Apparently not enough for some people. Just because you disagree doesn't make them "wrong".

The etc above, it shouldn't exist in your post, because it pretends like there's a long list of differences you don't feel like writing out. Spirit types and drain stats are THE only mechanical differences, along with Materialization/Possession. A long list of...3 differences, 1 of which is so minor it doesn't really count.

Some people want more mechanical choices.

They have them. They're the individual edges and flaws. Why duplicate them?

I think you know my meaning and are just causing trouble, but in case not,

"Some people want more mechanical choices in their magical traditions". Clearer?

Again, why should the overview of magic carry more or equal weight to the magician themselves?

Because I'd like magical traditions to be more than the vague, airy "overview of magic" that it has become in 4th, and go back to more distinctive flavors that were present in earlier editions. I'd like magical tradition to BE a part of the magician themselves, providing mechanical and (better) fluff distinctions between those who wield magic.

Then make it part of the magician character. Not the tradition, which is just an overview. Make the character show it.

Oh I see, you're just bored and trolling...

And the inability to read a reply to a reply* is reason number 2.

*Protip: a quote, which is a reply to Cain, can be something I agree with as a reason to block Cain.

Crikey, I thought other systems were bad for generating this kinda heat

Just so I got this right :

on one hand some feel that SR5 needs to include Mages as effectively having sub-classes with more mechanical differences in how they operate and what they can do
i.e. strong in summoning, weak in fireballing
(like the DnD Drood vs Sorc vs Wizzard vs. etc)

I see this method as best to negate these kind of arguments appearing mid game session.
and causing confusion in folks not as versed in the system (i.e. ME)
if it's in the book then that's how it works ... simple. make the fluff fit .. or homebrew summat to your liking. but it has to fit the rules and the structure.

on the other hand,
we see balance in having ONE Mage fits all and catering to situations with other game mechanics (flaws/edges)
this does mean that ALL mages are created equal and the onus is on the player to design and the GM to regulate.

This would not be my personal favourite idea though, I think it's been said it is far too open to interpretation of RAW vs RAI
and manipulation

and I want someone else to design the framework by which my character exists..
I then build the fluff around the framework, and make it work within the prescribed guidelines and thematics and the story that is being told.

It is afterall, not my world, it is one that I live in.

That was kind of my thought. Remember we only have so many magical traditions based on SR history.

Standard traditions:
Shamanic: Nature oriented, CHarisma based (example: Shintoism, and well native american shamanism)
Paganistic: Man oriented, charisma based (Examples: norse, voodoun)
Warlocks/witches: Nature oriented, intuition based (examples: wicca)
Hermetic: "Science oriented, logic based

We also have the odd ball:
Psionic: Science oriented, logic based

As to "other traditions" they'd just be variants of these to some degree or another.

SR1 thru 3 had mechanically strongly varied mage types.

The baseline was Hermetics (several spirits at once, spirits cost money, no tradition boni) versus Shamans (one spirit at a time, spirits limited by domains, Totem boni/mali to casting, summoning and occasionally other things). Shamanic and Hermetic spirits were massively distinct, with shamanic spirits being more versatile and havng more useful owers, and hermetic spirits beng better fighters but not as versatile.

Please note how I emphathise summoning. Spellcasting is a ot less useful and important in Shadowrun than in D&D.

There also were:

Druids (hermetics with a mix of hermetic and shamanic spirits)
Elf Pathwalker mages (hermetics with semi-totemic boni/mali and again, mixed shamanic/hermetic spirits that also get situational boni based on in-game location and date)
Elementarists (Hermetics with tradition boni, shamanic spirits and an assortment of chinese flavored elementals)
Voodoo mages (shamans with possession spirits)
Singer School mages (hermetics who have mental foci they only pay Karma, but no material cost, for, and which only exist astrally)

And others I probably forgot since they were from extremely obscure books.

Of course, these were present before 4E. But they were mechanically quite distinct. This is where Cain wants to go back to. I think at least.

No, I complained that a shaman and a hermetic are mechanically identical in their capabilities. Just one gets a bonus to one thing, and the other gets a bonus to a different thing. The result is still, 'whatever you can do, I can do'.

And other modifiers on the "this is a nothing tradition" (i.e. being a mage) that could exist could modify that statement as well. E.g. "can't summon more than one spirit" or "spirit summons cost no " or...

You see my point? There are dozens of possibilities that exist within the problem space, you're just refusing to see them and instead harping on the fact that those options AREN'T in the problem space.

"No benefit" is where we most strongly disagree.


And again, you cowardly avoid the question by throwing up a smokescreen.

The answer, as I'm sure you know perfectly well, is: nothing. There is absolutely no difference - except that "Chaos" is shorter to write on a charatcer sheet, than "Hermetic".

So what's the point of having two different traditions, then?


No, there aren't.

• Chaos: Will + Logic; summons Fire, Air, Earth, Man, and Water spirits.
• Hermetic: Will + Logic; summons Fire, Air, Man, Water, and Earth spirits.

Zero difference.

Upthread, I listed every Logic tradition's spirit-summoning options. And the differences were miniscule, in even the most-different case.

...

Of course, we all know you're just trolling, now, rather than actually trying to discuss and debate anything at all:



... so, this will be my last post aimed at you.






No. Cain wants to sit where we are in SR4. Those of us who've been arguing against him, want to "go back" to that ... but in a structured way, where one underlaying "build system" can be and is used to produce each and every one of those traditions ... thus producing greater inter-Tradition balance than we had in SR1-SR3, without sacrificing so much diversity, the way SR4 did.

Personal attacks are against the Terms of Service.

To Everyone:
Beating a dead horse, by either side in a discussion, can easily come across as trolling and baiting attempts if continued long enough. Once a difference in opinion has been identified there is really no need to continue restating the same thing over and over again.

No...
Not possible, since any Spirit can only pump that possessed character to their Maximum Augmented Attributes anywyas. *shrug*

EDIT: Just noticed the warning. Hopefully, The above is okay.

TJ:
You completely missed his point...

A possession spirit doesn't get the normal materialization attribute mods... instead of a -1 to this one and a +2 to this one.. it's +3 or more to everything if it gets a stock human... more for a meta.

A materialized spirit comes in 'naked'... the only thing protecting it are it's stat mods which are less than the base humans stats... and it's immunity to normal weapons. The round it materiializes it does nothing and can be taken out.

A possession spirit comes into by taking someone out. It's already got one target neutralized by the time time it's entered the physical by attacking it directly from the astral. With higher +stats to boot. And it's not 'naked' because it has both it's ItNW AND any worn armor and equipment....

And you directly refer to the meat body capping the skill... Pax's point was that so you build a troll possession mage who is less affected by this.. and can go to 15 body/str. Or orc... or any other meta with higher attribute caps than a human.

I agree with his observation that a possession spirit is noticably more powerful than a materialization spirit. And the problem lies 100% in the possession mechanics and people not adequately playtesting it. (such as the possessed mages MAGIC being replaced by the spirits magic... when you can summon a spirit twice your magic... you see where this goes).

Did not miss his point, I just do not agree with it. *shrug*

Yes... True...

Also true, A Materialization spirit comes in "naked." Not really that big of a concern. And no, it is likely much more protected than any Normal Character if it is any spirit that A Dumpshocker character summons, since I have yet to see any player here other than myself and maybe a couple of others, who do not use at Least Force 6+ Spirits on their everyday actions. That is what is making Spirits obnoxious at those tables. Happliy it is Not a concern at the tables I play at. Materialization Mages at our table play them fairly well, as they are very good at employing them. Very few of the Summon, Materialize and Go Away scenarios that you are talking about, since it rarely occurs like that in our games.

A possession Spirit MUST make a roll to even come to the physical world. And if they do make it material, then yes, they have some additional protection. Of course, it may not actually matter all that much dependent upon opposition. And again, if tables allow crazy level spirits, then you get crazy level results. *shrug*

True... And at some tables this leads to bonuses that are stupid high (Powerful SPirits), though possession will still only cap out at Augmented Maximums for the one possessed. Problem with Possession Spirits IS THAT THEY NEED A FORM TO POSSESS. And they only can do so if they make the roll to do so. They are not nearly as useful as a Materialization Spirit is in almost any case. Yes, a troll or ork can get better stats in their physicals. so what, they likely have better stats to start with anyways. *shrug*

As you can see, I do not agree that Possession is more powerful than Materialization. It is just different. We have never had any issues with Possession Mages in our games, in all the years we have played, and in fact, those who do play Possession mages, though they like them, have even admitted that Materialization gives them much more in the way of options.

It is all in how you play the game, I guess. If you are comfortable with Spirits above Force 6 being common, then yes, Possesion Mages might cause issues. Since I have never experienced this in game, I do not have a baseline to actually compare accurately with. Now, if you control the level of spirits (you can use the rules in the book for this with no alteration whatsoever), then your High-powered spirits become less common, and many of the issues associated with them disappear. This is more of what I am familiar with, so I do have something to compare against.

Though this is probably way off topic, since we are discussing Traditions, and not spirits.

Can you make a starting character that hits Augmented Maximum on all of their physical attributes, regardless of metatype, without a Possession spirit being involved? While simultaneously changing all their Mental attributes to 6, 9, even 12?

I know I don't think I could.

But a Troll, Egyptian tradition, with a F6 Possession ... can hit Body 15, Agility 7, Reaction 9, Strength 15, Charisma 6, Intuition 6, Logic 6, Will 6, Edge 6. Which only requires a Magic of 3 to pull off (and putting the physical attributes 6 points shy of augmented maximum, each).




Total side note: I'd prefer if Possession boosted only ONE attribute at once, even for a willing possession. It would seem a lot less "broken" / overpowered, if that were the case.

You mean php (and I and others) want that. Cain wants to go the other way. All traditions are at their basis identical, and you take edges and flaws, and put on the top of your character sheet 'Unicorn Mage' or whatever.



I don't play SR4. I guess I need to put that in my sig. But from what I've seen, if you pick a raccoon shaman and you pick a chaos mage, the only thing one can do that the other can't is he can cast one spirit. I don't consider that, and a +2 bonus here or there, to be serious differentiation between traditions. If I'm wrong on that, tell me, because I don't know.

What I want to see is if I say "I am a raccoon shaman!" you know immediately that that means I can do some things that a chaos mage cannot, and a chaos mage can do some things I cannot. I.e., substantially different. Tell me that's true and I'll shut up.

Fortunately for me, Pax and Cain have already hashed this out, with each of them actually being familiar with the rules (unlike me). And the answer from both of them seems to be no, my raccoon shaman is *EXACTLY* like your chaos mage, except;
1) I have a different drain attribute, and I choose a different spirit to NOT have access to
2) I wrote 'raccoon' on my character sheet

Everything else, saying I'm curious and I love theft, aren't part of my tradition; they're character-specific traits. The "raccoon shaman" tradition is just a grey mush in the undifferentiated mass that is 'all of religion in Shadowrun'.

Again, if I'm wrong, tell me. I don't play SR4, because, well, a lot of reasons. But when it comes to SR5, I really, really do not want religion to be an undifferentiated grey mass where I have to cut out a chunk and say "okay, for Bob the Buddha Shaman, Buddhism involves killing lots of dudes and loving Jesus".

In SR4 terms:

• the Chaos Mage uses Will+Logic to resist drain, and summons spirits of Earth, Air, Man, Water, and Fire.
• the Shaman uses Will+Charisma to resist drain, and summons spirits of Earth, Air, Man, Water, and Beasts; he also has the "Mentor Spirit" positive quality, selecting "Raccoon" ... which is not in the official list, so I don't know what it's benefits woudl be. Generally, something like +2 to detection spells, +2 to summon Beast spirits";

... and that's it. Aside from teh specific Totem / Mentor, the only difference is that one can summon Spirits of Fire and resists drain with Logic, whereas the other can summon Spirits of Beasts and resists Drain with Charisma. There is zero other difference between them.


You're not - except that the Raccoon mentor may produce some behavioral modifications (Curiousity, perhaps - like how Bear shamans can sometimes go berzerk).

Mentors are not required for shamans in 4e Nezumi, it's an optional edge.
You'd just be a shaman with access to 5 spirit types (summoned exactly like a mage does it) and you resist drain with cha + will power.

Mentors typically gives a bonus to summoning a spirit type and/or casting a type of spell and/or a skill.
In return you get a drawback appropriate to the mentor, like magicians with rat mentors must roll to not flee from danger

Probably a good idea to have both ways done, and have one (probably the simplest) be the base, and have the other be an optional rule.

In all likelyhood, I'd overlook it anyway. Heh.



It's a bigger difference than in 4! In 4 both of them can summon the same number of spirits.



Ditto.

What "substantially different" is however, I'm willing to negotiate. If a raccoon shaman gets a +2 to summoning beast spirits* and the chaos mage gets +2 to casting physical (vs. mana) spells, I'd be OK with that. It'd be more different than it (SR4) is now.

*Not counting totem.

I know what you are saying _Pax. I just do not have those experiences at our table. Yes, it could be an issue.

Side Note: I agree that boosting of Stats could be minimized to bring the power down, and I would even go so far as to NOT include the Cognitive (mental) abilities in that Boost. Instead, I would replace attributes (mentally) with the Spirit's Attributes, unless the Summoner had the Channeling Metamagic, which would keep his own attributes instead (which may be exactly how it works anyways, I don't remember of the top of my head). Of course, this may make no difference if you are summoning Force 6+ Spirits.

Or even just take the best and use those. An amalgamation of the Stats, which ever is best at the time. *shrug*
Which, now that I think about it, I actually like.

Though not really a big deal to me, as we do not have broken possession mages currently.

You wouldn't be able to cast spells unless you had channeling metamagic TJ, it's required to get access to your own skills.
Exception being a spirit of man.
and you don't add mental attributes you use the spirits, but you resist spells with the lower of the two if you have channeling.

What about how Shadowrun Returns is doing Shamans and Mages? They decided to seperate the two by having Shamans be summoners and mages spellcasters? As the dev for Shadowrun Returns explained this was done to make the two distinct because of developments in 4th edition. Thats not word for word but gets the idea across. This seperation seems rather logical, gives players two distinct magic using types (not counting adepts) with very diffirent ways of affecting the sixth world.

I don't think they would ever do this as 4th edition went out of its way to erase the seperation of shamans and mages in the rules.

And the downside is?
Yeah, okay, that's right. Mentals use the Spirit's and resist with the lowest with Channelling.

Been a while since I actually played a possession mage that actually was possessed but his own spirits.

Not much of downsides, same as normal spirits... Don't like background count, can be banished, don't like wards, and they must roll a check to possess.

@Stormdrake Wouldn't work without reworking spirits. ♪ Everything you do I can do better ♪

No. Best to have it one way only - and have the Official Traditions published in the books be made with the point-build system, and very carefully balanced against one another.

Then, a GM can say "no custom traditions."

That gives the benefit of your suggestion, but retains the integrity of the point-build system. Just like how Advanced Lifestyles work: any of the Basic versions, are exactly and perfectly modelled by the Custom Build system.

TJ:
Yes that's one of the 'tricks' of possession mages... you bind yourself something big but 'safe' you can probably survive like a force 9. Then you make use of channeling to order it to possess you for an extended period... And before you argue that... it's easy... you bind a lower force one to start like say a force 6 spirit of man... with increase attribute spells innate... use it to augment your own drain attributes to the max. Then proceed with the summoning with 18+ dice and edge at your back for the drain check... you only need to have at least 1 physical left on the track for it to work...

During this time while you have this big boy possess you... all your mentals are 9. All your specials are 9 (magic and edge). And the only time you use the lower (yours) is when you're actually resisting a spell cast at you.

All that for the low low cost of only 10-11 karma after play starts for your first initiation with ordeal... 5 karma more to join a magical group which will pay for itself in two initiations. (probably centering next to help with summoning drain)


Also by strict RAW. The channeler has full access to both the SPIRITS and his own skills... so if that's a spirit of man... congrats you have spellcasting 9 (as well as a whole load of other skills like assensing and perception)... which a normal mage has no way whatsoever to boost. I do not believe this is the RAI... but even I have to admit that the RAW gives the channeler full access to both his and the spirits skills... (which aren't subject to the 6 rank limitation yet another boondoggle which comes up with spirits and another reason I argue skills should be returned back to the old days of going 1-12 and not capped at 6). So that above of using your lower attribute to resist spells is even got around if the spirit has magical guard and counterspelling above 6.


This is why task spirits on the fly are such a problem with possession... instant skillwires training in any technical skill.. if they're only force 3-5 rarely a drain threat too.


Your continual thing about needing a vessel has never been a problem. I've seen a lot of possession types carry prepared vessels with them... even if they aren't fully articulate... something as simple as a ring works. Also the check to possess an unwilling is generally 2 higher attributes vs one... making it the exception to the rule for it not to work.

Even moreso as I've often watched possession types... astrally project and leave their fully armored and equipped body as a vessel for their spirit who is far scarier than they are. In doing this they do not lose their actions... and can even act astrally to heal themselves! (I heal my astral form... healing my possessed body in the process). That's a whole 'nother boondoggle as that's one of the 'risks' of projecting... coming back to find your body gone to a snatcher like shedim which is obviated with possession. (and my GM wonders why I wanted my ally spirit to be possession... in a campaign dominated by bug spirits and shedim... despite being a materialization tradition).

Actually, my argument is why should the tradition carry all the mechanical differences, when there's already a system in place to model that?

The only reason to do so is "we want it", which is counteracted by "It's potentially more broken".

I'm still waiting for a tangible benefit to offset the tangible risk.

I did read the reply. I'm not quoted in it.

You can block me for any reason, but at least use my own words as a reason.

You were quoted, but for some reason the forums here won't do 'nested quotes', which means that the quote that spawned a remark disappears when the remark is quoted.

Go back to the post I quoted. You're quoted in that post. Hence "a reply to a reply."

Hence your inability to read.

This shall be my last reply to Cain:



1) Because the system that already exists is not sufficient enough to cover all of the possible variations (there are possible modifiers that could exist that do no).
2) Because the system that already exists is limited in quantity (max 35 BP) and your Tradition is already covered by 5-15 of that.
3) Because the system that already exists does not enforce the variations (a Buddhist is not required to be a pacifist*).

*Obviously some people think that some Buddhists wouldn't be, but that's why there are the advanced rules: replacing that tenet with something else.

You have to do that manually.

It used to be integrated (nested quotes) I guess it was disabled because of wall of quote (as DS didn't put them in tabs)

and guys... Please, attack the ideas not the person, calling names never got anyone anywhere.

My just-prior post has been edited. I was pulled away from the edit just before I'd finished, and there have been a few replies.

This is the last thing I am going to say to you for a very, very long time:

In SR1, the way Hermetics and Shamans summoned spirits was [b]markedly different[/i]; each had their upsides and downsides. With time and money, a Hermetic could have a dozen Elementals on tap - which could go anywhere. But without the time and money, they had nothing. Flipside, Shamans needed no preparatory time or money, but could have only one spirit at a time, and were limited by the Domain they summoned it in.

That is not something that any number or combination of PQs or NQs can result in.

This thread is on the path to being locked.

It can be argued that the historical reason for a SR3 and earlier Hermetic and Shaman Tradition divide is that SR3 Hermetics never knew they could "Summon" on the fly, and SR3 Shamans never realized they could Bind. That's the fluff interpretation.

I personally don't like sub class variants and prefer open design systems, but I know that's my personal choice. It's quite simple in SR4 for me to make a character that is distinctively SR3 Shamanic or Hermetic as I like. Whereas, in SR3 I had no choice than to pick one or the other. There's nothing wrong in either systems, it's simply a design decision. I've seen SR3 games with Shamanic Binding, and Hermetic Summoning on the fly, as well as SR4 "old school" Hermetics and Shamans, and it all works fine. Of course, they all require the Gm and Player to work together, but without that you don't have a game.

Indeed... It should always come back to the GM and Player working together.

Absolutely, yes.

I just think the process is assisted by having an appropriate toolkit to work with.

No one has asked the mechanics to carry ALL the mechanical differences.

Just ... some of them. Just something, so when I say "I'm a chaos mage", that's not the same as saying "I am a vanilla hermetic". Something to give those words some actual meaning.

And what risk? This is how the game was for two decades. It worked. Sure, people said that shamans or hermetics were more powerful (although we never got a real answer on which). But as you pointed out, that will ALWAYS be the case for any game with mechanical complexity.

Right now SR5 is getting built. It won't be SR4. By virtue of this, there already is 'risk'. They (and I suppose, by extension, we) have already accepted that risk by starting a new edition. If SR5 comes out and is different (which it will be) and you don't like it, the risk is ... you continue playing SR4. Just like the 'risk' of SR4 coming out resulted in me still playing SR3. Yeah, I personally am upset by that risk, but for the most part, I have to agree it was the right choice for the company. And at the end of the day, *I am still having a lot of fun playing Shadowrun!* So for me, just like for you, there is no 'risk'.




This is a strong point, and one I get a little confused by.

No matter what, not everyone will be happy with SR5. So SOMEONE will be making GM calls regardless.

So here's the game designer's choice. EITHER;
1) I write complete rules for differentiated magic users. Players who don't like them just ignore those rules and use undifferentiated characters.
OR
2) I write generic rules for undifferentiated magic users. Players who don't like that have to INVENT AN ENTIRE RULESET COMPLETE WITH TRADITIONS AND HOURS OF RESEARCH AND CREATE THEIR OWN.

Out of those two, which seems like the best deal for players?

(I guess that should really go under the 'what do we have to lose?' question of Cain's.)

Sure we did: http://www.intercom.net/user/logan1/debate03.htm
Just like the Physical Adept vs. Samurai debate: http://www.intercom.net/user/logan1/debate02.htm

Option 2...

That is the System we currently have, and I find it the most palatable and enjoyable. I enjoy performing the research to craft the Tradition's "Strictures." *shrug*

Some Traditions could indeed spawn 100's of offshoots, and I find that compelling.

1. Of course not. That's what individual variances in character is for.
2. Why should traditions be unlimited in scope? If you don't limit the quantity somehow, there will be a lot of min/maxing.
3. That's up the the individual character, not the tradition.


There were also multiple ways shamans could get around the domain restriction. And you can simulate what you describe in SR4.5 via roleplay and rules, as well as character building. I've seen shamans with Incompetence: Binding, for example.

But, Tymaeus ... my original suggestion would not preclude you doing that. At the same time, it would mpowere me to play the way I like ... wihtout hindering your ability to play the way you like in the slightest.

Isn't that really the superior situation?

Nezumi asked for my Opinion. I gave it. That is all.
Problem is that adding complexity I see as a Bad Thing, BECUASE it will cause more consternation, ala Advanced Lifestyles (Many people do not like the fiddlyness; but yes, I know, not a reason to not add them). I am just here providing Opinions, Aand arguing for my Point of View; hopefully not offensively, at least.

I am all for you getting what you want in the new Edition becasue I will likely not be purchasing it (finances being what they are).