the wording confused me a little here, if I have a magic ATT of 7, and 4 put into "magician" 3 into PP, when I roll to cast spells do I roll 4+spellcasting, or 7+spellcasting?

Do a search, there are numerous threads on this precise topic already.

4

Bye
Thanee

But resist drain etc at 7

You don't use Magic for drain resistance.

You'd use 7 for anything else based off of your Magic, like passing through barriers and what people would know if they Assensed you.

or wether the Drain for summoned Spirits or Spells is Physical or Mental

JahtaHow
Medicineman

Really not all that helpful...

Do you know where that is stated in the books?

I was always under the impression that as a mystic adapt, if you put 3 of your magic att to magician then you were limited to Force 6 spells and anything over Force 3 was Physical drain, not stun.

...

See Tymeaus, that is exactly why I point people to the older threads. Same questions popping up every time.

Dropping a URL is helpful. Dropping a snipe telling them to run off and search is not.

This is incorrect... the partial magic attribute is used for the purposes of using spellcasting and summoning skills. For all other uses the full attribute is used (adept powers, pressing through wards, etc. etc. etc.).

The official position of the game, is that drain is part of using the skill and is capped by the partial attribute accordingly.

So you have 4 invested in magic... you're treated as if you were a magician of magic 4 for purposes of casting and summoning skills including drain. Your GM may handle it as he sees fit though... some are more liberal and allow you to use the full to determine others don't. You'll need to discuss this with him.


TJ, Xene, et al. the only problem I have with things like this is when people answer and give a wrong answer like medicine does above. It's a commonly misunderstood and grey area of the rules. The FAQ is contradictory to RAW as regards adept powers, but otherwise is consistent with RAW. I believe that if grey the player should know that this is a grey area and people do it differently, but if an official position is out there, that should be given for references sake.

All skills are at full magic rating. While you only have 3PP your ratings are limited by magic, however, the 4 as a mage means that you can only cast up to Force 4 before considered overcasting.

<edit> the above post may be more correct. I think that for counterspell you get full magic.

Counterspell is a magic-linked skill. It has two uses dispelling which is linked to magic, and spell defense which isn't.

It is subject to the 4 just as much as spellcasting or ritual spellcasting is. All spells of that group are treated identically.

Dispelling uses Counterspell + partial magic. Determine drain based on the partial
Spell defense though still only uses the naked counterspell skill as a bonus to peoples defense pools (magic stat isn't used at all0.

I agree with Falconer. This is a momentous occasion. Anyone have star-charts handy to see if there's some great alignment or anything?

http://wx.sloweather.com/starchart.php

Unless it's a skill roll, you use your full magic attribute.

I disagree. I may be disagreeing with the official position of the FAQ author ... and I am not entirely convinced that the FAQ author speaks for "The Game" and represents its position. I certainly see no evidence that the FAQ author realizes that SR4A has been printed...

I consider drain a mechanic outside of the skill use. Drain is used in spell casting, conjuration, and at least one physical adept power (is attribute boost the only one?). I am not sure whether I would compare the full or partial magic attribute for drain. I would have to give it some thought, but I do not consider it part of the skill use.

Additionally, both Adepts and Magicians can use Enchanting so I see no reason why Mystic Adepts would not use their full Magic Attribute for this Magic-based skill.

By the actual rules, you would use 4+Spellcasting to cast the spell, but your maximum Force would be 7 for the drain to be Stun and 14 for the drain to be Physical. The FAQ blatantly contradicts the rules in the case, and should be discarded in the case of this situation. It shouldn't necessarily be discarded in other areas, but one should look very closely when using what it says in anything considering how unreliable this rules contradiction makes it. There are those who rule according to the FAQ, however, and you should ensure your GM isn't one of those, or else be faced with a hamstrung character.

The FAQ directly contradicts the limit for Adept powers only, which is clearly said to work off the full Magic Rating in the rulebook.

The part "... to use with Magic-based skills ..." is hardly clear about what it means.

What constitutes the "use" of a Magic-based skill?

Is it just the test, where you use Magic as part of the dice pool, or is it the whole spellcasting process, where the Magic-based skill is being used?

It is not really clear by RAW.

Bye
Thanee

I was trying to avoid starting a long-winded debate... to the OP again talk to your GM, the wording is murky and unclear... I gave you the official position but many GM's do things differently.


To the Rest... Cabral what I said isn't at odds with enchanting. Enchanting isn't a mana-linked skill (which are defined as the conjuring and sorcery skill groups). Look in the skills section, certain skills are specifically marked as only being able to take if your magic attribute is 1 or higher. For purposes of those skills your magic attribute is the portion devoted to it.

As for the intent of the authors. The FAQ author did it with the blessing of the line developer at the time Synner. If you recall the older FAQ you'd understand in a heartbeat why many of us defend his work. It put on record a lot of grey areas with official positions, and did it without acting as an errata and contradicting very little which the rules lawyers immediately went to town on with a fine tooth comb. (recovering essence loss, splitting dice pools, and mystic adepts as regards adept powers & magic are the only points where it CLEARLY contradicts RAW. As in its not possible to read it as not contradicting). You may not agree with the FAQ on a few questions, I know I don't like a few either... but that doesn't mean that I can sit there and say it isn't the published intent of the game's authors and line developer. I think it did a lot better than most of their books even... only getting 3 unarguably wrong out of over 200.

The FAQ does NOT contradict the rules in this case... as it's left unclear what for purposes of using mana-linked skills. Whether it's all aspects of the skill test or only the dice roll. Any assertions to the contrary are in a grey area and definitely contrary to the published intent of the line authors.

As for further evidence look at the SR3 version of same. In that one, it very clearly states that for all purposes of using the skill even force and all the like the partial attribute gets used. Since it was that way in the past editions, in the current edition it's been stated to work the same way, it's hard to say it suddenly is supposed to change without clear wording to the contrary. Instead all we have is murky wording which GM's can interpret as they wish.

I think you need to take another look at the section.

SR4A, page122

SR4A, page123

Enchanting is a magic-linked skill and, per RAW and per FAQ, a Mystic Adept should probably use a diminished magic attribute. I think that makes no sense and they should use their full magic attribute.


So, having the blessing of the same person/persons who blessed Unwired's Nexus rules make it infallible? I have seen Errata and FAQs for a few editions now and I believe the Errata represents RAW and the FAQ represents the game publisher's recommendations.


The FAQ can't contradict RAW in this case, because RAW is unclear, leaving us to guess at RAI. In the case of limiting the force of spells and spirits, I am likely to use the reduced attribute, but not because drain is part of the skill use. It is not any more part of the skill use than fatigue damage is part of the running skill.



I clearly stated that I may be disagreeing with the official position.

You misunderstand... Sorcery and Conjuring groups are special and called out by name a few times. In SR3 those two skill groups were specifically mentioned as subject to the split as well. So history and the writing both don't include enchanting in that limitation.

p84... only people with those qualities can buy those skill groups. (if not you can buy them as knowledge skills)
Under the skills themselves... only with those skills AND with an effective magic attribute of 1 or higher... if you do NOT consider the effective magic attribute to be the split value. Then they can buy those skills with NO investment in the attribute and you end up with wierdness such as mystic adepts being able to cast spells with no magic whatsoever invested in mana-based skills.
p176. Sorcery and Conjuring are named as mana-linked skill groups in a few spots
p195. Mystic Adept "... preserving some of their Power Points for spellcasting or conjuring." Note that enchanting and arcana are NOT mentioned as being affected by this set aside.
Also keep in mind, enchanting is an add-on from street magic that was incorporated in the rough into the SR4a book as an addition.


Even if it was included. I don't think it's a problem... mystic adepts get the best of all worlds in many aspects... to make them weak in enchanting wouldn't gimp them overly... you're only talking ~3 dice difference typically.


As far as the rest... if you can't trust the head of development for the product as the official word. You can't trust ANYONE. Especially some nobody like you (not meant as an insult.. just stating that denying an appeal to authority also brings your own into question here). Nowhere is it stated that an official position is always consistent. It only gains it's official status by who writes and and authorizes it.

Through the Death of the Author concept (TV Tropes link), it can be argued that only what material is published counts, i.e. any later statements on that subject should be ignored.

Just a note: Arcana is never limited by Magic. It is linked to Logic, Not Magic, and even Mundanes can develop Spells.