Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: SR5 Preview #5: Magic
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4
Bull
Yes, this applies to overcasting. If you want to channel that much magic, be prepared to deal with the cost.
tjn
QUOTE (RHat @ Jun 22 2013, 08:57 PM) *
Every point of Karma is a point not spent on foci, spells, qualities, skills, attributes... If that cost is high enough, for example, that for standard chargen you have to dip well into your Negative Quality allocation to get all 6 points, that's more balanced than you think. A martial artist combat mystad cannot then be a full martial arts adept and a full combat mage, because either of those other two will have qualities, skills, attributes, and more giving them help in their area that the mystad does not have. It might have been better to give them fewer starting spells than full mages, as well, but that cannot be known without testing and I suspect that they tested that (it seems a little obvious to me, after all).

I fully agree. Sometimes I think the chicken littles declaring things as broken must play in a game with infinite karma and it mirrors a lot of the griping about magical characters overall in 4th. Given infinite resources, yes, the character with the most options to spend those resources will end up broken. However, in all those times between chargen and infinite karma, I've found those with the most options, and who don't hyper-specialize similar to Bull's Mystic Shaman Face, tend to be under powered compared to focused archetypes. Yeah they can theoretically do it all, but the focused archetype will always do their job better. For me, Mystic Adepts always fell into the Bard trap, but maybe with the new changes, I might actually see one played.

And not having any astral projection recon during any legwork has always seemed a bigger deal to me than most seem to take it for. -shrug-
Shinobi Killfist
QUOTE (Glyph @ Jun 22 2013, 10:41 PM) *
From the preview:

You must declare the Force at which to cast the spell.
The Force acts as a limit on the spell. Higher Force
spells are more powerful, but cause more Drain. You
can cast a spell at a Force up to twice your Magic rating.
If the number of hits (not net hits) you get after applying
the limit exceeds your Magic rating, the spell’s Drain is
Physical instead of Stun damage.

Now, does this only apply to overcasting? I'm asking because if uncapping your hits will turn the Drain to physical damage (keeping in mind that Drain is higher is SR5 and can't be healed with first aid or magic), then using Edge suddenly becomes a lot riskier for mages.


From that, my reading is that yes, if you use edge to break the limit and the hits exceed your magic rating it is phsical drain.
Bull
QUOTE (tjn @ Jun 22 2013, 09:52 PM) *
I fully agree. Sometimes I think the chicken littles declaring things as broken must play in a game with infinite karma and it mirrors a lot of the griping about magical characters overall in 4th. Given infinite resources, yes, the character with the most options to spend those resources will end up broken. However, in all those times between chargen and infinite karma, I've found those with the most options, and who don't hyper-specialize similar to Bull's Mystic Shaman Face, tend to be under powered compared to focused archetypes. Yeah they can theoretically do it all, but the focused archetype will always do their job better. For me, Mystic Adepts always fell into the Bard trap, but maybe with the new changes, I might actually see one played.

And not having any astral projection recon during any legwork has always seemed a bigger deal to me than most seem to take it for. -shrug-


It's not as broken as some folks make it out to be, but it is still broken, from a general cost/benefit ratio. Because on the whole those 2 Karma will buy you a LOT more in Adept Points than they will using them for anything else.
Shinobi Killfist
QUOTE (Bull @ Jun 22 2013, 10:54 PM) *
It's not as broken as some folks make it out to be, but it is still broken, from a general cost/benefit ratio. Because on the whole those 2 Karma will buy you a LOT more in Adept Points than they will using them for anything else.


For me its not just the cost return. Having too many options to spend things on isn't a real limitation. This could be a limit if the things were actually seperate resources, but they all come from the same magic stat. And even if they were seperate resources if given the option every archetype would like unlimited options. The mystic adept can pretty much do everything, sure a specialist might out specialize him. But the mystic adept could specialize to pretty much the same extent in being a spellcaster and as he grew he would have an ever expaning pool over Power Points to rely on. And what does he lose out on, a few starting character karma choices and astral projection.
tjn
QUOTE (Bull @ Jun 22 2013, 09:54 PM) *
It's not as broken as some folks make it out to be, but it is still broken, from a general cost/benefit ratio. Because on the whole those 2 Karma will buy you a LOT more in Adept Points than they will using them for anything else.

Sure, objectively when viewed in isolation, it is broken in a strict cost/benefit analysis. But does that general cost/benefit ratio allow a Mystic Adept to perform the roles of a mage or adept better than the pure archetype? Or does the mystic adept turn into a someone that could passably pass in both roles, but not exceed either? That's the balance issue I'm more interested in.
Shinobi Killfist
QUOTE (tjn @ Jun 22 2013, 11:26 PM) *
Sure, objectively when viewed in isolation, it is broken in a strict cost/benefit analysis. But does that general cost/benefit ratio allow a Mystic Adept to perform the roles of a mage or adept better than the pure archetype? Or does the mystic adept turn into a someone that could passably pass in both roles, but not exceed either? That's the balance issue I'm more interested in.


So overall better isn't better its only better if he is better in both fields than the specialists? Yes it is clear on the pure mage side he will be marginally weaker, basically he lost astral projection and some starting karma which can be used on cool things like focused concentration.. Is astral projection an dX karma better than 6+ power points in phys add abilities? Sure a pure adept might be better in that it will probably use the PP for metamagic exchange more often, but it that optional loss worth spell casting, enchanting and conjuration? He is gaining much more than he is giving up and the mage is a fairly powerful archetype to begin with, it was called magic run for a reason. And as he becomes a better mage at the same rate that a mage increases in power, he continues to gain more PP while the mages benefit of X karma and astral projection is a stagnant pool which started out outpaced and just falls further and further behind.
tjn
QUOTE (Shinobi Killfist @ Jun 22 2013, 10:01 PM) *
For me its not just the cost return. Having too many options to spend things on isn't a real limitation. This could be a limit if the things were actually seperate resources, but they all come from the same magic stat. And even if they were seperate resources if given the option every archetype would like unlimited options. The mystic adept can pretty much do everything, sure a specialist might out specialize him. But the mystic adept could specialize to pretty much the same extent in being a spellcaster and as he grew he would have an ever expaning pool over Power Points to rely on. And what does he lose out on, a few starting character karma choices and astral projection.

Karma cannot be spent more than once. It's the same fallacy that those that argued mundane characters are somehow lesser than magical characters. Every time a generalist is spending resources (karma, chargen options, nuyen, whatever) on branching out, it's resources that the specialist is spending to extend the gap in capability between the two of them. If the team has both a pure mage, and a pure adept, the mystic adept should be overshadowed in either role.

The question is, does the cost/benefit break of a mystic adept allow the mystic adept to be better at either role than a pure mage or adept? and until SR5 hits the shelves, I'm not sure we can fully evaluate that question, and more importantly, declaring an entire archetype so broken as to always be barred from the gaming table is more than a little knee jerk reaction.
Shinobi Killfist
QUOTE (tjn @ Jun 22 2013, 11:51 PM) *
Karma cannot be spent more than once. It's the same fallacy that those that argued mundane characters are somehow lesser than magical characters. Every time a generalist is spending resources (karma, chargen options, nuyen, whatever) on branching out, it's resources that the specialist is spending to extend the gap in capability between the two of them. If the team has both a pure mage, and a pure adept, the mystic adept should be overshadowed in either role.

No one ever suggested Karma could be spent more than once. Both the mystic adept and the mage are spending karma, the mystic adept is just getting a better bang for his buck on that karma. And A mage wont overshadow a mystic adept at magic, a mage will be marginally better at magic
.

QUOTE (tjn @ Jun 22 2013, 11:51 PM) *
The question is, does the cost/benefit break of a mystic adept allow the mystic adept to be better at either role than a pure mage or adept? and until SR5 hits the shelves, I'm not sure we can fully evaluate that question, and more importantly, declaring an entire archetype so broken as to always be barred from the gaming table is more than a little knee jerk reaction.


Um, no that isn't the question. The question is, does the mystic adepts abilities make him overall better and a a larger contributor to the success of a shadowrun than a pure mage or adept. The answer looks to me to be yes. And no its not a knee jerk reaction. It is a reasoned decision based on the given evidence. I don't have to stick my hand in a fire to know it will hurt, my experiences have allowed me to make decisions without actually having to test it out.
Irion
I have to agree with Shinobi Killfist. The mystic adept seems to walk in the direction no balanced rules system should walk into.
But it is hard to tell, since there could be limits in place, which could limit him in several ways.
As for now: The mystic adept 5.0 would be overpowered using the rule of SR4.01. If this stays true in SR5, we will see.

QUOTE ("Shinobi Killfist")
So overall better isn't better its only better if he is better in both fields than the specialists? Yes it is clear on the pure mage side he will be marginally weaker, basically he lost astral projection and some starting karma which can be used on cool things like focused concentration

Well, I would not even say that an mystic adept could not be the better mage, depending on synergies. If the really kept the can of worms allowing mystic adepts to sustain one spell or even several spells without modifiers, he would be the better mage.
Shinobi Killfist
QUOTE (Shinobi Killfist @ Jun 23 2013, 12:11 AM) *
Um, no that isn't the question. The question is, does the mystic adepts abilities make him overall better and a a larger contributor to the success of a shadowrun than a pure mage or adept. The answer looks to me to be yes. And no its not a knee jerk reaction. It is a reasoned decision based on the given evidence. I don't have to stick my hand in a fire to know it will hurt, my experiences have allowed me to make decisions without actually having to test it out.


I had forgot about that. The mystic adept I play in 4e is a rocker so things like that are not really important to him.
Glyph
QUOTE (Bull @ Jun 22 2013, 06:50 PM) *
Yes, this applies to overcasting. If you want to channel that much magic, be prepared to deal with the cost.

My question was, does it only apply to overcasting, or does it do that when you get more successes than your Magic rating because you are spending Edge?
Epicedion
QUOTE (Glyph @ Jun 23 2013, 01:07 AM) *
My question was, does it only apply to overcasting, or does it do that when you get more successes than your Magic rating because you are spending Edge?


It appears to be "whenever you get more successes than your Magic" at all, ever.

It also appears that Edge doesn't lift the hit cap on magic like it does on accuracy and inherent limits, which means that the only possible way to get more hits than Magic is to overcast so Force > Magic.
Aaron
QUOTE (Epicedion @ Jun 23 2013, 12:10 AM) *
It also appears that Edge doesn't lift the hit cap on magic like it does on accuracy and inherent limits, which means that the only possible way to get more hits than Magic is to overcast so Force > Magic.

Er ... I don't see that anywhere. It looks to me like Edge affects Magic limits the same way it affects any limit. What am I missing?
Irion
The mystic adept still bugs me.
If it is really a falt 2 Karma for a powerpoint, I can't see how an adept may compete with that.
Two for the first, four for the second and six for the thired maybe...

The investment in his magic attribute is worth so much more to the mystical adept and I guess they both pay the same for it...
Critias
As has been (repeatedly) said: it's being looked into.
Falconer
Oddball question as regards chargen and magic.... mixing the two previews....

I make a character... I put priority A magic... Priority B human lets say for lots of special attribute points... can I now spend my karma to initiate say twice... then raise magic to 8 in chargen using the special points?

Mentioning it as a potential abuse.... one very wierd oddity in the chargen section I noticed was using exceptional attribute to get magic 7... (which would fly directly in the face of magic can't be higher than essence + initiations if that's still in the system).
Sendaz
I thought someone had mentioned Exceptional Attribute can not be applied to specials like Magic, Resonance, Initiative, that it was for the 'base' stats.
RHat
QUOTE (Sendaz @ Jun 23 2013, 12:21 AM) *
I thought someone had mentioned Exceptional Attribute can not be applied to specials like Magic, Resonance, Initiative, that it was for the 'base' stats.


Exceptional Attribute in SR5 can, explicitly, be used for Magic and Resonoance, but not other Special Attributes.
Grinder
QUOTE (Bull @ Jun 23 2013, 01:33 AM) *
Maybe. But as I said, there are a million exceptions.

Does casting an Illusion Spell count? What if it's purely defensive (Covering a hole in a wall that you're hiding behind?) WHat if it's offensive (Making the target thing he's about to be attacked by a troll with an axe, or covering a hole in the floor he's about to step in?)

HE grenades are offensive, but smoke grenades are defensive. And what if the enemy just happens to be allergic to that particular chemical your smoke uses, and it could kill him?

Using ice sheet to knock down my enemies vs using Ice Sheet to provide a slick surface for me to easily slide down to escape combat.

We wanted there to be versatility. one of the points of removing the "double tap" for guns was to loosen up combat a little and make it less about "i fire, now you fire, now I fire" and make it more strategic. Because now you can fire, but you can also do something ELSE. Being creative, maneuvering, taking defensive actions. We want players to be able to do that. And a blanket "Only one spell" or classifying all grenades as "Offensive" stifles that ability greatly.

Say what you want, but for every thing I can think of as "purely defensive" I'm sure someone could find an offensive action to use it with. And vice-versa for everything offensive, there are only a couple actions I can think of that I can't imagine some kind of rare, one in a million defensive opportunity to use it for.

Sometimes, you have to rely on players good sense and the GMs ability to make rulings. That's just the way it goes.


I'm even less convinced now.

SR5 forces discussion about the wording of a rule that covers a key aspect of the game onto players and GMs. That's not Player Empowerment, that's not relying on the judgement call by the GM, it's just poor (if any) game design. One step further waits "do as you want be the Golden Rule of combat". ohplease.gif
Glyph
I guess I'm the exception since I don't see the ambiguity with that rule. I just question why it needs to be in there in the first place. I see that you wanted to simplify combat to one attack, per person, per action to speed up gameplay - but I think it would be been done better by simplifying the free/simple/complex action categories, rather than tacking a limitation that doesn't really make sense onto simple actions. I'll wait until I have a better idea of how they handle semi-automatic and burst fire, but my first impression is that it gives a comparative boost to melee and magic attacks, by making firearm attacks weaker.
Sendaz
I thought of the gun actions made sense, you can either use your full out firing option as a complex or a shorter burst of fire as a simple and still taking a movement or other simple action.

Thus you do not need two simple actions shooting as if your using both you may as well use the complex action version.

But that is just from looking at the previews. How well this applies in the field will have to wait until we can get some gameplay in once the final book is out.
Irion
In general the idea is not that bad.

But you need a strickt interpretation on "non-attack" action.

If you only allow "passiv" actions like defending against attacks or walking, then it makes sense.

If you allow throwing one granade followed by a smoke granade but not by an other explosive one, it does not make sense.

Unless you do so, you end up with the problem Grinder is pointing out. If I need to discuss if action X is possible in combat or not, then it tends to kill the fun.
(And most GMs do not know every rule by heart and most can't anticipate every outcome there ruling might have in a matter of a few seconds.

@Glyph
I would be very carefull with draggin magic inside this discussion, since I do not know what was changed there. Drain is evidently now based on Force but Force does now only seems to limit the hits of a spells and has no effect on its own.
Moirdryd
I dare say they'll hold up fine as they are functionally similar to the systems used in two other game systems (that i know of) that have already been around for a goodly long while. I have seen the same arguments about "ambiguity" on many differant forums time and time again and the only place I haven't seen it is on the D&D4th Forums where instead people argue about moral compass responsibilities and what you can or cannot do with noncombat skills.

It's not sloppy game design, it's trying to provide an open option for the style of game you want to play. That's actually really HARD to do without confining certain aspects of the game some very strict limits (that often then get ignored by people to make the game work). RoleMaster had rolls for EVERYTHING, all clearly defined and the rule book (plus at least one companion) was essentially a list if skill checks and charts (that included a ladder) and you only took one action a round. Ever. I'm surely Catalyst could publish a charts and tables expansion covering every definition of an action under all circumstances (after all Battletech has 2-3 core books with all the possible rules for Mech stuff and the RPG for that universe is a Bigger book again that plugs into those rules and they have released Chart Packs for the game. Most folks don't need all that, so only use the bits they like,want or need) but I seriously doubt it would sell.

Now returning to topic.... Any more differences between Mages and Shaman? Other than what's in the preview? I hated the singular magic that was introduced into SR4 and there are still whispers out there that SR5 is different? (although I'm perfectly capable of coming up with a Totem Ruleset for my table as well as Hermatic adjustments).
Critias
QUOTE (Moirdryd @ Jun 23 2013, 04:02 AM) *
Now returning to topic.... Any more differences between Mages and Shaman? Other than what's in the preview? I hated the singular magic that was introduced into SR4 and there are still whispers out there that SR5 is different? (although I'm perfectly capable of coming up with a Totem Ruleset for my table as well as Hermatic adjustments).

Much of our Hermetic/Shamanic brainstorming got shuffled off to the Untitled That I Know Of But Certainly Upcoming Magic Splat Book ™. SR5 is a monster-ass book at ~480 pages already, and a bunch of cool shit many of us would've loved to see there (these differences are certainly one example, along with Adept Ways, for instance) had to get tabled for later discussion.
Moirdryd
So long as its back in the game I'm happy to wait for the "Grimoire of Street Magic in the Shadows" smile.gif
Jareth Valar
QUOTE (Bull @ Jun 22 2013, 08:09 PM) *
Yeah. 2 Karma per point at Chargen is extremely cheap, and I'm fairly certain it was supposed to be more expensive by a fair bit at one point during playtest. I'm guessing a typo slipped in to the basic rules, and since it was just a single number, no one caught it, and whoever did the examples and made the archetypes assumed it was the correct number and used it.

So it's being looked at to see if 2 points is too broken to leave as is, and to see what we should revert it to if that's the case. I know I know where I'd like to see it go, but that's not my call to make nor is it my place to say or speculate at this time.

Bull


I have played Mystic Adepts for a LOOONNNGGG time (full mages and PhysAds too) and I personally think this is too cheap as well.

While we wait for an official answer might I posit an alternative to those who don't wish to wait and don't mind a house rule?

Keep the 2 karma but make it a multiplier like a skill. 2 karma* new number of PP desired. 2 karma for 1st PP, 4 karma for the 2nd PP, 6 karma for the 3rd PP, etc.

Another option for those who think that is still too cheap, change it to 5 karma per. So 5 karma for 1st PP, 10 karma for the 2nd PP, 15 karma for the 3rd PP, etc.

Makes it possible, but really expensive the more you wish to "branch out". Keeps Mystic Adepts mages with a few neat tricks/abilities.

One of the key elements to Shadowrun's advancement system has always been Laws of Diminishing Return. biggrin.gif devil.gif
phlapjack77
QUOTE (Grinder @ Jun 23 2013, 04:11 PM) *
I'm even less convinced now.

SR5 forces discussion about the wording of a rule that covers a key aspect of the game onto players and GMs. That's not Player Empowerment, that's not relying on the judgement call by the GM, it's just poor (if any) game design. One step further waits "do as you want be the Golden Rule of combat". ohplease.gif

I'm with you on this. To take away ambiguity but keep the devs intent, I think a good change would be something like "A PC can't do 2 of the same actions on their turn". So no double tap, but firing a gun and tossing a grenade or knife would be fine. And it would be pretty cool too. Reckless cast 2 different offensive spells - fine. The mage has to deal with heavy drain, and it's kind of cinematic. Reckless cast and shoot a gun. Etc.
Irion
QUOTE (Jareth Valar @ Jun 23 2013, 11:48 AM) *
I have played Mystic Adepts for a LOOONNNGGG time (full mages and PhysAds too) and I personally think this is too cheap as well.

While we wait for an official answer might I posit an alternative to those who don't wish to wait and don't mind a house rule?

Keep the 2 karma but make it a multiplier like a skill. 2 karma* new number of PP desired. 2 karma for 1st PP, 4 karma for the 2nd PP, 6 karma for the 3rd PP, etc.

Another option for those who think that is still too cheap, change it to 5 karma per. So 5 karma for 1st PP, 10 karma for the 2nd PP, 15 karma for the 3rd PP, etc.

Makes it possible, but really expensive the more you wish to "branch out". Keeps Mystic Adepts mages with a few neat tricks/abilities.

One of the key elements to Shadowrun's advancement system has always been Laws of Diminishing Return. biggrin.gif devil.gif

Both would still be great by all means, if you compare it to the costs of the Shadowrun 4 mystical adept.
KarmaInferno
Hmm...

Would "anything that forces a target to react or negatively impacts their stats" work as "attack"?

React being "rolling resistance dice", "dodging out of the way", or other similar actions.




-k
Falconer
Except that SR chargen explicitly ignores diminishing returns Irion. Priority or BP so it encourages non-rounded characters to avoid paying a 'chargen tax' later. Having anything that central to the character be 2x new rank in chargen would be odd. It's a core problem in the system because it has two completely different systems for generating costs... since they're different it will always be more efficient to do things up front or later with karma.

In many ways chargen can be viewed as an exercise in maxing out as much as possible in chargen... with only a touch of things here or there. Without new revised karma costs... it's hard to say though.


Quite frankly, my problem with the SR5 mystic adept split is this. They're always mystic and only sometimes adepts under SR5. Their magic is their spells/conjuring/enchanting... and is always the higher number. The number which caps power points. You can't make a mystic adept who only dabbles in spells, but is primarily an adept like you can with the current system.

Many of my recent mystic adepts came out of chargen with no mystic abilities whatsoever... it was a gradual thing learning them in play... sort of like latent awakening only you're already magical in one way. For a local series of missions I specifically made a hacking adept because I love the concept and have never had a chance to play a hacker or this type of thing. (he's mostly adept... with a splash of summoning ability... nothing over force 4... and in game his first force 4 summons slammed him with 8 physical drain, which fortunately had an epic drain roll with a point of edge to negate it all or it would have been a very long night). I could not make that character at all in SR5 at all.


SR3 was very explicit... a mystic adept always lost their mystic magical abilities before losing adept powers from magic loss or BGC's. Mystic adepts in SR3 were adepts first and foremost and mages second.


Another problem I see with the system is you can't take a Mystic adept and turn them into aspected mystic adept.

I would have rather seen all mystic adepts forced to pick an aspected magician... so if you wanted to sling spells with the best of them while still having the PP for self improvement great.


Some other things I notice... making an aspected sorceror is a fools bargain... those free spells you get with Magic priority A,B,C are crucial. 10 free spells if the old rate applies is 500-2500 nuyen each and 5 karma each saved. Aspected conjurer or enchanter aren't so bad as they only need the magic and some skills/money to pay the bills. At priority B or C... the slight increase and magic and the skill group skill don't really pay for the loss of freebie spells. The special attribute points can quickly regain the lost point of magic... with the only opportunity cost being the slightly lower edge and whatever the new advancement cost in karma to raise an edge attribute.

Irion
@Falconer
QUOTE
Except that SR chargen explicitly ignores diminishing returns Irion. Priority or BP so it encourages non-rounded characters to avoid paying a 'chargen tax' later. Having anything that central to the character be 2x new rank in chargen would be odd. It's a core problem in the system because it has two completely different systems for generating costs... since they're different it will always be more efficient to do things up front or later with karma.

Sorry, I do not see your point.

There is no problem in saying: Alright: First comes the Priority System to give you a general idea of your character and after that you get to flesh him out with some Karma which is spend following the ingame rules. (Like I said in the other thread here you could even allow players to buy a rank 7 or 8 skill, because they would pay the full price (in Karma) for it.

My problem here is, that if you pay additional 10 Karma to get a nearly full mage/full adept thats a bid too good of a bargain.
Falconer
My point is this... at this point you've introduced elements of karmagen into the system. I specifically stated BP & priority.... buying PP for a mystic adept is not 'rounding out the character with karma'. It's a core element of the character! It's not something you should be buying with karma to 'round out' the character.

Also it doesn't address at all... yeah I want 6PP but only 2 magic for summoning.

Personally I think the SR3 mystic adept rules should have been ported in verbatim... with maybe a 0.5PP option to buy aspected magician ability added to an adept.


Quite frankly... I'm seriously not looking forward to the possession rules if they put those back in with this mystic adept nonsense in place. (full adept powers.. full possession shenanigans... and full mage... joy. Also, can't be bricked with the new first rule of combat... geek the decker!).

We've already seen that to at least one author and jmhardy that a vampire turning all its gear along with it to vapor isn't a problem at all. (it all gains ItNW, keeps regeneration, the vampire can still attack things around with magic while in mist form, it magically bypasses pretty much any and all security... what a sealed building... introduces it to my new 'laser' spell... then proceeds to drift through the newly cut hole... All this based on a semi-canon novel reference way back. (novels have never been full canon reference given their artistic license).
Irion
@Falconer
QUOTE
My point is this... at this point you've introduced elements of karmagen into the system. I specifically stated BP & priority.... buying PP for a mystic adept is not 'rounding out the character with karma'. It's a core element of the character! It's not something you should be buying with karma to 'round out' the character.

What do you want me to say? If you can only change the costs, it is kind of the only way to do it like that. The only other option would be to redesign the mystical adept or the whole generation system and go Karmagen from the start. (Probably not the worst of ideas.)

QUOTE
]
Quite frankly... I'm seriously not looking forward to the possession rules if they put those back in with this mystic adept nonsense in place. (full adept powers.. full possession shenanigans... and full mage... joy. Also, can't be bricked with the new first rule of combat... geek the decker!).

Well, quite frankly i say even less to that. Somebody put it like that: Sam?! FUCK OFF!
QUOTE
We've already seen that to at least one author and jmhardy that a vampire turning all its gear along with it to vapor isn't a problem at all. (it all gains ItNW, keeps regeneration, the vampire can still attack things around with magic while in mist form, it magically bypasses pretty much any and all security... what a sealed building... introduces it to my new 'laser' spell... then proceeds to drift through the newly cut hole... All this based on a semi-canon novel reference way back. (novels have never been full canon reference given their artistic license).

Alright, now you have totally lost me. It just sounds like a collection of very bad ideas to do to a game.
Falconer
You're right... I went way off topic there. Lets just say I reserve judgement... but I don't have a great opinion of jmhardy's ability to pull this off as line dev. For anything as regards his ability to keep the game system balanced and playable.

I'm 100% behind a full karmagen system. And not as published in the past. (metas for free nonsense... extra karma allowance for attributes just to band-aid the way attributes were bought). If attributes were 'balanced' there would be no need for a karma cap on how much you could spend on them vs skills!. Personally I'd have everyone buy attributes from 1-6 normally. Then have the metatype template bought and added on top of it just like cyberware bonuses. if the troll wanted to go from average to above average strength later... he'd pay the same amount of karma as a human going from 3->4... only he'd go from 7->8 (pay the 3->4 cost... and the meta mod works like cyber... on top of it... meta muscle augmentation if you will). That and an appropriate price difference between skills and attributes would mean a good mix. (2x and 5x are way too cheap in favor of attributes... attributes need to be more costly than skill groups at the least!).


But one item I strongly disagree with is this whole mystic adept concept in SR5. The problem is that essentially the Mystic adept has two 'magic scores' and one is substantially cheaper than the other. The problem isn't the 12 karma to get 6PP on top of 6 mgic... it's that we now effectively have a 6th grade initiate magic 12 character as per any edition of the old rules.

And once again... you can't have more PP than you have in sorcerous abilities... this isn't a split in any way shape or form... it's a mage who can augment himself... not an adept with some sorcerous ability..

Mystic adepts weren't a problem... the only problem was the obtuse wording in the SR4 version when it came to their limits and the small vocal faction that limiting their magic to the 'lower' score 'for all purposes of using those skills' somehow gimped them beyond measure. While they had access to everything... trying to do everything was a fast road to suckville as you didn't have enough karma to do it all...

Mäx
QUOTE (Falconer @ Jun 23 2013, 05:40 PM) *
Mystic adepts weren't a problem... the only problem was the obtuse wording in the SR4 version when it came to their limits and the small vocal faction that limiting their magic to the 'lower' score 'for all purposes of using those skills' somehow gimped them beyond measure.

The problems was that people tried to limit thinks that have nothing to do with using the skill, like max force.
Falconer
No Max... you can only get that by intentionally misreading the sections.

Not stringing the 'Using the Skill' sections of the rules... which refers to the ENTIRE spellcasting procedure and the rest. Also ignoring the stated intent of the line developer. The wording is ambiguous and they clarified it in the FAQ. You don't like the clarification. The clarification matched the PREVIOUS edition way of handling things as well... even more corroboration that you are intentionally misreading an ambiguous section in the rules.

Your only argument is based on a weak reading of a single portion of a single sentence... and ignoring the clause previous for all uses of the skill... then ignoring the sections of the rules which say how to use the skill. Case closed to use your parlance.

Now back to your regularly scheduled SR5 shenanigans!
Mäx
QUOTE (Falconer @ Jun 23 2013, 05:57 PM) *
Not stringing the 'Using the Skill' sections of the rules... which refers to the ENTIRE spellcasting procedure and the rest. Also ignoring the stated intent of the line developer. The wording is ambiguous and they clarified it in the FAQ. You don't like the clarification.

You mean that section of toilet paper(thats all it's good for) that tries to claim that max level of adept powers is limited to amount of magic allocated for power points even thought the rules explicitly say otherwise.
Irion
@Falconer
QUOTE
The wording is ambiguous

Lets leave SR4 at that. Because honestly I would have bought into both arguments. (And lets be fair, some stuff of SR4 adepts was broken too, mostly also ambiguous wording)
Anyhow that was SR4...

QUOTE
And once again... you can't have more PP than you have in sorcerous abilities... this isn't a split in any way shape or form... it's a mage who can augment himself... not an adept with some sorcerous ability..

True. So?
The point is you would need to redesign from scraps. No matter how you do it you run into the same issue.
If you just split it and you do not but in some "over the top nonesense" they will be weak.
Now you can start giving them powerpoints for initiations together with the rule to buy metamagic techniques for karma. But lets be honest, thats just a slower approach to let them buy points for Karma. The question is, what would be a fair price?
If adepts were aspected magicians anyway, I would not have a problem with a lower price, since they do not get the full use out of their magic attribute as a mage does and they would pay more for their powerpoints then an adept does. That would be kind of fair. (Maybe not 2 Karma per point but 5 to 15 (depending on Karma Rewards).

I do not see your problem with not beeing able to build an adept with some sorcerous ability. For this you have to relay on low skills now. If you stick true to your interpretation from 4.01 the only differance would be that the dicepool for casting spell would get a few more die due to the fact that the full magic attribut is used. Everything else would be the same.
(I got you right their I hope that you were taking the side that maximum force for spellcasting is limited by the full magic attribute etc.)
Mäx
QUOTE (Irion @ Jun 23 2013, 06:15 PM) *
(I got you right their I hope that you were taking the side that maximum force for spellcasting is limited by the full magic attribute etc.)

He's quite clearly on the other side that uses the house rule document posted as FAQ to try and justify their reading.
Falconer
No Max... I merely accept that Ancient History got the vast majority of things right and on the whole did a very good job of clarifying a lot of ambiguous rules in the books. The number of mistakes he made in that entire FAQ can be counted on one hand which is pretty good compared to the previous FAQs which would commonly contradict the rulebooks regularly.

You're confusing two important concepts. RAW rules as written... and RAI.. rules as intended. In this case, you completely ignore that yes he does get the adept portions completely and utterly wrong but gets the sorcerous/summoning abilities right. The point of the FAQ is even pointedly not to serve as errata, merely to clarify ambiguous or poorly explained rules. The exact wording is...

P123 Using the Spellcasting skill in the skills section of the book which states how to use each and every skill. Immediately points at "Spellcasting p182" in italics
P182 "Spellcasting" is an ENTIRE SECTION of rules covering 3 pages broken up into 7 steps! Using the spellcasting skill is *NOT* restricted to only step 5 roll dice on a different page.
P195 "Every point of Magic invested in mana-based abilities grants the character one point to use with Magic-based skills."

The next sentence is completely inoperative as we're dealing with 'for use with magic-based skills'... The rules would state 'one die' to use with magic based skills if your reading was correct. Dice are not enumerated in points... attributes are! "one point [of Magic]" makes perfect logical/grammatical sense. "one point [of dice]" does not.

Completely RAW based argument... which is understandably not clear from the wording and multiple sections. Which once again the FAQ clearly states is limited by the split... as can be illustrated by the above even if it gets the adept portion wrong.


That is my last post on the subject... now back to SR5.

I strongly disagree... mystic adepts have functioned quite well over 2 iterations of the rules needing to split their powers. I strongly disagree with your assertion that they're weak. They're only weak if they don't specialize. As they're done in the SR5 preview bits we've seen so far though they're completely over the top. They lose the ability to astrally project in order to augment their bodies to full adept levels on the cheap. There is effecitvely no 'split' whatsoever to speak of.

The only thing pure adepts have going is that in the preview it mentions that adepts can gain a PP instead of a metamagic when initiating in the pure adept section of the preview. This makes PP extremely cheap to come by in comparison to raising raw magic. (raising raw magic gets very karma expensive with initiations and magic... and there are a lot of metamagics casters really should have to function).
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (Redjack @ Jun 22 2013, 05:48 PM) *
Not to poke the Bull with a stick, but I could always (and many times did) do other things before... smile.gif


This right here... There was never an impetus to JUST FIRE YOUR GUN, every action, as many times as you could.
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (tjn @ Jun 22 2013, 09:26 PM) *
Sure, objectively when viewed in isolation, it is broken in a strict cost/benefit analysis. But does that general cost/benefit ratio allow a Mystic Adept to perform the roles of a mage or adept better than the pure archetype? Or does the mystic adept turn into a someone that could passably pass in both roles, but not exceed either? That's the balance issue I'm more interested in.


Well, I can say that my Current Mystical Adept is pretty bangin'. He splits 3/2 Sorcery/Adept, and is not as powerful as the Adept or the Mage. But he is extremely versatile. Add to that that almost all his Karma has been spent in 3 Initiations and additional Spells (He has 50+ Spells) he is the character that can cover ALMOST any situation.

He can shoot (Not as well as the Sam)
He can Hack Passably, but nothing at Security or Military Levels.
He is a Face by Trade (His specialty), and is good at Infiltrations requiring disguises
He can investigate fairly well
and he can sneak when required.

Add to that the versatility that 50+ Spells adds, and the fact that he does not leave signatures for Spells of Force 6 or less, and he makes a very enjoyable character.
Irion
QUOTE (Falconer @ Jun 23 2013, 05:59 PM) *
I strongly disagree... mystic adepts have functioned quite well over 2 iterations of the rules needing to split their powers. I strongly disagree with your assertion that they're weak. They're only weak if they don't specialize. As they're done in the SR5 preview bits we've seen so far though they're completely over the top. They lose the ability to astrally project in order to augment their bodies to full adept levels on the cheap. There is effecitvely no 'split' whatsoever to speak of.

To SR4 I can't say much because well I never get the feeling they were too weak or too strong unless you brought out the cheez or went for jack of all trades.
Anyhow I naturally agree with you that getting everything for the price of one attribute and a symbolic penny (those 2 Karma) is too good in any case unless there are major drawbacks. (aspected magicians etc.)
Glyph
My biggest beef with mystic adepts isn't that they can start out strong right out of the gate; it is how their advancement is handled. Before, a mystic adept had to choose to use a new point of Magic for magical skills, or a power point. Now, apparently, every time a mystic adept gains a point of Magic, it gives him a power point and increases his mage abilities. Normally, the argument that mystic adepts were balanced hinged on the specialists (full mages or pure adepts) eventually outstripping them, because mystic adepts would be splitting their focus between their two roles. That isn't the case any longer! The only way they will fall behind is that they have more of a choice between getting a metamagic or a power point at initiation, but that won't put them that far behind either an adept or a mage.
Falconer
Glyph... rereading p278-279 of the preview I have to agree with you... it would seem that mystic adepts would indeed get more points for free merely by raising magic. Whether this is yet another case of 'writers' who don't know how to write or take criticism remains to be seen.

Key words being... Adepts get 1pp per point of magic, mystic adepts must buy power points with karma covers chargen. Immediately following is 'Subsequenty, Power Points can come in two ways. You get a free PP whenever you increase your Magic attribute, and you can gain a PP through initiation instead of gaining a metamagic.' That entire section would deal with gaining PP after chargen and makes no distinction between adepts and mystic adepts. though p324 initiation may.

This only makes my objection stronger.. not only do Mystic adepts essentially have 12 magic instead of 6 coming out the gate... they also benefit from twice the advancement rate.


I've always argued that the wording of the PP for initiating in SR4 is specific to Adepts and not Mystic Adepts because generally the rules call out the two classes separately from each other all over the main rulebook and it only names Adepts. (adepts have a huge shortage of metamagics to pick from... while a mystic adept can choose everything and the kitchen sink... they don't need more 'cheap' PP to go along with it). If any time the book referenced adepts it referenced both.. there would be no need for wording such as "or to adepts and mystic adepts who by the Astral Perception power.." which is a commonly used phrasing throughout the book. So if something does not mention both it shouldn't be assumed that it refers to both.

Also keep in mind a lot of this is based on SR4 assumptions... such as attribute and initiation costs.
DireRadiant
The only thing I've noticed about the Mystic Adepts so far is people actually playing them in SR5.
Falconer
So I'm not currently playing a hacking mystic adept tossing 7 dice to oversummon force 4 spirits with his mere 2of5 point magic split... in an official shadowrun missions campaign at my local FLGS?

Sorry Dire... I see them all the time... and normally quite strong ones... The problem with mystic adepts is they can either be stellar or suck and it tends to correlate directly to the experience of the creator and how well the two sides compliment each other. When everything is an option how do you spend the points to have just enough oomph to be a competent jack of all trades without sucking at everything?

Generally mixing mystic adept with possession summoning is close to the ultimate in cheesing it.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012