Got this idea from a post in another thread. If you had to pick one to play over the other, which would you prefer and why?

Myself, I'm voting Mage. I like being able to keep elementals on call (not hindered by the sun-up/sun-down time restriction). I also like that the method of magic is based more on a mathematical approach, less on a connection with the environment.

Here we go.

I went Mage. I just don't like shamans.

Mage. Enough of this "faith-based" magic.

~J

Oh, please elaborate kevyn. Lets heat this thread up.

i voted shaman, but thats because the spontaneous summoning of elementals suits the playstyle of people I run with.

Mages just seem more fun; I just like playing them better. You get to play them however you want, without following a totem guideline. Plus, elementals are just so darn handy.

I've just now started playing a Wujen. Never done it before, but I like the combination of hermetic and shamanistic elements. That, and it's something new. Can't wait to see how it turns out...

Shaman. Sure, you have to drink the Kool-AidTM but if you have a character of modest means a shaman is both a cheap way to go and makes for interesting story.

So I wasn't the only one to notice the lack of a Spirit of Metal. Good.
Ancestor spirits would be interesting with this character, as she's a fox shapeshifter.

And on this weeks episode of "The Odd Coven...."

I will usually go with Shaman because I like the Totem interaction. You can get some really good RP opportunities out of that.

Personally I like the Shaman just a bit better than the Hermetic mage, but the the vote is 1001/999.

Shamans are infinitely more flexible, but suffer in that it takes days to erect a decent rating lodge to stop astral intrusion. Whereas in a few hours a Mage can whip up a decent circle.

Now for on the spot summoning you can't beat a Shaman. With a decent charisma you can have a powerful ally no matter the location.

As for restrictive totems if you read the totem correctly you can always pick one that fits your style of play. Me personally I tend towards Coyote, Dog, and Bear, but I also once played a Gargoyle.

Shamans are more flexible, even with their totem disadvantages. A good shaman player would avoid using magic when they are at a disadvantage and spam spells/spirits when it is to their advantage. And that does not preclude the shaman from dispelling, spell defense and banishing.

Shaman all the way! I've played my share of Mages, but they never have inspired me as much as the shamanic ones. Especially my Leopard Shaman.

Shaman. Totems (Idols, whatever) are great hooks. And I like the "spirit anywhere, anytime" thing, too.

And, if you do something stupid, you can always play it off by saying "Dog told me so. Sorry, guys."

Mages. I think they are more versatile, avoiding those roleplaying guidelines for shamas (who have to act according to their chosen totem in our SR-world). And Elementals rock!

A while back the mage i played was well-kwown for summoning the biggest bad-ass fire elementals in whole san francisco. Way cool.

That was 2nd edition, when fireball was a cool spell (i even had a fireball-focus) and "great form" ghosts didn't exist. (forget the name of the ability... ).

I chose shaman, since I like having hooks to help flesh out my character, and I also like the ability to summon spirits anywhere and any time.

That being said, I've never actually played a spellslinger of any variety in SR, but I'm currently playing a Totem's Way adept who follows Bull.

I've played one spellcaster and he was a wolf shaman. I had a blast with him, but the next time I play a caster it will be a mage.

From a purely roleplaying angle I like shamens better. So much more... flavor. More restrictive, a little less verstile (and Im ALL about versitility) but still fun. And as someone said, you can make boneheaded moves and put it on your totem (as long as its the truth).

I like the flavor of mages better, but when you get into the need for Sorcery, Conjuring *and* Enchanting libraries, it starts getting a little annoying. Personally I'd rather house-rule that conjuring libraries cost 1.5 times as much and forget the others. For conjuring I can see the balance reason, as elementals are just so much cooler than nature spirits (well, I guess Concealment and Storm are pretty cool, but Aid Study and spell sustaining are just that much cooler). Hermatic spellcasting or enchanting, though aren't any better than shamanistic, certainly not enough to necessitate the outrageously expensive library.

That's only if you own your own library. A lot of hermetics in the 6th world are content to go to the local magic library, head to their initiate group, or borrow their talismonger's library for an occasional ritual. And of course, Hermetic libraries on disk can be copied and sold...

What does it cost to 'rent' a hermetic library for a month, 1/100th its value?

I wouldn't imagine that the variety of library that one would actually want would be possible to rent, would it?

I think that MitS has rules for renting Hermetic library access from Universities, Libraries, and the like, although I suppose that also means you're mage needs to have a good, legit cover ID before they can get access to them.

That is why mages rule. They can start with a rating 6 library for Sorcery, conjuring, and enchanting. Then they rent them out to SINless for 600 an hour each. Then a little after 8 hours they have 15,000 and trade it for 3 points of Karma.

Really, any character could buy the libraries. This seems like a nice little money maker for the day job flaw. Conan the librarian.

To start with all three libraries at a decent level, a mage needs Priority B resources. To start with any usable library at all (and hence be able to use Conjuring) they need priority C. Unless a shaman wants to have lots of foci or contacts they don't need above D. Clear advantage to the Shaman there.

I think the extra expense of a mage is worth it because (if for no other reason) elementals can be called in toxic domains, haunts, and the personal domains of free spirits. Those are pretty dangerous places (read: places Shadowrunners are likely to be sent to), and shamans get a bit less useful with no spirits.

This is close about 55% mage.
And about 45% shaman if your math sucks.

As the corporate hit team says:

A mage is resonably rational and can be controlled - brainwash!

A shaman is a delusional crazy and uncontrolable - shoot!


Simply hate shamans. They have a tendency for accidents when most of my chars are around. Good ridance.


Birdy

I've tended to play mages in the past. I've only played shamans as NPCs while GMing. Dunno, mages just appeal to me more. Maybe I'll make a shaman soon, just cause I never have.

I prefer Shamanic PCs just because the adventure hooks are easier to come up with...

see, there's this perception with shamans that their totems are constantly leading them around by the nose, like they're some kind of cleric or something. that's not how it works, though. shamans are just mages who exemplify certain ideals.

You say that like it is a bad thing mfb.

I like to roleplay it a little bit of both.

eh. i just don't tend to see the totems as being all that hands-on. i've never liked the "your god says to do this" school of plot hooks, even in D&D. it's just lazy, to me; there are better, less heavy-handed ways of achieving the desired results.

Well, heavy handed does not need to come into the equation. Now any runner will put their neck on the line for family and friends, but 99% will cut and run if it becomes obvious they will most likely die. A Dog Shaman will fight on determined to save his loved ones. Snake shamans are driven by a curiousity that borders on the obsessive. Wolf Shamans make even the stoutest Samurai look like a Ronin. Rat Shamans are excellent survivors and more than willing to take his share and yours. Now I have played characters like this without the Totem, but somehow it is more fun when your GM "<insert totem> is proud." Worth every bit of trauma.