metamagics were canned, while others like Tattoo Magic were rendered unnecessary by other changes. Probably the most prominent of the dumped techniques were Possessing and Limited Astral Projection, both of which saw extremely limited use.

The Sacrifice ordeal works out alright for high level initiations or for dumping a stat that you don't particularly care about to begin with. An ork with the racial minimum for strength further dropping to two strength is hardly that big of a deal, for example.

Well it provides a 20% discount, so you have to figure out when that is worthwhile.

20 karma / 20% = 100 karma. So, when an initiation costs 100 karma or more base, then it's worth the price. Tis happens at, what, grade 33-34 or so?

Metamagics: Career Path decisions. Lets face it, the first initiations are cheap. If you are lucky, you are later allowed to buy additional metamagics. I like the option to buy metamagics for 15 karma. Reduces the incentives for munching the initiate degree.
I would have liked a similar rule for adepts, buying one powerpoint for 15 karma, up to initiate degree times. He could then "swap out" his "active powers" with a short ritual. Cheaper than initiation+magic, and I totally see the eastern close combat adept with powers depending on the active style. Each degree of initiation would allow to buy one such powerpoint aka as "new style". But back to Street Magic:

Possible Career Specialisations from the top of my head:
Shadow magician: Flexible Signature, Masking, Extended Masking, Shielding, Sensing
Don´t be found, feel the evil magical prey.

Ritual Magician: Shielding, Great Ritual, Sympathetic Link, Invoking, Centering

Combat Magician: Shielding, Absorption, Invoking, Centering

Wujen: Geomancy, Sensing, Psychometry, Cleansing, Prophecy

You need arcana and a group (9 karma), in order to get four degrees of initiation at some 30 karma. Very defining choices. And I like the rules mechanically. There is not one metamagic I´d call worthless. Practicing the use of a few metamagics while still learning them can yield nice RP moments. One thing: Invoking drain would have been better if it was shared somehow between ritual members. Or is there a rule I´m missing?

Shall we move on or change to Book Club: Augmentation?

I was disappointed to find vasts swaths of this book was simply reprinted, admittedly with a few tweaks to make it "4th Edition", materials. While I know that the material has to be updated for usage under the new system much more of this was reprinted than I had expected. I expected, and wanted more updates and maybe even some resolution-but I feel kind of let down. (Not that I will stop buying, or anything silly like that.)

Given how thick the BBB was, I had hoped for a little less "crunch" in this book. I have yet to pick Augmentation so I can't speak that.

While I like that Initiation isn't as difficult in some respects, from a numbers perspective, again that draws me to the numbers part of the game which has always been of secondary importance to me. (Shadowrun could be D4 for all I care, it's the setting that makes the game.)

Overall I give this book a 5 out of ten.

What the sam hell are you smoking? Street Magic had less reprinted material than any other magic supplement in SR, period.

Wow, what a selling point. You've convinced me.

Sarcasm really doesn't travel well over text.

One thing I'd have liked to see brought back as a metamagic would be Grounding. It could have been resurrected here, and help bring some balance to high-level focus/spirit use, by bringing back the danger of a mage grounding a spell from one plane into you.

Well ... technically there is the original Grimoire and Awakenings.


As to Grounding, it would be difficult to reconcile in SR4, as Physical Spells cannot be cast by a purely Astral being. That wasn't the case in SR1/2.

You can't post an unqualified statement like that and expect not to be called on it. I worked on the book and I find that not only inaccurate but insulting. You can literally flip through Magic in the Shadows and find entire passages copy and pasted verbatim from the original Grimoire; Street Magic is a completely new product by comparison. I'm sorry if there wasn't enough new for you-but considering that we did manage to cram in nearly everything magical from the last three editions and stull squeeze in a sizable amount of brand-new, never before seen material...including more fluff than any magic supplement since Awakenings...okay, I'm not sorry. You obviously didn't take the time to read through the book and I'd bet even money you didn't even skim the table of contents. Your opinion counts for diddly-squat because it's uninformed and you didn't take the two seconds needed to actually think before posting it.


I'll give you the original Grimoire, but Steve Kenson had a fair chunk of Awakenings already printed in a bunch of articles.

I read it, and stand by my remarks. If that offends you, then you're pretty thin skinned and maybe should consider not seeking out public discourse on materials you've written. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm going to be brow beaten into agreeing with you. Perhaps from now on you should make your review threads by invitation only, that way you'll be sure to get only the feedback you're looking for.

I still haven't seen you justify your statements. You say "vast swaths of this book were reprinted," then show me three paragraphs as an example.

[/edit]This isn't about me looking for ego-strokes or being thin-skinned. You want to wander over to the section I wrote and tell me you think it's crap, that's your fair assessment. But a patently false blanket statement that impugns that the authors just copy and pasted their way through is insulting, and you deserve to be called on it.

Ah attack by Ad Hominem and Burden of Proof! You're selling me on your talent with each passing second. Maybe this sort of thing seems fun to you, but I'll pass. If you're going to seek out each person who disagrees with you, and your opinions , on the internet you possess an infinite amount of free time, and patience-not to mention a pedantic drive that I can't, and won't match.

I'm sorry you feel so personally harmed by my remarks. I don't know you, or anything about you. I don't care to, and I certainly feel no need to engage you in some sort of silly teenage dick measuring contest. In the future I'll simply refrain from participating in threads you've posted in, thereby insuring you get the results your looking for, and I still get to have what I'm here for: fun.

Ah yes, true enough.

I would also like to see some examples of the 'vast swaths' of reprinted material as referenced in Counter Weight's criticism.

You'll pardon the presumption since you're new here and I am unfamiliar with your posts. Am I to assume that by "reprinted" you actually mean "updated older material"? As an insider involved in this project I thought I could virtually guarantee that Street Magic was written almost entirely from scratch and we reprinted next to nothing. Could you please clarify cause the alternative is a pretty weighty accusation?

As a lead developer on this particular project, I would be mortified by the possibility that I let through material that was a reprint from another book, rather than original writing. I've trusted my writers to produce original material, so if you could please post some examples of those reprinted materials so that I can bring this up internally with the people responsible, I would be in your debt. I seem to remember some of the updated adept powers or spell descriptions in the Grimoire that were worded similarly to previous versions, but I honestly don't recall anything that might qualify as a "large swath". Some page references would be much appreciated so I could get to the bottom of this.

As to our design choices and the balance between new and old: going into all the core rulebooks the essential question we asked ourselves was how much we actually needed to update and how much new stuff we could add. We discussed the issue throughly and asked playtesters and fans what they would like. Invariably people came back to us with the fact that what they've always enjoyed in Shadowrun is the variety of options, and that they'd be displeased if we removed options that have been an integral part of their games - and the setting - for years and in some cases decades. We weren't going to reinvent the wheel and many of the old tropes of SR magic were staples of so many games we owed it to players not to write them out. So, we decided that with the space available the best course was to update as much of the existing material (spread out over no less than seven SR3 books) as possible and introduce as much new stuff as possible as well.

You seem to have issues with the proportions of new vs. updates (if I read you right). We seem to have foiled your expectations as to the amount of material that was updated as compared to completely original content. This is actually a criticism I've seen leveled before (I think it was by Sphynx, a DSF regular back in the day) and therefore one that's worth looking into.

So, let's take a look at Street Magic with a critical eye with regards to what is actually entirely new (note I will use "revamped" as opposed to "updated" when we've changed something so significantly it no longer works as it used to):

• we present several entirely new Qualities (foremost among these Spirit Pacts and Latent Awakening);
• we introduce the concept of possession traditions and make them viable play options (if you've ever played a Voodoo houngan in previous editions you'll recognize what a departure that is);
• the vast majority of alternative Magical Traditions represent such a departure that they can only be considered entirely original material (feel free to make a comparison between the Norse, Islamic, Qabbalistic, or Wicca traditions in MitS and SM).
• we added 2 original initiatory ordeals (though admittedly one is a revamping of something that always rubbed me the wrong way in its previous incarnations)
• we introduced tiered-metamagics and profoundly revised the mechanics of practically all the existing metamagics.
• we included 3 entirely new Metamagics and completely revamped another 3 Metamagics (some Metamagics that were story devices like Geomancy gained a functional use)
• from 6-7 Metamagics in MitS we jump to 24 Metamagics in Street Magic.
• close to half of the sample Magic Groups are entirely new (more than in any previous edition).
• we cover several completely new elements of Enchanting including Vessels, Advanced Metamagic foci (we had to leave out another 3 or 4 of those for lack of space) and magical compounds.
• we present 4 completely new spirit types and fully half the spirit abilities and powers are new to the game or completely revamped (as opposed to updated).
• we reinvented the way background count and aspected domains function in the setting with several significant ramifications.
• we introduce a gameplay and distinction between the Twisted/Corrupted (giving them some teeth) and the Toxics
• the Toxic Paths available increase 4 (though the old Avenger archetype becomes a Twisted/Corrupted path so 3 of those paths are entirely new concepts).
• We introduce Twisted and Toxic metamagics as well as a bunch of unique new Toxic spirits.
• Shadow spirits gain a couple of unique new types.
• Two new insect spirit "races" are introduced and insect spirit game mechanics are completely new (and streamlined with the aforementioned possession traditions).
• Fully a quarter of the spells in the Grimoire are new.
• Unfortunately only 4 or 5 of the adept powers are original (if you possess SOTA64).
• We include more than 30+ pages of fiction/setting material that previous magic books simply lacked (with the exception of Awakenings).

So, in practical terms, we introduced more original rules material than any previous edition's magic rulebook since Grimoire 1. Baring the possibility (see my request for clarification above) that reprinted material passed unnotice across my desk, 95%+ of the book was original writing, and fully a third of the rules materials in Street Magic are either entirely original or revamped beyond recognition.

I'm truly sorry to hear that that wasn't enough new content to convince you. Personally, I'm exceptionally pleased with what we achieved. Fortunately a large number of our readers seem to rate it significantly higher than a 5 on a 10 scale and Street Magic has not only been very well recieved but sold admirably well both under FanPro and now Catalyst. Hope you like the next books better.


Wow, that sounds familiar - you sure you're not familiar with a guy named Tony/Cain by any chance?

I don't know about anyone else, but I am getting mighty tired of the 'arguments about arguments' crap, such as labeling a post as ad hominem just so the person can ignore the main thrust of the discussion at hand.

Counter Weight: You made a statement to the effect that you were disappointed in the book because of the 'vast swaths' of reprinted material. I don't think it is an 'unfair argument' to ask you to back up your assertions by giving us one or two examples of this material.

Oooohhh, Counter Weight got burned. Buuuuuuuurrrrned. *crackle-frizzle*.

The description of Free Spirit types is a great example of things being rewritten. The versions in MitS and Grimoire II are cut-and-pastes of the original version in Grimoire I, often with grammatical mistakes intact. The "voice" of those descriptions wanders between addressing the characters and addressing the players often within paragraphs. When I rewrote it for SR4 it was put entirely into an "in-character" voice. The text is similar (for one thing the actual chapter is supposed to be a segment from the Manual of Practical Thaumaturgy - which is the in-game book that the Grimoire was supposed to be), but the specific content is all different.

I mean it's not much to say "We totally fixed the pluralization of Anima and put all the commas in the right place!" But damnit, we did. That section is much more informative than it used to be, because the voice and perspective is fixed.

-Frank

It's typical of Dumpshock members to expect people to back up their claims, Counter Weight. It's not personal against you, it's the way things work here.

First, is the canning of any of the metamagics due to being too powerful, or just because they were rarely used? I seem to remember a metamagic like Possession that allow you to take empty vessels from the astral. Also, Limited Projection was great for Mystic Adepts and I would love to try it in SR4 now that Mystic Adepts are more useful. I can understand that there may not have been enough room for them, but is there any reason not to allow them in my games?

Also, why is Tattoo magic unnecessary now? It seems to me that Barriers are the only reason not to use it, as it can completely destroy your stealth. Any other reasons?

Finally, how would you recommend we bring back Grounding. I think there is really no reason not to use Foci now, and I would very much enjoy players watching their back a bit more.

Syn would be better to answer this one, but I believe it's because of the rarity. There's no reason you couldn't include homebrewed versions of Focus Blocking, Limited Astral Projection, et al. in your SR4 games, they're just not "official"...yet.


It was decided that instead of "wasting" a metamagic slot for such a small benefit, it would be incorporated into a metamagic enchantment instead; which is why you have quickening materials in Street Magic. Realistically, this parallels the dissemination of the technique to the Sixth-World-at-large.


Ah, grounding. This came up a lot. I think the usual comment against it was the potential for abuse-which is why it was removed in the first place, from what I've been told.

Oh man, am I ever. This is a relatively new thing around here and I'm not sure where it came from, but damn it's getting annoying. I find myself looking for a reason to disagree with anyone who says "ad honimem", "straw man", "appeal to" anything, etc. Even when it is appropriate, it's just f*&$#ing obnoxious.

edit: And I realize that in many cases it's a new poster and it's the first time they've done it and it may even be appropriate to the situation, thus my ire is completely unfair, but it has been a problem lately.

I seem to feel that the problem is people not correctly recognizing a true ad hominem falicy.

Example:
Person A: "I disagree with you because of claim A"
Person B: "You're a communist, and thus anything you say is said because you are trying to subvert my freedom and destory america!"
Person A: "... ... ... So in other words, you have no refute to my claim except that I am presenting it?"
Person B: "COMMY!"

Bit stupid example, but I felt compelled (Disclaimer, I have nothing against communism or someone's belief in said economic system, I am just showing that some people feel very strong about it).

In this case I feel that said newcomer is throwing out "Ad hominem and Burden of Proof to hide his own lack of an argument. He is also the one making the claim that the material is unoriginal without citing even a single reference. Obviously, he's stomping on the wrong feet as the people who wrote said content are here to defend themselves.

EDIT: Realized this is getting away from topic, so sorry in advance. I will not follow it up.

If there is ONE book that can be accused of using cut & paste, that'd be New Seattle: Entire sections were lifted from the original Seattle sourcebook, without giving proper credit to its writer. "Plagiarism!" is the first word that comes to my mind every time I read NS.

Another, more politically relevant example, would be: "You're against warantless wiretapping? Why? You don't have something to hide, do you?" Attacking the arguer instead of the argument is always fairly silly and transparent is you're looking for it, but in this case it's pretty easy to see that noone is attacking the arguer, but rather revealing how silly and unfounded the argument is. Having your argument--or lack thereof--got torn to shreds is not an ad hominem attack, however.

But yeah, we're getting sidetracked here.

It could be; the big abuse I heard was someone summoning a Force 1 spirit from astral, having the spirit manifest, then Ground a huge spell down through it into the physical plane, all the while staying safe in the astral.

There are a couple of fixes for that; the easiest is limiting the Force of the spell that can be grounded through a dual-natured object to the object/being's Force or Magic. A somewhat more involved solution would be to limit the direction that you can Ground a spell, such that spells can only be grounded into the dual being's "originating" plane. Thus an active focus could *only* ground spells into the physical, and a manifesting spirit could *only* ground spells into the astral. I like the second one, because it allows you to still screw someone using a bunch of low-level foci, but prevent the potential abuse of grounding through a low-force spirit and killing a bunch of people.

I didn't know that. I own both and still use Seattle sourcebook for most info. It really is the most complete source of Seattle info in SR.

EDIT -


This is quite a nice way of doing it. I certainly would not want to use my own spirits to ground through, though. They would be rebelling in no time. That also makes me think, are there any AOE indirect mana combat spells? Hmmmmm...

What about dual-natured critters? Can spells be grounded either way, or neither way? From the moment they're born they're of both worlds, they have no single clear originating plane. They're not predominantly-one-natured-but-with-another-nature-on-the-side critters. Unless you're adopting a clearly plane-centric view and assuming the side you're more familiar with is somehow more valid than the one which is more foreign to you.

You still have to deal with the fact that SR4 does not allow Physical spells to be cast on the Astral. It would require totally rewriting the way Magic works to incorporate Grounding into the SR4 rules.

natural dual-beings would go both ways, as they originate in both planes.

Yes, that means they get screwed coming and going, but then they kinda already do, so

Amen

So Synner, after that little fiction bit about the druids in England, when are we going to see more on what's going on over there?

You wouldn't be casting a Physical spell on the astral plane; no part of the spell would exist on the astral plane. You'd be casting a physical spell, but instead of pulling the mana through your own physical body onto the physical plane, you'd be pushing it through the poor sap's active foci instead.

I don't know how to word it better. Grounding requires a Physical Area Effect spell, and a spellcaster needs to be 'accessing' the Physical plane (ie. cannot be fully Astral) in order to to manipulate Physical mana in SR4. A Projecting mage cannot ever cast a Fireball under SR4 rules.

I miss Grounding too. I hadn't really thought about it ch for 4th edt, but is there any reason you can't 'ground' a mana ball? You can ritually cast a spell with a link after all. Or is it the connection of the material link that's required?

And on the subject of changed metamagics, I like the new Channeling much better. I still liked associating heavy drain with it, but taking away some of it's all powerfulness has certainly made voodouns more manageable. Not having it available to all magic users has made things much easier as well. For a while I had a large group with three mages, all different traditions, all with Channeling. Pain in the ass.

In 4th: Why use grounding, if you just can summon a spirit of man with said spell and let it manifest and cast...

Well, yeah, that's the whole point of Grounding. If you could do that already then there'd be no reason to have it in the first place.

I mean, adding Grounding is going to involve changing the rules as it is; I don't see why it causes a great hangup to say "This rule is an exception to the normal prohibition of casting Physical spells while wholly Astral."

But as far as I can recall, you could do just that in SR1 & 2. It was only when Grounding was eliminated that the rules for Astral casting and Physical spells were changed.

*raises hand meekly in background*
I uhm... never liked grounding?

You can cast a physical spell through ritual casting right? Isn't that something resembling grounding?

*silently steps next to DocTatsuo, holding anti-grounding sign*

Good riddance. Forget about the spirit part, think about the mages foci. The spirit of man at least has to materialise before it gets to do anything, thats fair warning.

Yeah... the "Astral Sniper" was something I always really hated about SR magic. I think the ability to snipe people out with an astral spotter and ritual magic (or manifested nasty) is a much more interesting.



In a totally unrelated note: Why does milk in Japan taste so funny? I bought 2% and it tastes like whole milk cut with heavy cream and flavored with a stick of butter. I like whole milk but christ alive! Do they not pasteurize or something?

Check the shadowtalk by Connie Connoisseur, for example.

I don't know, but I recall being told that lactose intolerance is extremely common in Japan. Maybe they do something to it? Of course, we have lactose-free milk in the US, and it is not buttery, so I have no idea. Pasteurization (specifically lack of) is an interesting idea. I don't know.

Generally speaking, when I was overseas, I stayed away from anything that wasn't processed and in sealed containers, other than fast food places. So I never tried the milk when I was in Japan, the Philippines, Italy, etc... I just didn't trust the health standards of those other countries.
Xenophobic Mike aka Apollo124