"sorcerer's path mystic adept with say a 0/5 split"… doesn't sound like someone on the Sorceror's Path! It's lucky that all games have a GM to say no.

I didn't say it was RAI... I said it was RAW.

In that case... it pretty much falls to the GM to determine if the character is a problem or not... if they're not. I generally go with let them play. If they ever do try to start adding spells and such, it's going to take a lot of initiations and magic increases before they're ever a half decent sorceror/summoner!

But I don't find the concept of having someone pay an extra 5BP to reach mystic adept... an extra 10BP for the way... then only use counterspelling and banishing rather than taking full advantage of the qualities to be particularly overpowering. Do you?

Compared to the silliness that was earlier... with someone going mystic adept... then expecting to abuse drugs to effectively gain full access to the astral, replacing a full magician while at the same time gaining access to adept powers. That is abuse of the type the BBB warns about... I tend to view abuse on a case by case basis.

I didn't say you said it was RAI. And I didn't say it was abuse. My position is that if the end result is desirable, change the rules to fit it. I have little patience for the 'it's RAW though!' defense; don't hide behind bad rules, just fix them. So… it just doesn't sound very Sorcerous to me, that's all.

Only looked at that book once. What I got out of it is that you can spend 10 BP to take Way of Shaman, choose Way of Mage with the additional Way you get, then take Way of Combat or whatever.

Indeed...

I see it as not fulfilling the requirements of the Mystic Adept Quality. If you are not exploring what it means to be a Mystic Adept (both sides of the equation), you are not playing a Mystic Adept. You are simply playing an Adept that somehow came into the ability to Counterspell. Which is NOT playing a Mystic Adept.

You might want to look at it again. I think you missed something there...

Eh, I only read it once. Wasn't terribly excited about it, other than cheaper Increase Reflexes and Combat Sense.

Nah, you got it right. Way of the warrior, everything else is crap...

That's debatable. On the one hand, the Magician Adept does have a Magic attribute of 1 or higher. And on the other hand, what do you do with a Latent Magician Adept? You know, the guy with a Magic of 1?

...

Really, it's simpler if you just look at their one, unsplit Magic Rating for everything EXCEPT:

• Power Points
• Die Pool contribution

This makes a Mystic Adept easier to manage - and not incidentally, easier to play.

...

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?

Depends what you want to do with the Adept.

Though technical difficulties (unable to register with the chosen die-rolling service) forced me to withdraw, I made a Mystic Adept for a game here - taeksosin's lower-powered-start game, PCs just getting started in the shadowrunning biz. My concept was a hybrid "Face-Adept" and "Whiz-ganger". His Adept side was very, very focussed on being a Face; his Magician side was chock full of flashy spells (that he had to cast at lower force, but hey ... FLASHY ... ex-go-ganger ... made perfect sense to me).

Way of the Sorceror, with metamagics from Way of the Speaker, was the superior choice for him. He literally doesn't have a single power eligible for Way of the Warrior's discounts! With a 2-3 split, favoring Magician, he has:

• Commanding Voice
• Kinesics (2)
• Multi-Tasking
• Improved Sense: Vision Enhancement
• (0.25PP unallocated / saved for the future)

*shrug*

Absolutley False Statement, Irion. You should probably re-read it as well...

Per the RAW, You cast Spells at your Magic Attribute (for Force Purposes), not your allocation. So, your Force 4 Spell causes Stun. You could cast up to a Force 6 spell as Stun, and up to a Force 12 Spell at Physical Damage. You still only allocate 2 Dice of your Magic for Spellcasting Purposes, however. You are a weaker spellcaster for all purposes when compared to a Magician with 6 Magic.

As for your 0/1 Split. If the split is on the Adept Side, you do not have access to Sorcery/Conjuration Skills until you have 1 point of Magic allocated to your sorcery split.

Why does that make the Mystic Adept any more dificult to play?

To put it another way...
Why cannot a Magician use Adept Powers? Because he has no points in Adept abilities. Functionally, because his Magic Attribute is not split.
Why cannot an Adept use SorceryPowers? Because he has no points in Magician abilities. Functionally, because his Magic Attribute is not split.

So, why should a Mystic Adept have access to Sorcery/Conjuration if he has no split allocation to those abilities? Or vice versa?

To be a fiunctional Mystic Adept, you must allocate to both sides of the equation. If you do not, then you do not have access to that particular side until you do. If they start with a Magic of 1, then they allocate to one side, and the other is unaccessible until they allocate to it. If the player is uncomfortable with that, then maybe they should not be playing a Mystic Adept to start with.

Because the rules do not say you need it. The rules are explicit a mystic adept MAY spend points on either. It does not say MUST. That is you putting an additional house rule requirement on it. The rules are also explicit that a mystic adept gains access to all the skills when he takes the quality, not when he diverts magic to sorcery. So once again, you're not following RAW... but imposing your own limitation TJ.

p122 "Unless otherwise noted, only characters with a Magician OR MYSTIC ADEPT quality and a *MAGIC* of 1 or higher may take or use Magic skills." No requirement that the mystic adept spend points on sorcerous magic, only that he has a magic of 1 or higher. The only skills in the group which set out explicit exceptions to who can take are assensing/astral combat/arcana and enchanting.


That's why I keep bringing up RAW. Only by pointing out RAW and following it, and especially by pointing out broken RAW does it get fixed. I'm not against house rules by any stretch. But I believe house rules shouldn't be used until you try and play with the RAW and find it does/does not work OR FIND IT BEING ABUSED. (emphasis needed... I don't find paying extra for mystic adept over adept then not making full use or any use at all... a character might stay a straight adept his entire life and never explore the mystic adept bits... and all he did was waste 5BP... it's not abuse).


I can bring up tons of gimpy the wonder clown type chars who are not game balance problems who only go one way or another using the mystic adept quality. It does not necessarily mean they're abusing the system or the quality.

The caution on mystic adept is to be careful the players aren't abusing things with the quality. Again abuse is something I tend to note on a case by case basis.

The Mystic Adept Quality says that you must allocate to one side or the other to function on that side.



Note that it is an 'OR' Statement. To have access to the Magician Side of things, you must allocate towards that end.
Additionally:



So, the rules DO say that you need it... If you do not invest points into your Magician (mana-based) abilities, you cannot use Magical Skills at all.
Last time I checked, Counterspelling was a Magical Skill.

Really, I am not sure why this is still an argument.

Because you're reading more into the text than is there.

It's not RAW. And you imply that something was ever settled about it and your opinion is somehow authoritative and final.

It is or... but you do not need to spend on magic to access the skills. The rules for the skills are explicit in that, the mere possession of the mystic adept quality is both necessary and sufficient.

Look at the rules for astral combat and assensing, they establish and explicit requirement... that you need access to the astral to train them. All the rest go by the generic rule I quoted above, which says possession of the quality is all you need.


Yes, you must spend points into sorcery to roll more dice on those checks... that is what the RAW says. Nowhere does it say that you must spend points there to spend points on skills. The rules for the skills quite explicitly say the opposite.

I'm going to strike you with something you may have never realized... by strict RAW you could roll 5(summoning)+0(magic devoted PP) towards summoning a spirit... the force of which is based on your full magic rating for stun/physical. A mystic adept could even cast a spell using only his spellcasting dice. The only thing spending points on that side does is give +1 dice per magic point devoted. The rules say that "Used *WITH* magic based skils" ... not "*NEEDED* to use magical skills".


Why is it that you must have at least 1 rank in it to qualify? Why not 0? Why not 2? Aren't they all arbitrary... where in the rules does it say any of them are the required threhold!!! It doesn't say in there, and you know full well it doesn't. This is attempting to justify a house rule by masking it as RAW.

I do not think I am reading more into it. What I gave you IS RAW... I gave you exact quotes for the Mystic Adept rules, both Quality and Section. You must allocate Magic to Mana-based (Magician) activities (from your Attribute Split) to actually use the Skills. As such, You must have Magic Graeter than 0 devoted to Magician level Pursuits to use the relevant skill.

I think you are removing the condition that the Mystic Adept must split his Magic Rating so that you can justify an Adept 5, Sorcery 0 Split, and then still get the use out of the skills. I call Shennanigans. The text I quoted is very specific. To use the skills, you must allocate a portion of your Attribute for Mana-Based (Magician) purposes.

No it doesn't TJ. It says you must allocate points to the magical side to get more dice when using the skills. Not to take them.

It's a critical difference.


It says to use *WITH* the skills. The actual requirements to take the skills are put out in the skills section.

I use salad dressing with salad. I don't require salad dressing to eat salad.



Similarly it says a mystic adept spends points on either/or. It never says it must spend on both. Another critical distinction that you're pulling out of thin air.



I'm also not saying it's not abuse and shouldn't be stopped by the GM. (double negative intentional :)). Remember what I said earlier, it's important to acknowledge what the rules say to identify PROBLEMS in them. House rules are not all bad.

And where do the rules actually say that? Explicitly, in the sense of "if either option is zero, you lose access to those abilities" ...?


Respectively:
(A) Because the rules don't grant him access to them.
(B) Because the rules explicitly DENY him access to them.


Because the rules declare that he has access to them. They do not make that access conditional upon any particular division of his Magic rating.






Yes, you are. You see, the rules you have cited? Do not address, in any way, what happens if you allocate nothing to that side of the fence.


Hypothetical scenario for you, again: let's say I take my wee little Maus, who starts with a 2/2 split. Let's also say he's playing with a GM who lets Adepts take a PP instead of a Metamagic when they initiate. So, okay, great. It's been a long while in the campaign, Maus is no longer so wee; he's Initiated six times (learning three metamagics and gaining 3 PP), he's raised his Magic rating three times, assignng the new points to spellcasting (for a 2+3/5 split on a Magic of 7 - that's "2 magic to Adept, plus 3PP / 5 magic to Magician") ... and unfortunately, he's also LOST two points of Magic. One to essence drain, one to a close call with HMHVV (from the same critter that drained him). He decides his spellcasting has been too useful to take the hit there, and takes it to his Adept side instead.

Now, reading it literally, he has ZERO Magic allocated to Adept powers. Yet he still has three PP from initiating.

What happens to those adept powers? Do they go away? Does he lose the PP, or just lose access to them? OR DO THEY KEEP FUNCTIONING?

Note, this is clearly a case of a character exploring BOTH sides of his magical nature. (The three metamagics I'd likely learn first, playing Maus? Masking, Centering, and Flexible Signature - essentially: "one mage, one adept, one both"). Between Magic increases and picking PP over further metamagics, he's kept his abilities perfectly split, at essentially 5/5.

Yet, after losing some essence, he has NO actual portion of his Magic attribute assigned to Adept powers.

So I ask again: what happens?

And I completely Disagree with your interpretation. I posted the Quotes. Where are yours?

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?

I didn't see the need since you typed them up so nicely. You merely fail to apply proper grammar and diction to them.


"Characters who wish to become mystic adepts have the option of splitting their Magic attributes between spellcasting and conjuring or physical abilities."

Crystal clear.... they 'HAVE THE OPTION'. does not say "ARE REQUIRED TO".

Lets replace that with parallel wording and diction...
"Characters who wish to become street sams have the option of splitting their combat skills between ranged and melee abilities".
There is no requirement established to put points in either ranged or melee... it's an option to split... not a requirement to.


Now for part two... "For every point of Magic invested in physical abilities, the character gets one Power Point that she can use to purchase adept powers."
No arguments here at all... you split a point towards PP you get a PP worth of adept abilities. There is NO REQUIREMENT to have spent adept PP anywhere to use adept metamagics for example... or barring the use of PP gained ANY OTHER WAY. (even from an optional rule I only like for pure adepts).

"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.

Again parallel wording...
"Every 4BP invested in automatics grants the character one point to use *WITH* SMGs"
There is no debate here... this buys 1 rank of the skill giving you 1 dice in the skill. The skill is used *WITH* SMG's. The skill is not necessary for the use of SMG's. Why is this so... because the requirements for taking the skill are defined elsewhere in the skills section as are the rules for using the equipment without the skill.


The actual requirement I quoted earlier from the skill section.


p92 even doesn't apply..
"Though this quality is inexpensive, gamemasters should be careful not to allow it to be abused. It should only be taken for characters that intend to explore their nature as mystic adepts."

Abuse is never defined, nor is what exactly qualifies as exploring their nature as mystic adepts. Leaving both clearly up to GM fiat. But there is no hard and fast rule that any split combination is automatically verboten. Does going nearly full magician but taking adept metamagics qualify as exploring their nature? Completely subjective criteria...


See... I'm only pointing out that RAW does not 100% support your position TJ. I don't even necessarily agree with this line of argumentation... but it's not necessary to agree with a line of argumentation to argue it. There's even a nut in here which I'm waiting to see if you crunch down on... you're not entirely wrong but not for the reasons you cite.

See, this is where you and I diverge on the interpretation.

You cannot use the skill if you have no Magic Point allocated to it. I have shown you why I believe that to be true. But lets try again...

As a character, you cannot use Magical Skills if you have no Magic Attribute. We agree on this one.
You cannot use those skills at all as an Adept.
As a Magician, it is a moot point. Unbless you are aburned out Magicain, you have a Magic Rating, and can therefore use the skills.
However, as a Mystic Adept, you must split your focus. You cannot use Adept abilities without actually asigning points to PP, and the rules state that you assign points to the Sorcery side to use the skills.

Now, per your interpretation, allowing the use of skills without the attendant split makes the Mystic Adept more powerful. So much so in fact that you could never assign any Magic points to Sorcery Side Splits and still make summoning and spellcasting rolls. I disagree with this interpretatin because it makes absolutely no sense. 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?

My interpretation would not allow the adept with no points ot use Adept abilities (Duh), nor would it allow the use of Magic Skills without a Sorcery Split either. You cannot use Magical Skills without the attendant Magical Attribute. Mystic Adepts are in a tight situation. 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. At that point, they are simply an Adept.

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. Why do you think it works like that in one direction only? I do not believe it does. And I believe that my interpretation of the rules supports that. Honestly, the other way makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Now... It is possible I am rambling and moving in circles... Did that make any sense at all?
Thanks for listening/reading Falconer... And it looks like I may have missed the hidden Nut...

You're close... the problem is your diction is imprecise.

Certain words like Can/May/should/must/etc. have clear meanings when used.

Example from above:
"You cannot use Adept abilities without actually asigning points to PP". This is incorrect... you cannot use adept abilities without assigning PP to them. The source of the PP never sets forth any other requirements. So if your GM is allowing PP for initiation... then yes... it is quite possible to have PP and not have them from your mystic adept split. (I do consider this an abuse of mystic adept though, because initiations are so cheap and there ARE MANY valid metamagics to choose from for an actual mystic adept).

That said, I don't believe the optional rule as written (optional RAW) allows for a mystic adept to buy PP at initiation. SR4 makes a clear distinction between adepts, mystic adepts, and magicians... when anything is allowed to one, two, or all three, it calls each out individually. The optional rule though says only "may consider allowing Adepts to gain 1PP at initiation". It doesn't say adepts and mystic adepts... whereas elsewhere in the rules it goes to pains to name both of them. Again that's a grey area to me. Does adept refer to both or only one... when elsewhere they specifically name both when both are relevant (see the assensing skill for an example where it calls out both by name).



There is no requirement that a mystic adept split his magic in any way. There is merely a caution to the GM that this quality has the potential for abuse (as do many others... what exactly is abuse is completely subjective though). Again it's an option, not a requirement... that said... depending on how you parse two other wisely seperated statements, how you spend points on magical abilities may affect how you can spend on skills.

p122 again...
"Unless otherwise noted in the skill description, only characters with the Magician or Mystic Adept quality and a Magic attribute of 1 or greater may take or use Magic skills."

Why was the first rule written like so.. because if a mage loses his magic, he can no longer advance his magical skills! Not necessarily to block mystic adepts. It's a happy accident they worded it that way. As it makes it easy to point at the RAW and say... for this use you don't have any magic. But only if you can point to p122 and the mystic adept section.

Above...
the mystic adept split for mana-based abilities and mana-based abilities only... says 'for use with skills' gains 1 point. This is possible to read as... when combined with the sentence on p122. If the mystic adept spends no points on magic... he doesn't qualify as having a magic of 1 or higher (for use with skills). The catch here is the next for all other purposes... bit. Is unfortunately vague enough that your rules munchkin may try and slide it through here. (if you can't tell I rather dislike rules munchkins... it's fun to squish them under their own RAW though when you can :)). But I'm not going to fool myself into thinking something is clearly and unambiguously RAW when it's not unambiguous though.


I simply insist on making a clear distinction within myself when something is actually RAW/grey/house rule. I'm not hostile to any of them. Just I make a point to point out problems, especially for GM's where rules twinks may try to operate. Example Tacnets... did you notice the end part of tacnets... Things a GM *MIGHT* give a bonus to (every one ASSUMES they give a bonus to pretty much everything... but me as a GM find tacnets silly and badly overpowered if done like so... yeah you only have 3 gun dice and 3 reaction dice... here now you have 7 and 7!. IMO: the only suitable options of the *MIGHT* list are initiative, perception, and surprise.... and also allow for information guided indirect attacks as put forth in arsenal.

Since most of the time I play as a player and not GM... I cannot pull down GM fiat... though I can make a persuasive case to a GM when I need to. I prefer not to. Because I prefer to watch the game move on smoothly than get caught up in pointless rules arguments. On the forums however, this is a great diversion.

*accidental double post*

Great Diversion Indeed...
I have imprecise Diction? Should I be offended?

Thanks for the Input.

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

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.






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



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.


Gimped rolls.


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.


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.


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.


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

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.

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.

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.

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

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".

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.

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.

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


@Falconer

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._

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.






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.

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.

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.

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.

As it should. Mystic Adepts are neither Adepts nor Magicians. They SHOULD be weaker...

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.

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.

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