[RHat]

Will adepts finally be viable without having to go the cyber/bioware route? Lore-wise it doesn't make sense for them to augment, but mechanics-wise it's practically required[/li][/list]

They are perfectly viable now. Despite what the munchkins optimizers on the forums claim, it is not required or necessary to do such.

Let's use the term "equally viable", then.

[Crimsondude]

Hmmm ...

If I ever get a crack at it, you may find out exactly how distinct I think TMs are from magicians. It's definitely different from the material in Unwired.

[I_V_Saur]

I understand that, in practice, TMs are quite different. The way the mechanics are written is an edited Copy Paste. It works differently, yes, but everything works in almost perfect parallel. The Astral is both greater and lesser in appearance to reality, and the Matrix, due to AR and VR, is quite the same way. CFs work like Spells used to, Fading and Drain are about the same in nearly all respects. Sprites and Spirits are so similar, they can be mistaken - and not just by typo.

In practice, they feel different, but while making a character, I'm stricken by how similar they are. Magic and Technomancy, by their natures, should be mechanically quite radically opposed.

[Black]

I understand that, in practice, TMs are quite different. The way the mechanics are written is an edited Copy Paste. It works differently, yes, but everything works in almost perfect parallel. The Astral is both greater and lesser in appearance to reality, and the Matrix, due to AR and VR, is quite the same way. CFs work like Spells used to, Fading and Drain are about the same in nearly all respects. Sprites and Spirits are so similar, they can be mistaken - and not just by typo.

In practice, they feel different, but while making a character, I'm stricken by how similar they are. Magic and Technomancy, by their natures, should be mechanically quite radically opposed.

Ahhh... but machanics should be fairly consisted throughout the rules, or it leads to all sorts of issues.  I believe one of the weakness from 4th ed that they are addresses in 5th ed is the inconsistency in how rules work.  So it becomes a question of where the 'flavour' rules kick in and where do the core mechanics take over. 

I think flavour rules take place in the effects and the modiferes.  Maybe spells, skills, powers, etc work the same fundlemental way, but what they are and what they do is the key difference.  So they have dice pools, they have limiters (force, accuracy, etc etc), drain/fade etc and some are skills, some are spells, and some are technomancer powers.

But I wouldn't read too much into how 4th ed works when it comes to 5th ed.  There appears, in samples released, a fair number of changes... so its really a case of wait and see.

[DeathStrobe]

In practice, they feel different, but while making a character, I'm stricken by how similar they are. Magic and Technomancy, by their natures, should be mechanically quite radically opposed.

I disagree with that. Rules should be more similar in areas to make it easier for players to switch archetypes without having to relearn the game for each archetype.

[Mirikon]

In practice, they feel different, but while making a character, I'm stricken by how similar they are. Magic and Technomancy, by their natures, should be mechanically quite radically opposed.

I disagree with that. Rules should be more similar in areas to make it easier for players to switch archetypes without having to relearn the game for each archetype.

Which is one of the things the d20 system does quite well, actually. Whether it is D&D, Mutants and Masterminds, d20 Future, or whatever, going from system to system, if you've played one, you already know about 80% of the mechanics for the others. This is even more true when going between archetypes within the same system. The difference between a Wizard and a Sorcerer in D&D 3.5, for instance, is significant and flavorful, but the core mechanics of the two roles remains largely the same. Going from a Wizard to a Cleric poses little difficulty in the mechanics of things. Though learning the strengths and weaknesses of the archetype (and bending that to your playstyle) still takes time, the time you don't have to spend relearning core mechanics for your role is time you can spend doing that.

This is something that is done fairly well throughout SR4. Once you know the core mechanics, moving from role to role is fairly easy.

[Sengir]

In practice, they feel different, but while making a character, I'm stricken by how similar they are. Magic and Technomancy, by their natures, should be mechanically quite radically opposed.

Let me guess, you also believe that ranged, close, and astral combat should use "quite radically opposed" resolution mechanics to show that they are different? Or that shamans should summon spirits with D6 and variable TNs, while mages use D20 roll-under?

[All4BigGuns]

Will adepts finally be viable without having to go the cyber/bioware route? Lore-wise it doesn't make sense for them to augment, but mechanics-wise it's practically required[/li][/list]

They are perfectly viable now. Despite what the munchkins optimizers on the forums claim, it is not required or necessary to do such.

Let's use the term "equally viable", then.

They are "equally viable". That munchy types insist on throwing the implants in doesn't change that.

Street Samurai: A bit more power right off the bat. Gives up power in the long term.
Adept: Not as powerful at first, but becomes "Oh My God" powerful later on.

[I_V_Saur]

In practice, they feel different, but while making a character, I'm stricken by how similar they are. Magic and Technomancy, by their natures, should be mechanically quite radically opposed.

Let me guess, you also believe that ranged, close, and astral combat should use "quite radically opposed" resolution mechanics to show that they are different? Or that shamans should summon spirits with D6 and variable TNs, while mages use D20 roll-under?

No need to get nasty, now. I understand that mechanical consistency is important, but, in the end, it simply does not make sense to have completely different concepts depicted in parallel. Yes, when a Rogue and Wizard punch someone, they roll the same. Yes, when making a ranged magical attack, it should be about the same as when throwing a dagger or shooting a bow.

Should a Rogue's Sneak Attack be mechanically the same as a Wizard's Teleport spell? They achieve the same goal, don't they - sneaking up behind someone and inflicting damage. Except in such completely different ways, trying to write them in with the same brush stroke is silly.

Technomancy, and the Matrix in general, are meant to reflect reality. Astral actions are quite different, almost alien. Making them so similar...Maybe it's just me, but I feel that it limits their potential.

[RHat]

Will adepts finally be viable without having to go the cyber/bioware route? Lore-wise it doesn't make sense for them to augment, but mechanics-wise it's practically required[/li][/list]

They are perfectly viable now. Despite what the munchkins optimizers on the forums claim, it is not required or necessary to do such.

Let's use the term "equally viable", then.

They are "equally viable". That munchy types insist on throwing the implants in doesn't change that.

No, but the fact that mildly augmented builds are strictly better does - no matter how good an unaugmented adept is, an augmented adept with basically the same build could be BETTER.  And that, in my opinion, shouldn't be the case.

[Crimsondude]

You should assume that the Adept conversation arose a long time ago.

[RHat]

You should assume that the Adept conversation arose a long time ago.

I'd certainly hope so.  Doesn't mean we can't have one of our own, though.

[All4BigGuns]

Will adepts finally be viable without having to go the cyber/bioware route? Lore-wise it doesn't make sense for them to augment, but mechanics-wise it's practically required[/li][/list]

They are perfectly viable now. Despite what the munchkins optimizers on the forums claim, it is not required or necessary to do such.

Let's use the term "equally viable", then.

They are "equally viable". That munchy types insist on throwing the implants in doesn't change that.

No, but the fact that mildly augmented builds are strictly better does - no matter how good an unaugmented adept is, an augmented adept with basically the same build could be BETTER.  And that, in my opinion, shouldn't be the case.

Only better if the math of a character is the only thing that one cares about.

[RHat]

Will adepts finally be viable without having to go the cyber/bioware route? Lore-wise it doesn't make sense for them to augment, but mechanics-wise it's practically required[/li][/list]

They are perfectly viable now. Despite what the munchkins optimizers on the forums claim, it is not required or necessary to do such.

Let's use the term "equally viable", then.

They are "equally viable". That munchy types insist on throwing the implants in doesn't change that.

No, but the fact that mildly augmented builds are strictly better does - no matter how good an unaugmented adept is, an augmented adept with basically the same build could be BETTER.  And that, in my opinion, shouldn't be the case.

Only better if the math of a character is the only thing that one cares about.

...

Okay, point of order:

"Strictly better" means "always functionally superior".  Take an adept build, and consider it with or without minor augmentation.  The one without will always function better, which is the definition of "strictly better".  Pure adepts are often the better way to go from a character concept standpoint, but that's not at all relevant to this discussion; this is, in fact, a purely numbers-based subject.

The term "strictly better" is not concerned with flavour, or with concept, or whatever else.

Just because pure adepts are still fun to play does not mean that they should continue to be strictly worse than the augmented alternative.

[All4BigGuns]

Will adepts finally be viable without having to go the cyber/bioware route? Lore-wise it doesn't make sense for them to augment, but mechanics-wise it's practically required[/li][/list]

They are perfectly viable now. Despite what the munchkins optimizers on the forums claim, it is not required or necessary to do such.

Let's use the term "equally viable", then.

They are "equally viable". That munchy types insist on throwing the implants in doesn't change that.

No, but the fact that mildly augmented builds are strictly better does - no matter how good an unaugmented adept is, an augmented adept with basically the same build could be BETTER.  And that, in my opinion, shouldn't be the case.

Only better if the math of a character is the only thing that one cares about.

...

Okay, point of order:

"Strictly better" means "always functionally superior".  Take an adept build, and consider it with or without minor augmentation.  The one without will always function better, which is the definition of "strictly better".  Pure adepts are often the better way to go from a character concept standpoint, but that's not at all relevant to this discussion; this is, in fact, a purely numbers-based subject.

The term "strictly better" is not concerned with flavour, or with concept, or whatever else.

Just because pure adepts are still fun to play does not mean that they should continue to be strictly worse than the augmented alternative.

Has to be brought up though, because it seems as though a lot who make the "better" claim are trying to tell people that the augmented adept is the only option for any purpose going by the condescending nature of their comments any time when they do happen to mention flavor.